Minnesota Democratic U.S. Senate nominee and Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan previously claimed she graduated Phi Beta Kappa despite never belonging to the prestigious honor society, while her official state biography suggests she completed two college majors when she actually earned one major and a minor, according to an exclusive report published Wednesday by the Wall Street Journal.
The post Report: Minnesota Dem Senate Nominee Peggy Flanagan Falsely Claimed Phi Beta Kappa Membership, Misrepresented College Credentials appeared first on Breitbart.
Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) has released a campaign advertisement highlighting allegations that Democrat congressional challenger Janelle Stelson was naked outside her home in view of a neighbor's grandchild, referencing a written statement from a neighbor who claims to have photographed the incident.
The post Rep. Scott Perry Ad Highlights Police Complaint Alleging Democrat Janelle Stelson Exposed Herself to a Child appeared first on Breitbart.
© The New York Times
Niculescu secured 280 votes in favour and 58 against, comfortably exceeding the 233 required for confirmation. His ministers were sworn in before President Nicuşor Dan at the Cotroceni Palace in Bucharest later that evening, formally ending the prolonged government formation process.
The new administration comprises 18 ministers, including two delegated ministers. The Social Democratic Party (PSD) controls the majority of portfolios, while independent specialists hold several important positions, including finance and foreign affairs.
The appointment represents a political success for President Dan, who nominated Niculescu on 5 October following three unsuccessful attempts to assemble a functioning government.
EU Today reported earlier this month on Niculescu’s nomination, which followed the collapse of previous negotiations and growing pressure on Romania’s political institutions.
The new cabinet is heavily dependent on agreements between parties that have frequently disagreed over economic policy and public spending. Although the parliamentary vote demonstrated sufficient support for its installation, the arrangement does not provide the government with a permanent majority.
The National Liberal Party (PNL) and the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania (UDMR) supported the investiture while remaining outside the administration.
The arrangement gives Niculescu an opportunity to govern, but each major legislative proposal will require continued cooperation between parties with competing priorities.
The Social Democrats, who hold 11 of the ministerial positions, will exercise substantial influence over domestic policy, particularly decisions involving public-sector spending, welfare and taxation.
Romania’s public finances represent the government’s most urgent problem.
The previous administration, led by Ilie Bolojan, collapsed in May following unpopular austerity measures. Political opposition to fiscal consolidation has complicated efforts to stabilise the budget and meet Romania’s commitments under the European Union’s fiscal framework.
Niculescu has indicated that addressing the deficit will be an immediate priority. Finance Minister Alexandru Nazare, appointed as an independent, faces the task of establishing a credible budget programme without provoking another parliamentary crisis.
The choices are politically difficult. Spending reductions risk resistance from public-sector employees and households already affected by higher living costs, while substantial tax increases could place further pressure on businesses and consumption.
Failure to establish a credible fiscal programme would prolong uncertainty over Romania’s borrowing requirements and its ability to comply with European budgetary obligations.
Brussels has a direct interest in the outcome. Romania remains subject to EU fiscal oversight, and the European Commission will assess whether the new administration’s financial plans are consistent with the country’s obligations.
The government’s credibility will depend on whether its parliamentary supporters are prepared to approve the measures that fiscal consolidation requires.
The change of government also comes at a sensitive moment in Romania’s relationship with European institutions.
Romania has faced scrutiny over reforms linked to the EU’s Recovery and Resilience Facility, particularly legislation concerning public integrity and institutional accountability.
EU Today previously examined the European Commission’s assessment of Romania’s integrity legislation and its implications for recovery funding.
Although the EU recovery programme reached its principal implementation deadline in August, outstanding assessments and financial decisions continue to carry consequences for national budgets.
A functioning government is therefore important not only for domestic legislation but also for negotiations with Brussels over fiscal commitments, investment and the wider EU budget.
Romania must also address longer-term weaknesses in public administration, infrastructure financing and the implementation of European legislation.
Niculescu takes office against the background of Romania’s unusually turbulent political history since the annulment of the 2024 presidential election amid allegations of Russian interference.
The subsequent institutional disputes damaged confidence in the political system and contributed to the fragmentation of parliamentary support.
Opposition parties, including the nationalist Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), are positioned to challenge the government’s legitimacy and economic measures as the administration begins work.
Romania’s strategic importance extends beyond its domestic political difficulties. As an EU and NATO member bordering Ukraine and Moldova, it plays a substantial role in Black Sea security, military logistics and regional infrastructure.
Prolonged instability in Bucharest has therefore affected a country whose decisions carry consequences for European security and cross-border economic cooperation.
For the new prime minister, the immediate objective is to translate Tuesday’s parliamentary majority into support for legislation. His first serious test will come when the cabinet presents the fiscal measures that its supporters have so far struggled to agree upon.
The parliamentary vote has ended Romania’s government formation crisis. It has not resolved the disagreements that produced it.
Kansas Democrat Senate nominee Adam Hamilton read descriptions of four executive orders issued under former President Joe Biden concerning gender identity and LGBTQ protections to his congregation during a January 2025 sermon, saying the thought of losing those protections was painful for people in the LGBTQ community.
The post Kansas Dem Adam Hamilton Lamented Trump’s Reversal of Biden Transgender Orders: ‘Tears and Brokenness’ appeared first on Breitbart.
© The New York Times
© Kenny Holston/The New York Times
Early voting began Monday in Texas and most Florida counties, setting the stage for closely watched midterm contests in two Republican strongholds where Latino voters’ concerns over inflation, immigration and public safety could shape the electoral landscape.
RELATED: Cuba Accuses United States of Pressuring UN Votes on Blockade
With Latinos accounting for 40% of Texas’ population and 28.7% of Florida’s, both states offer a key test of the parties’ ability to attract Hispanic voters. Economic pressures, rising living costs, immigration policy and public safety are among the issues shaping voters’ priorities.
In Florida, voters turned out early in heavily Hispanic areas, including Miami-Dade County and Doral. Their concerns varied: some pointed to rising food and fuel prices and the strain on households and small businesses, while others emphasized public safety, education and support for the Trump administration.
Foreign policy and immigration have also exposed divisions within the community. In Doral, home to a significant Venezuelan population, tensions over the conflict with Iran and its potential impact on oil prices have added to debate over the administration’s tougher immigration policies.
🗳️ EE. UU.: comenzó la votación anticipada en Texas, que se suma a Georgia y Arizona. Las elecciones del 3 de noviembre definirán el control del Congreso. #teleSUR #19oct pic.twitter.com/EHFa1yUbOU
— teleSUR TV (@teleSURtv) October 19, 2026
Text Reads: 🗳️ U.S.: Early voting has begun in Texas, joining Georgia and Arizona. The November 3 elections will determine control of Congress.
The early voting period coincides with a decline in Trump’s approval among Hispanic voters, according to a recent Pew Research Center study. His approval rating stood at 24% in October, down from 38% in February 2025, at the beginning of his term.
The figures come as both parties compete in high-profile state and congressional races. In Florida, Republican Byron Donalds and Democrat David Jolly are vying for the governorship in a contest that has proved closer than expected. Republican Representative María Elvira Salazar is seeking re-election in the state’s 27th Congressional District against Democratic challenger Eliott Rodríguez.
In Texas, Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton faces Democrat James Talarico in the Senate race, while Republican Governor Greg Abbott is challenged by state legislator Gina Hinojosa.
Democrats are hoping that declining support for Trump among Hispanic voters, combined with greater participation in early and mail-in voting, will help them contest key seats in the House of Representatives and Senate. Republicans, meanwhile, are seeking to maintain their dominance in both states through the end of the voting period.
© Callaghan O'Hare for The New York Times
© Kenny Holston/The New York Times
With little more than two weeks to go until the midterm elections, it seems increasingly possible that the Democrats, already a big favorite to win control of the House of Representatives, will also take charge of the planet's most elite nursing home, the United States Senate, where the median age is 64 years old. RealClearPolitics' poll aggregator has moved control of "the world's greatest deliberative body" (as its members are grandiosely wont to call it) to "toss up," status and prediction markets are now breaking big toward a blue wave. As of this writing, Kalshi has its Senate odds at 63 percent for the Dems vs. 37 percent for the GOP; Polymarket is at 62 percent vs. 39 percent.
As gratifying as it might be to see unprincipled Trump enablers reduced to minority status after signing off on economy-wrecking tariffs, inhumane immigration detentions, and wars of choice, there's at least one good reason to dread a Democratic majority too: Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts progressive who is spending the run-up to the midterms freaking out over possible consolidation in the condiments business and accusing private equity firms of gutting such shopping-mall favorites as Claire's and Toys R Us. There's every reason to believe that a Senate run by Warren and other economic interventionists will waste time, money, and resources trying to prevent a world in which, per the X wag Iowahawkblog, "a panopticon conglomerate owns two brands of hot sauce."
On October 13, Warren posted this dire warning to X:
Hellmann's mayo
McCormick spices
Cholula hot sauce
Frank's RedHotWhat do these products have in common? One company could soon control them all.
I have concerns that McCormick and Unilever's $45 billion merger could increase YOUR grocery prices.
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) October 13, 2026
It's hard to think of a more competitive and varied market than the one for hot sauces, which is expected to more than double over the next decade. The barriers to entry are generally low, as are the key ingredients, and new entrants can easily market and sell online, avoiding the costs of buying shelf space in conventional supermarkets. Yet Warren is urging regulators at the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to halt mergers of both product makers like McCormick and Unilever and grocery stores like Kroger and Giant Eagle.
The latter complaint is particularly picayune. Kroger is one of the country's largest supermarket chains, operating around 2,800 stores under its own name as well as Harris Teeter, Ralph's, and others. Giant Eagle operates about 170 stores. This merger is no more the stuff of nightmares than a single company producing both Cholula and Frank's RedHot. If Warren gains more clout from being in the majority, expect her to butt in more and more on such mergers.
Making it harder for businesses to adapt is not a recipe for making goods and services more affordable. But Warren is keen to blame economic creative destruction not on "new forms of industrial organization that capitalist enterprise creates" (as Joseph Schumpeter would have it), but on pure greed. In a TikTok released earlier this month, she shows a poster board with corporate logos from once-thriving companies that she says have been "gutted" by "private equity" firms.
"Here's your local mall," she piously intones. "Now, private equity wants you to believe that Red Lobster went bankrupt because of their endless shrimp….They want you to believe that Claire's went bankrupt because teens stopped shopping at the mall." In Warren's telling, private equity firms magically take over thriving businesses and then strip them bare. The typical pattern is that private equity enters the picture after a business is failing.
Virtually all accounts of the decline of, for example, Red Lobster, note that the chain had been spiraling for several reasons before the private equity firm Golden Gate Capital got involved in 2014. As this CNN article notes, the chain, which started in 1968, had seen drops in sales as customer desires changed. Management compounded the difficulties with a series of bad decisions, including continuing various all-you-can-eat menu specials, before coming out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy last year.
Similarly, it's true that some teens still go to malls and get their ears pierced at Claire's. But anyone who has spent time in retail America over the past few decades knows that malls are no longer the destination that they once were. As CapitalOne Shopping Research documents, "in 1986, there were 25,000 malls, large and small, nationwide." By 2023, that number had shrunk to just 1,200. While some malls are coming back, most are not, and for reasons that have nothing to do with private equity. Online retails plays a role (though a smaller one than usually imagined, with e-commerce accounting for less than 20 percent of all retail sales). But mostly, it's that people today tend to want a different sort of retail environment. Anchor stores—think Macy's and J.C. Penney—are shadows of themselves, and younger people have less unstructured time in which to prowl food courts and arcades.
For politicians like Elizabeth Warren, though, there can be no financial gains or losses that aren't the result of shadowy, conspiratorial forces. If her party takes control of the Senate, her words will carry more weight. But it will be American consumers that ultimately shoulder the burden of an even-more-regulated economy. The market for hot sauces will almost certainly stay spicy, but many other parts will surely suffer.
The post Be Prepared for Elizabeth Warren's Reign of Economic Error appeared first on Reason Magazine.
The No Kings movement held nearly 3,000 rallies and marches across the United States on Saturday, urging voters to cast their ballots early in the November 3 midterm elections, as the Trump administration intensified its efforts to challenge mail-in voting and scrutinize ballots cast by suspected noncitizens.
RELATED: Trump’s Attack on Mail-In Voting Seeks to Create an Advantage for Republicans
The nationwide mobilization, held under the slogan “No Kings: Vote Early,” drew millions of participants, according to USA Today, with events in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The demonstrations came two weeks before elections that will determine whether Republicans retain control of Congress for the final two years of President Donald Trump’s term.
Organizers said the campaign aimed to turn mass mobilization into electoral participation by encouraging voters to make voting plans, cast their ballots early and help protect every eligible vote. They argued that historically high turnout would make it harder for the Trump administration to challenge the results by alleging fraud.
“Across thousands of events in all 50 states and DC today, we are turning enormous people power into direct voter power,” the No Kings Coalition said in a social media statement. It described the initiative as a nationwide effort to encourage early voting and build a network of Americans prepared to defend eligible ballots.
Text Reads: Demonstrations in Washington, U.S., under the slogan “No Kings: Vote Early,” seek to channel political protest into electoral participation. They call for placing limits on President Trump and protecting the Constitution ahead of the elections.
The coalition also pointed to the rising cost of groceries, gasoline, electricity and other daily necessities, arguing that decisions made by political leaders directly shape families’ lives and economic prospects. It presented the early-voting campaign as the next step in reclaiming political influence after a year of mass demonstrations.
In Atlanta, city council member Michael Julian Bond urged rally participants to encourage others to vote before Election Day rather than wait until the last minute.
“The Constitution gives you a power. That is the power of the vote,” Bond told the crowd.
In Phoenix, Arizona, Democratic Senator Rubén Gallego linked the campaign to opposition to the Trump administration’s policies, accusing the president and congressional Republicans of worsening economic conditions for ordinary Americans while enriching their allies.
“Today, we voted early to send a message loud and clear: no to separating our families, no to corruption, no to no oligarchs, no to stupid forever wars, and no kings.,” Gallego wrote on X.
Today, we voted early to send a message loud and clear: no to separating our families, no to corruption, no to no oligarchs, no to stupid forever wars, and no kings. https://t.co/qtT9Gp7Lwf
— Ruben Gallego (@RubenGallego) October 17, 2026
Democratic Representative Yassamin Ansari, who also attended the Phoenix rally, called the upcoming election “the most important election of our lives.” She cited the administration’s deportation policies, the war in Iran, cuts to health care and food assistance, and widespread corruption allegations as central issues facing voters.
Ansari questioned whether Americans would accept immigration enforcement practices that frighten communities and separate families, policies that leave millions without health care, or what she described as a transfer of wealth from working people to billionaires.
The protests unfolded amid heightened political tensions over Trump’s deployment of military personnel to several cities governed by Democrats. The administration has justified the deployments as a way to combat crime and support immigration enforcement operations.
The demonstrations were backed by a broad coalition of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Federation of Teachers, Black Voters Matter Fund, Indivisible, MoveOn, Public Citizen, State Voices and Voto Latino.
The push for early voting also came as the Trump administration pursued legal action against mail-in ballots. Trump has repeatedly attacked mail voting and continued to claim, without evidence, that electoral fraud cost him the 2020 presidential election.
On Thursday, the administration sued California election officials, asking a judge to bar the state from counting mail-in ballots in the midterm elections cast by people the federal government considers likely to be noncitizens until their immigration status can be verified.
On Friday, the Justice Department warned local election officials that processing and counting ballots submitted by suspected noncitizens could expose them to criminal investigations and prosecution.
Also on Friday, Democratic Senators Alex Padilla of California, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Dick Durbin of Illinois wrote to Attorney General Todd Blanche, demanding assurances that the Justice Department would not seize ballots or other election materials before the midterm results were certified.
Are top Democrats actually “shifting” on Israel, or is the PR simply getting more sophisticated?
After the midterms wrap up and the race for the Democratic 2028 nominition for president kicks off in earnest, this will be a central question those concerned with the US role in the genocide in Gaza must grapple with clearly, honestly, and with—it turns out—a high degree of skepticism and media literacy. That’s because the forces committed to keeping the weapons flowing to Israel quickly adjusted their tactics to meet the mood of the public, and the mood of Democrats in particular.
Last year for TRNN, I detailed the three main ways AIPAC Democrats will seek to look critical of Israel while assuring that the pro-Israel status quo remains fundamentally unchanged. Since I wrote that breakdown, a fourth talking point—and one that seems inevitable in retrospect—has emerged as a favorite of liberals who want to seem “tough on Israel,” but don’t want to upset the Israel Lobby. This line, which I documented last April, commits to “ending US aid to Israel” which, despite seeming like a meaningful break or a move left, is a policy that first emerged from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the late US Sen. Lindsey Graham. And, as I noted, it was planned out by far-right think tanks Foundation for Defence of Democracies and Heritage Foundation—specifically designed to blunt the primary argument against support for Israel. Last January, Netanyahu told the Economist that he wants to “taper off” formal US military funding. Pro-Israel lobbying organization J-Street then took this right-wing idea and proceeded to sell the “cut off aid to Israel” line to liberals as something they could take to their constituents as evidence that they are in line with Democratic voters’ overwhelming dislike of Israel, while not changing the status quo. Indeed, as IMEU documented in their critique of the plan, the effort would actually further entrench US-Israeli military alignment.
The US can “cut off aid to Israel” and still very much continue to arm them. The only thing that has changed in this scenario is that Israel pays for it rather than the US government, but from the perspective of those being starved and maimed in Gaza this distinction matters about as much as the color of the bombs.
Much like the Biden White House’s slippery and misleading rebranding of “ceasefire,” the “ending aid to Israel” line relies on popular misunderstanding of what the load-bearing word means, in this instance, “aid.” In colloquial or common usage, it’s a word for general support—military, diplomatic, and financial. In reality, it simply means subsidizing—e.g. paying for—Israel’s weapons. The US can “cut off aid to Israel” and still very much continue to arm them. The only thing that has changed in this scenario is that Israel pays for it rather than the US government, but from the perspective of those being starved and maimed in Gaza this distinction matters about as much as the color of the bombs.
As predicted, this “cut off aid” statement is fast becoming the go-to line for Democrats seeking to assure their increasingly anti-Israel base without upsetting the Israel lobby or the Democratic Senate and House leadership they are aligned with. Recently, after receiving criticism for inviting in AIPAC-linked consultants to steer his campaign, Maine Democratic Senate candidate Troy Jackson released a statement calling Gaza a “genocide” and pledging to “stop funding of Israel’s military”:
Troy Jackson’s public statement yesterday expressing his commitment to end the genocide in Gaza and stop funding Israel’s military was driven by a host of supporter letters sent directly to the campaign on those issues. pic.twitter.com/FMrMBPcU2W
— Nathan Bernard (@nathanTbernard) September 26, 2026
This is a perfect example of a J-Street-curated statement that, to the untrained eye, seems critical of Israel and committed to justice for Palestine, but actually says little of substance. There’s a lot of window dressing and gesturing, but ultimately Jackson’s policy is consistent with that of Benjamin Netanyahu’s.
Rep. Ro Khanna, who very much appears to be running for president in 2028 and making Gaza central to his pitch for progressives, is similarly muddled in his stance. Despite supporting partial and temporary embargos here and there, Khanna told Hasan Piker in July that a full arms embargo on Israel would be “probably too far.” He has instead focused on the “cutting off aid” line that emerged out of the Israeli security apparatus and found its way into “progressive” circles via J Street.
Democratic nominee for Senate in Texas, James Talarico, likewise gave a similarly underwhelming answer when asked about his position a few weeks later. Asked about Gaza last August on The Breakfast Club Show, he refused to label it a genocide, instead deferring to the “international criminal court” (and ignoring the overwhelming consensus of human rights groups and genocide scholars). Then he promised to “condition military aid” followed by two minutes of Obama-esque vapid empathy-speak.
That isn’t to say all Democrats are simply rebranding the status quo. It seems, despite his campaigning with central defender of the genocide Kamala Harris, Abdul El-Sayed is expressing a firm commitment to an arms embargo on Israel. Obviously, this is also the case for DSA-endorsed candidates who are not splitting hairs or letting J-Street manage their Israel policy. But these firm commitments are the exceptions. Increasingly, what we’re seeing is a squishy mix of empathy-speak, vague gesturing, highly conditional pledges to “condition aid” and other such abstractions with little in the way of firm commitments.
The only actions Democrats have, at scale, taken to “break from Israel” is recent spattering of Congressional votes over the past year designed to signal disapproval but change nothing of substance. These bills vary between genuine, if partial, arms embargo and the aforementioned “end aid” framework endorsed by Netyanhau and Graham. It’s complicated, but worth dissecting, because it can help illustrate how much energy and effort is going into these pseudo “breaks,” namely those being pushed by Israel lobbying group J-Street. One House bill from last July sought to “end aid” to Israel. The bill had some merit as it isolated Israel as such. But, like all of these bills, it was effectively a “messaging vote” because it had zero chance of passing, and because it aligned with the Netyanhau-approved “ending aid” framework. Almost half of Democrats in Congress supported it, including long-time reliable Israel ally Nancy Pelosi.
A few months later, we saw the slightly more substantive, but ultimately performative, partial arms embargo bills in both the House and Senate. Though different, they both involved preventing further sales of certain weapons to Israel given certain conditions. In the House, 104 Democrats backed the measure, and in the Senate, all but seven Democrats, including major Israel supporters, backed the measure.
These votes, in effect if not intent, end up serving as little more than anti-Israel thingamajigs that liberal zionists in Congress can point to when confronted on the issue as evidence that they are not a rubber stamp for Israeli violence.
But these bills, as everyone involved in their drafting, lobbying, and counter-lobbying know, were totally DOA. They have zero chance of actually passing, much less getting a President Trump veto-proof majority. Thus—despite many activists’ best intentions—they functionally serve as little more than a mechanism for reputation laundering for liberals who’ve backed Israel’s genocide and its broader regional violence, but who can read a poll as well as anyone else. These votes, in effect if not intent, end up serving as little more than anti-Israel thingamajigs that liberal zionists in Congress can point to when confronted on the issue as evidence that they are not a rubber stamp for Israeli violence. Indeed, suspiciously enough, the Senate version last April garnered the support of staunch Israel advocate and AIPAC-money sponge Cory Booker, who grinningly met with Israeli defensive minister Yoav Gallant after Gallant was indicted by the ICC for crimes against humanity. Does anyone think for a second Booker would have backed a bill to prevent weapons sales to Israel if it had a remote chance of passing? Does anyone think his vote in support is evidence he’s “breaking from Israel”? Or is it evidence of something a bit more subtle, and sinister, which is Democrats realize they need to appear as if they’re breaking from Israel without the messiness of actually doing so?
But if the above bills are largely superficial and performative, why would Hakeem Jeffries write a letter in opposition, one may ask? For the same reason Jeffries agreed to let the vote happen and not discipline those supporting it: it’s all part of an intramural scrimmage between zionist allies who disagree on how best to “rein in” Israel. On substance, nothing fundemental is permitted to change, and the idea of ending military support was never on the table. Jeffires and AIPAC both understand that this is a 80/20 issue against them and are allowing their members more latitude in rhetorical and ideological distance, so long as the weapons flow remains unabated which it, of course, securely remains.
One of the more difficult tasks for an activist of good faith is being able to tell the difference between genuine, if incremental, progress, and counterinsurgency—that which appears like incremental progress but is, in fact, a move to the right with better PR.
In his urging of support for the bill earlier this year, Rep. Greg Casar, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said that “American people are crying out for an end to US tax dollars subsidizing Israel’s military.” But American people are not so much crying out for this, and certainty Palestinians aren’t, as they are an end to the genocide and occupation. It doesn’t matter if this genocide is “subsidized” by “US tax dollars” or not—the source of military funding is mostly arbitrary and inconsequential. What activists are demanding, what Democratic voters are demanding, is not a “message” bill or limited to “defensive weapons” with 18 qualifiers and carveouts, but support for a total arms embargo in principle and as a long term strategy of ending US support for the dispossession and killing of Palestinians.
One of the more difficult tasks for an activist of good faith is being able to tell the difference between genuine, if incremental, progress, and counterinsurgency—that which appears like incremental progress but is, in fact, a move to the right with better PR. Sorting out the difference in the coming months is going to be essential to make sure we don’t just elect a whole new crop of liberals who, despite more convincing crocodile tears and more sophisticated handwringing, just go back to shipping weapons systems and scrambling the sixth fleet to defend Israel’s next “defensive war.”
As voters concerned with the full-scale destruction of Gaza analyze the statements of politicians seeking to appear “good on Gaza” in the coming months, there are two central commitments they must attempt to pin down: (1) support for a full arms embargo without any conditional statements or tortured caveats and (2) support for the Boycott Divestment and Sanction movement, which seeks to economically isolate Israel. These are the positions that would logically follow from a belief that the country in question is committing genocide—as top progressives likely seeking the White House, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ro Khanna—said they believe. These measures—not nickel and diming “offensive” versus “defensive,” not singling out “Netanyahu,” not making vague promises to “condition aid” if Israel meets some unknown, arbitrary benchmark of humane mass killing—are the only thing that will move the needle and compel Israel to temper its exterminationist policies and plans. Only one member of Congress, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, unequivocally supports BDS, but certainly far more are capable of committing to a full arms embargo. If they cannot do even this bare minimum, and do so clearly, then the only logical conclusion one can reach is they are simply saying nice-sounding words, and checking the rhetorical box of “genocide,” so they can get elected then go back to enforcing and maintaining the genocidal status quo.
With the US mid-terms in November looking like being somewhere between a heavy defeat and a bloodbath for the Republicans, Mark Littlewood looks at what comes after Trump and which are the bets worth taking.
The post What Follows Trump After the Dems Win in November? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Login