GENERALLY WE MAKE IT SOUND AS BLACK OR WHITE BUT THE SOLUTIONS ARE MOSTLY GREY....!!!
Sensible and rational opinions in plain words, some of my thoughts and opinions about current events. Mostly current events, or any set of interesting ideas our minds could envision and suggest.
Through-out the years, I write about what is happening in our world , what is shaping and affecting it , and whatever preoccupy , dominate or engross our minds about it.
The images that have come out over the past couple of days have been incredibly disturbing. Akin to apocalyptic with flames reaching the sky, and black rain pouring over an ancient, beautiful, historic city filled with ten million men, women, and children. Babies have been slaughtered in their schools, and a whole population will never be the same.
But it’s not ending there.
Evidently, the state of Israel feels bold enough to threaten the West as well, too.
On camera, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says:
“I demand that western governments do what is necessary to fight antisemitism and provide the required safety and security for Jewish communities worldwide. They would be well advised to heed our warnings. I demand action from them-now.”
There are genuinely no words to describe how much I have come to loathe this man and everything he represents. Considering…
Some very strong words from an article by this courageous columnist, copied from an email I received few days back and forwarded through our blog. Not to mention the hundreds of children killed in their schools in Iran and Lebanon plus the entire area. As well as the millions of refugees and displaced.
Even with Israel and the United States at war with Iran, Jewish media remain fixated on what Jewish Insider calls, “the rapid turn within the Democratic Party against Israel.”
This week’s alarm bells were set off by California Governor Gavin Newsom’s comments about Israel, apartheid and the need to reconsider military aid.
Newsom’s comments came in the wake of a new Gallup poll finding, for the first time in its long-running survey, that more Americans sympathize with Palestinians than with Israelis – 41 to 36 percent.
The data reflect a rupture in U.S.-Israel relations that is largely self-inflicted - driven by the policies of Benjamin Netanyahu and the hard-edged political strategy of AIPAC.
I’ll admit: I’m not a fan of asking Americans which side they “sympathize with more.” The question forces a zero-sum choice that mirrors the worst dynamic of the conflict itself.
In reality, most Americans sympathize with both peoples: Israelis who deserve security and Palestinians who deserve freedom, dignity and self-determination.
But even if the question is flawed, the trend it reveals is unmistakable. Support for Israel in the United States is eroding – particularly among younger Americans
For decades, Israeli leaders – and Jewish American leaders – understood that bipartisan support in Washington is a vital Israeli national security asset.
Yet Netanyahu gambled that asset away by openly aligning Israel with one side of America’s political divide.
His governments pursued policies – the devastation of Gaza, relentless settlement expansion and the abandonment of any credible path to Palestinian statehood – that made it increasingly difficult for Americans, especially younger ones, to see Israel as a country pursuing both security and peace.
Now, political leaders – like Newsom and most other Democratic presidential contenders – are reflecting this shift.
Across the Democratic Party, clear-eyed criticism of Israeli government policy is becoming the norm. And it is hard to imagine in 2028 any Democratic primary contender clinging to what, in 2011, I termed a part of the ‘rulebook of American politics’ – unquestioning support for unconditional aid to Israel.
But support isn’t eroding only on the left. Israel is rapidly losing support from both ends of the American political spectrum.
Figures like Tucker Carlson and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene on the right are voicing a nationalist critique that sees Israel not as a strategic ally but as a liability.
If Netanyahu’s choices helped produce this reality, AIPAC’s response has made it worse.
As defending Israeli government policy has become harder, AIPAC has escalated its political engagement, spending unprecedented sums in American elections to defeat candidates who criticize Israeli policy.
It’s a strategy that is already backfiring.
You cannot buy back political legitimacy with campaign spending once you’ve lost it with voters.
Political intimidation cannot substitute for cultivating honest support. When it becomes impossible to defend Israel’s policies on the merits, no amount of campaign spending can fix the problem.
Worse still, the increasingly aggressive use of money and political muscle by AIPAC and allied groups risks feeding precisely the stereotypes and tropes that Jewish communities have struggled for generations to combat.
The result is a vicious cycle: the harder Israeli policy becomes to defend, the more aggressively AIPAC applies political pressure – and the greater the backlash it generates.
The rupture Netanyahu and AIPAC have caused in the U.S.-Israel relationship is deeply troubling for those of us who care about Israel. But it is not irreversible.
Repair must begin with political change in Israel itself – and we can only hope that Israeli voters will soon choose new leadership and a different direction.
I am convinced that a government committed to really ending the war in Gaza, halting annexation in the West Bank and seriously pursuing a path toward Palestinian statehood can rebuild the support that has been squandered.
Some in the Israeli opposition have been misled into believing that Democratic criticism of Israeli policy is rooted in hostility toward Israel or even in antisemitism.
That’s wrong.
My direct experience is that most in the Democratic Party remain open to a strong bilateral relationship with Israel – but only if Israel demonstrates real seriousness about pursuing peace and Palestinian statehood alongside Israel.
The American Jewish establishment must also reconsider its approach.
For too long, critics of Israeli government policy have been reflexively labeled anti-Israel or antisemitic. That strategy is backfiring. When accusations of antisemitism are stretched to cover ordinary policy disagreement, it weakens the fight against real antisemitism.
And when charges of antisemitism are weaponized to harm universities, target immigrants or undercut the First Amendment, it damages both American democracy and Israel.
The Gallup numbers should be a blaring wake-up call; statements from Newsom, Ruben Gallego and other potential ’28 contenders an alarm.
Yet, a painful long-term rupture in the U.S.-Israel relationship is not inevitable.
Different choices can still repair it.
Israeli and Jewish communal leaders must not hide behind empty rhetoric about Democrats “turning against Israel.” They need to take a hard look in the mirror and ask what Israel’s leaders – and their allies in Washington – did to drive them away.
A strong and factual article by Jeremy Ben-Ami, describing a situation here in America, building up steadily, I'm forwarding it through our blog from an email sent by the organization he represents, "J street". Jeremy could and should have added or mentioned the Israeli government continuous aggression on Lebanon and the war with Iran as more reasons for an American detachment from Israel and its policies and a more complete and factual report.
The Pentagon's warning to Trump: a crushing strike or a complete withdrawal... The world awaits Sunday. Reporting by: Mona Abdel Moneim Salman.
It is no longer a secret within decision-making circles that the current confrontation with Iran has reached a stalemate, placing President Donald Trump in a historic predicament. Information leaked from within the Pentagon now confirms that the military leadership has presented Trump with two equally unpalatable options, and has designated Sunday as the final chapter in this dilemma.
First: The Pentagon's warning (the bitter military reality) The truth the White House is trying to conceal is that Pentagon generals clearly informed Trump: "Either a devastating and comprehensive strike that completely cripples Iran's capabilities, or a gradual withdrawal and a search for a settlement." The reasons for this military ultimatum can be summarized as follows: Ammunition depletion: Interceptor missile stockpiles (THAD and Patriot) have reached critical levels. Defending bases in the Gulf and Israel "now" has become a daily gamble that the American arsenal cannot sustain.
The danger of a "war of attrition": The US military refuses to engage in a long-term war of attrition with cheap Iranian drones that burn billions of dollars and destroy the Gulf's "oil artery," which does not serve strategic interests. Secondly: The Gulf's "dilemma"... the burned lung of the economy.
The Pentagon understands that the Gulf is the lifeblood of the American economy; the reality on the ground confirms that the Fujairah attack and the resulting disruption of the Strait of Hormuz have already driven fuel prices in America to levels that threaten social stability. Field commanders have informed Washington that protecting oil tankers in light of the current Iranian deployment would require deploying half the American fleet, which is technically impossible at present.
Third: The global dimension... the "hell" of those lying in wait (Kim, Pentagon, and the Russians) Herein lies the real terror; Trump is not only facing Tehran, but also an international "opposition": "The Madman of Korea" (Kim Jong Un): He is closely monitoring the depletion of the American arsenal, and is ready to turn the attention towards Pyongyang with a game-changing nuclear test while Trump is preoccupied with the Gulf.
The nuclear bogeyman (Pakistan): The entry of Pakistani nuclear power into the equation of balances means that the conflict will turn into a global suicide, which is what Washington's generals fear.
The Russian-Chinese trap: Moscow and Beijing are enjoying the American "corner" and are waiting for the moment when Trump falls into the trap of attrition in order to change the rules of the international game forever.
Fourth: Sunday deadline... the hour of mandatory decision.
Next Sunday is not a deadline for bringing Iran to its knees, but rather a "deadline for Trump"; either the "great gamble" that could ignite fronts from Korea to Europe, or submission to the logic of "corner" and political realism and signing the "Muscat deal" that is now being cooked up under fire.
I'm calling it a social media report, as I'm not sure of the identity of the reporter, nor of the authenticity of her words, I'm not sure it was published anywhere except possibly through social media. I received it as an email from a friend, translated it from Arabic and published the report as I found it interesting though a bit far fetched. Anyways the Sunday mentioned is one or two days ahead, so maybe we'll see and hear something, As always, my many thanks to all.
Diplomatic information obtained by the newspaper Nidaa Al-Watan reveals that the expected Israeli ground maneuver would not be a limited operation in its objectives as presented, but rather a calculated step in a broader operational design aimed at reshaping the military balance on the ground in southern and eastern Lebanon simultaneously.
According to this information, a land advance reaching approximately 15 kilometers in depth—including the city of Tyre and its surrounding district up to the Qasmiyeh line—would be accompanied by another movement originating from the slopes of Mount Hermon towards the western Bekaa Valley and Rachaya. This parallel operation would aim to create a geographical and military separation between the south and the Bekaa Valley.
Diplomatic data indicates that the strategic objective goes beyond simply exerting direct military pressure on Hezbollah to attempt to control all the strategic land masses stretching from the southern Litani River to the Masnaa Line on the Lebanese-Syrian border. In practical terms, this would mean severing internal supply lines and geographically isolating Hezbollah's environment, in preparation for imposing new, capitulatory negotiating realities. The separation of the southern Bekaa Valley can only be interpreted within a strategic framework aimed at reshaping Lebanon's operational map in order to exert significant military pressure on the domestic political scene.
However, the most dangerous development, according to these same reports, lies in the unprecedented Syrian military buildup along the border with Lebanon. Rocket launchers, heavy artillery, and an estimated force of over forty thousand soldiers have reportedly been deployed.
Diplomatic circles confirm that these forces could intervene under any pretext, for two main reasons: firstly, within the framework of regional alliances and under American pressure aimed at reorganizing the border situation and preventing any uncontrolled extension of the conflict; secondly, with the objective of settling accounts with Hezbollah and its environment because of its participation in the war in Syria, the current Syrian leadership considering that its two main adversaries are Hezbollah and the Islamic State organization.
Reports also indicate that direct Lebanese contacts were established with the Syrian side to inquire about the reasons for these military deployments. The response was reportedly that it was a preventative measure intended to stop Hezbollah fighters from taking refuge in Syrian territory under anticipated Israeli pressure in the Bekaa Valley.
However, this justification did not convince the Lebanese side, which sees it rather as a possible sign of the opening of a parallel eastern-northern front, thus transforming Lebanon into a terrain of complete encirclement from the south and east.
On the ground, military analysis indicates that a naval blockade is already in place, with Israeli warships present off the Lebanese coast, while air dominance is maintained through complete control of the airspace. A potential simultaneous ground advance from the south, east, and north could lead to a complete military encirclement.
Faced with this scenario, crucial questions arise regarding the Lebanese state's position. If the eastern-northern front becomes active, will the Lebanese army have to intervene to repel any incursion and prevent potential massacres in predominantly Shiite towns and villages? And if a Syrian intervention were to occur with American approval or a decision, would the Lebanese army find itself facing a complex intersection of regional and international interests? What would be the Lebanese government's position regarding the possibility of the eastern border becoming a new theater of direct confrontation?
In light of this data, the intensity of contacts and diplomatic meetings conducted by the President of the Republic, General Joseph Aoun, both inside and outside the country, is interpreted as a preemptive attempt to avoid the worst and prevent Lebanon from sliding into a multi-front confrontation unprecedented in its recent history.
According to diplomatic estimates, the country is now on the threshold of a phase that could redefine both its military and political borders, in an extremely volatile regional context where the military mixes with the political, and where the logics of revenge intertwine with geopolitical strategies in an equation open to all possibilities.
A report received by email from a good friend, I'm not sure who's the originator or its authenticity, but very possible and maybe probable. consequently, and as a result of such moves by Israel and the US, and the silence and hidden complicity of all international and regional powers Lebanon might be redevised and divided physically and politically between a complying Syria and Israel, I'm not even sure if a small Christian enclave might be considered .... Or a Druze one for that matter ... surely not an Armenian one. A sad episode through our modern colonialism.
The Iranian dissident and writer Mehdi Mahmoudian on the outbreak of war in Iran, his experience inside the country’s prison system, and his fears for the future.
His words resonate today, as Israel and the United States bombard Iranian cities.
Mahmoudian was one of thousands of prisoners languishing in Iran’s prisons. He was arrested in January for signing a public letter that blamed the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, for the murders of thousands of protesters, who were cut down by security forces after taking to the streets. By Mahmoudian’s count, he has spent about nine of the past sixteen years in prison for his activism.
His response to the news of Khamenei’s death
I have to say honestly that I wasn’t happy. I believe people should be held accountable, and that accountability must take place in a fair court of law so that such actions are not repeated. All those who were harmed should have the opportunity to seek justice.
Seeking justice is not about revenge. It is about insuring that the individual is punished through due process, and more important, that those actions are formally recorded in history as crimes. That way, future rulers cannot repeat them. I believe death was not enough for Mr. Khamenei. He should have stood trial in a public court, before the people, and faced judgment openly and with full accountability.
The main problem with the prisons right now is that, given the collapse of some judiciary buildings and prosecutors’ offices in Iran—especially the security court that handled political and security prisoners’ cases—many case files have gone missing. If the Islamic Republic remains in power, it may take months before even basic legal review becomes possible again, and many prisoners could be left in a state of legal limbo.
I hope the Islamic Republic reaches its end, otherwise even harsher days could lie ahead for prisoners. There is a real concern that what remains of the system may seek revenge for these events, targeting prisoners and political activists who are still outside prison, detaining them, and subjecting them to executions or severe punishments.
Is Iran entering into a darker moment than before?
Based on what I’m seeing, I don’t have much hope that these attacks will lead to the complete fall of the Islamic Republic. If that doesn’t happen, we could be heading into an even more repressive and difficult era, and the conditions from now on may become significantly harsher.
I truly hope my prediction is wrong, that my analysis proves to be mistaken and that the people of Iran will at least see some measure of freedom, that our generation will be able to experience even a part of it.
But the signs indicate that once the United States and Israel resolve their foreign-policy conflict with the Islamic Republic and secure their own strategic interests, they may leave—abandoning both the regime and the Iranian people to face the aftermath alone.
Parts of an interview with Cora Engelbrecht, published by "The New Yorker". I got it by email, and resending it through our blog, not to justify in any way the unlawful and futile war being conducted now against Iran, but to show how futile and with no responsible aim is the entire exercise conducted by the two powers against a third entity, whereby nothing will change afterwards, on the contrary it will worsen the reigning situation over the entire region and the entire world, maybe and only maybe, the only beneficiaries will be personally for the two leaders conducting this masquerade and futile show.
Omar, I wanted to share the opening statement that I read to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today. You can find it below in full. - Hillary --- Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Committee… as a former Senator, I have respect for legislative oversight and I expect its exercise, as do the American people, to be principled and fearless in pursuit of truth and accountability.
As we all know, however, too often Congressional investigations are partisan political theater, which is an abdication of duty and an insult to the American people.
The Committee justified its subpoena to me based on its assumption that I have information regarding the investigations into the criminal activities of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Let me be as clear as I can. I do not.
As I stated in my sworn declaration on January 13, I had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein. I never flew on his plane or visited his island, homes or offices. I have nothing to add to that.
Like every decent person, I have been horrified by what we have learned about their crimes. It’s unfathomable that Mr. Epstein initially got a slap on the wrist in 2008, which allowed him to continue his predatory practices for another decade.
Mr. Chairman, your investigation is supposed to be assessing the federal government’s handling of the investigations and prosecutions of Epstein and his crimes. You subpoenaed eight law enforcement officials, all of whom ran the Department of Justice or directed the FBI when Epstein’s crimes were investigated and prosecuted. Of those eight, only one appeared before the Committee. Five of the six former attorneys general were allowed to submit brief statements stating they had no information to provide.
You have held zero public hearings, refused to allow the media to attend them, including today, despite espousing the need for transparency on dozens of occasions.
You have made little effort to call the people who show up most prominently in the Epstein files. And when you did, not a single Republican Member showed up for Les Wexner’s deposition.
This institutional failure is designed to protect one political party and one public official, rather than to seek truth and justice for the victims and survivors, as well as the public who also want to get to the bottom of this matter. My heart breaks for the survivors. And I am furious on their behalf.
I have spent my life advocating for women and girls. I have worked hard to stop the terrible abuses so many women and girls face here and around the world, including human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual slavery. For too long, these have been largely invisible crimes or not treated as crimes at all. But the survivors are real and they are entitled to better.
In Southeast Asia, I met girls as young as twelve years old who were forced into prostitution and raped repeatedly. Some were dying of AIDS. In Eastern Europe, I met mothers who told me how they lost daughters to trafficking and did not know where to turn. In settings around the world, I met survivors trying to rebuild their lives and help rescue others – with little support from people in power, who too often turned a blind eye and a cold shoulder.
If you are new to this issue, let me tell you: Jeffrey Epstein was a heinous individual, but he’s far from alone. This is not a one-off tabloid sensation or a political scandal. It’s a global scourge with an unimaginable human toll.
My work combatting sex trafficking goes back to my days as First Lady. I worked to pass the first federal legislation against trafficking and was proud that my husband signed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which increased support for survivors and gave prosecutors better tools for going after traffickers.
As Secretary of State, I appointed a former federal prosecutor, Lou CdeBaca, to ramp up our global antitrafficking efforts. I oversaw nearly 170 anti-trafficking programs in 70 nations and directly pressed foreign leaders to crack down on trafficking networks in their countries. Every year we published a global report to shine a light on abuses. The findings of those reports triggered sanctions on countries failing to make progress, so they became a powerful diplomatic tool to drive concrete action.
I insisted that the United States be included in the report for the first time ever in 2011. Because we must hold ourselves not just to the same standard as the rest of the world but to an even higher one. Sex trafficking and modern slavery should have no place in America. None.
Infuriatingly, the Trump Administration gutted the Trafficking in Persons Office at the State Department, cutting more than 70 percent of the career civil and foreign service experts who worked so hard to prevent trafficking crimes. The annual trafficking report, required by law, was delayed for months. The message from the Trump Administration to the American people and the world could not be clearer: combatting human trafficking is no longer an American priority under the Trump White House.
That is a tragedy. It’s a scandal. It deserves vigorous investigation and oversight.
A committee endeavoring to stopping human trafficking would seek to understand what specific steps are needed to fix a system that allowed Epstein to get away with his crimes in 2008.
A committee run by elected officials with a commitment to transparency would ensure the full release of all the files.
It would ensure that the lawful redactions of those files protected the victims and survivors, not powerful men and political allies.
It would get to the bottom of reports that DOJ withheld FBI interviews in which a survivor accuses President Trump of heinous crimes.
It would subpoena anyone who asked on which night there would be the “wildest party” on Epstein’s island.
It would demand testimony from prosecutors in Florida and New York about why they gave Epstein a sweetheart deal and chose not to pursue others who may have been implicated.
It would demand that Secretary Rubio and Attorney General Bondi testify about why this administration is abandoning survivors and playing into the hands of traffickers.
It would seek out officers on the front lines of this fight and ask them what support they need.
It would put forth legislation to provide more resources and force this administration to act.
But that’s not happening.
Instead, you have compelled me to testify, fully aware that I have no knowledge that would assist your investigation, in order to distract attention from President Trump’s actions and to cover them up despite legitimate calls for answers.
If this Committee is serious about learning the truth about Epstein’s trafficking crimes, it would not rely on press gaggles to get answers from our current president on his involvement; it would ask him directly under oath about the tens of thousands of times he shows up in the Epstein files.
If the majority was serious, it would not waste time on fishing expeditions. There is too much that needs to be done.
What is being held back? Who is being protected? And why the cover-up?
My challenge to you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, is the same challenge I put to myself throughout my long service to this nation. How to be worthy of the trust the American people have given you. They expect statesmanship, not gamesmanship. Leading, not grandstanding. They expect you to use your power to get to the truth and to do more to help survivors of Epstein’s crimes as well as the millions more who are victims of sex trafficking.
I received it by email, while the Senate committee refused to make it public, and insisted to keep it behind closed doors, otherwise I have no comments, you make your own judgement.
Well, Hakeem Jeffries really disliked my direct questions about why he won’t support ABOLISH ICE or why he continues to take money from AIPAC. Instead, he gave me a bunch of nonsense word salad filled with plastic fruit and vegetables.
Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi has thrown her weight behind Governor Newsom, even as he actively goes against the Democratic base when it comes to his positions on Israel’s genocide, ICE, and taxing the billionaires.
Democrats believe they can waltz their way to power by ignoring their own base, repeating their donors’ talking points, and simply reminding people they are better than Trump.
There is a specific kind of condescension that only the Democratic establishment can master. It’s a flavor of arrogance that suggests if you have a pulse, a conscience, and a set of demands for your tax dollars, you are simply too “radical” to be understood.
We saw it play out in real-time recently during an interview with Representative Hakeem Jeffries. When presented with a mountain of facts—that ICE is spending $38 billion to convert warehouses into what are effectively concentration camps, that 60% of Americans now disapprove of the agency, and that its history of terrorizing Black and brown communities is documented and visceral—the response wasn’t a defense of policy. It wasn’t even an argument.
It was: “I don’t understand anything that you just said.”
It wasn’t spoken in a different language. It was spoken in the language of the majority. But to the “Big Club” of establishment politics, the majority is a fringe group to be managed, not a constituency to be led.
The “Word Salad” Shield
Establishment leadership has become a master of the “four-quadrant” strategy. In Hollywood, that means making a movie so vanilla it doesn’t offend 18-year-olds, 49-year-olds, men, or women. In politics, it results in a lackluster “word salad” designed to obfuscate and distract.
When Jeffries says, “I’m going to use the language that I want to use,” what he really means is: I will not stand for anything.
The bar has been set so low that we are expected to celebrate “restoration” instead of “transformation.” The Democratic elite is currently spiking the ball because they think they’re winning elections by simply not being Donald Trump. They believe that as long as the “D” is behind their name, they don’t have to do an audit of their failures. They don’t have to stop supporting the brutalization of Palestinians. They don’t have to tax billionaires.
They think you’ll vote for them anyway because the other side is the devil. But choosing between the devil and the devil’s helper isn’t a choice—it’s a hostage situation.
The Party That Hates Its Base
It is a bizarre phenomenon: the Democratic establishment seems to hate its own base more than Republicans hate theirs.
Republicans, for all their faults, meet their base where they are. They amplify the anger, they pivot their messaging, and they embrace the terms “right-wing” and “conservative” with pride. Meanwhile, Democrats use “leftist” or “progressive” as slurs. They are embarrassed by the very people who put them in power.
The Popularity Gap
If you want to know who is actually winning, look at the numbers. The politicians who stand “ten toes down”—those who don’t use kid gloves with leadership and aren’t afraid to say “Abolish ICE” or “Free Palestine”—are the ones with the highest approval ratings.
The bottom of the list is populated by the “safe” fundraisers. The top is populated by the fighters.
Selective Outrage and the Normalization of Hate
Nowhere is the establishment’s cowardice more visible than in their selective silence. Take Representative Randy Fine, who recently tweeted: “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”
Where is the censure? Where is the press conference? Where is the leadership standing against this dehumanization?
When Rashida Tlaib criticizes a foreign government, the establishment moves with lightning speed to censure her. When a representative compares an entire religious group to animals, the “Big Club” chooses to do nothing. This is how hate speech becomes normalized political language—through the calculated silence of those in power.
By the time this rhetoric turns into physical violence and death, they’ll act surprised. But it starts with words, and it’s sustained by their “feckless, impotent” refusal to act.
Radicalized in Real Time
While leadership stammers, the people are waking up. We are seeing a new phenomenon: the radicalization of the “average” American.
Take the Navy veteran from Indiana who spent eight years in the military and now looks at ICE yanking people out of cars and says, “This is not what I signed up for.” Or the white man in New Jersey, holding an American flag and near tears, who watched masked ICE agents waiting at a school bus stop for fourth and fifth graders.
“I watched fourth and fifth graders run from our government today... in our country, not in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. I love my country, but I just can’t. They’re going after children.”
These aren’t “left-wing activists.” These are people seeing the “Gestapo” tactics of a 2003-era agency being turned against their neighbors. And yet, Democrats continue to fund the beast, terrified of being called “soft on crime,” repeating the same mistakes Joe Biden made with the 1990s crime bill.
Sand in the Gears: The Minnesota Lesson
The establishment wants us to sit silently, to not protest, and to wait for the next midterm as if we aren’t being sprayed with bear spray today. They want us to follow the “law” even as the law is used to smash car windows and batter bodies with rubber bullets.
But the people in Minnesota have shown us a different way. They didn’t wait for a governor or a mayor to tell them what to do. They linked arms. They created meal trains and laundry trains so their neighbors could stay safe inside. They became “sand in the gears” of an injustice.
The Tide is Turning
Even with the flood of “dark money” from groups like AIPAC, which spent millions to unseat progressives like Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman, the strategy is failing. In New Jersey, AIPAC tried to knock out a Democrat for being “off-script” on Israel, only to see a pro-Palestinian, “Abolish ICE” organizer, Ana Lilia Mejia, take the victory.
We have been fed crumbs for ten years. We have been told to be moderate in the face of extremism. But moderation in the face of a burning house is just a slower way to let it turn to ash.
The “Big Club” is real, and they are more comfortable with center-right Republicans than they are with you. It’s time we stopped asking for an invitation to their table and started building our own.
There's no doubt, the democratic party is going through a crisis of confidence between the majority of its base and its aging and too shy top leadership and management, it could lead to some big losses in the upcoming Nov. elections, and further down the line, this report and analysis describes it in detail and thoroughly, I thought of sharing the article for better understanding of this situation.
