Weekly Education and Analysis on Current Events

Zinnia

Zinnia

Category: Opinion

  • A Case for a One-State Solution

    When it comes to addressing the question of Palestinian statehood, there is a lot of debate between a one or two state solution. For many their first inclination might be to support a two-state solution, however, I’d like to present the one-state solution as not only realistic, but also as the only morally just solution. This one-state solution represents equality and democracy for all while also engaging in restorative justice for the Palestinians.

    In order to get a better understanding of why some advocate for a one-state solution, it’s important to note that Israel, in it’s current structure, should not exist. This is not about removing or targeting all Jewish communities in the region, it’s about advocating against a system and a state structure which treats only Jewish people as full citizens and which guarantees rights for only Jewish people while ethnically cleansing and legally subjugating Palestinians, codifying their status as sub-class inhabitants.

    There’s no reason why we should accept the legitimacy of an ethno-nationalist state, creating instead two separate countries because we can’t dare challenge ethno-nationalism. There’s no need to divide and segregate the land or the people and create separate legal structures. There should be only one state where all people have rights and where all people are citizens; where all are equal.

    While some may say that it would cause increased tensions, that Palestinians would retaliate against Israelis, this is an argument against desegregation that has been deployed several times throughout history to oppose freedom and is something that has never actually happened. For example:

    • American slave owners claiming slaves would retaliate
    • Pro-Segregationists claiming Black Americans would retaliate
    • White South Africans claiming Black South Africans would retaliate
    • Nazis propagating Jewish Revenge fantasies to create fear around Jewish liberation

    The list could go on but in each of these cases, those maintaining the apartheid or genocidal regime all argued the same point, that in the event of desegregation or the dismantling of apartheid, the suppressed population would retaliate against the former regime. And in each case, this fear was used as a tool to oppose the liberation of the subjugated population. Not once has it happened. There is no reason to believe that the Palestinians, a people who have seen nothing but war and devastation for their entire lives, would seek to engage in another war after achieving what they have been advocating for, peace and equality.

    The point is that, Israel, as it currently exists (being an apartheid, ethno-nationalist state), should not exist. This is not to say that Jewish people cannot live in the region, only that there should not be a Jewish ethno-nationalist state and that there’s no need to maintain this ethno-nationalist state along side a Palestinian state. There should only be one state which guarantees everyone equal citizenship, equal rights, and equal freedom. This, of course, should be followed by reparations for Palestinians and a right to return for Palestinian diaspora.

    We should not advocate for the continuation of legalized, segregated borders, a reality which unfortunately already exists. We do not want to see Palestinians relegated to bantustan or reservation equivalents in Palestine where the power dynamic is still ultimately tilted towards Israelis. We should advocate for a single democratic state where Palestinians have full equality and democratic power. As mentioned before, this should be followed with restorative justice practices for the Palestinians which include a right to return, the dismantling of structures which uphold jewish supremacy, land reform programs, etc.

    While some may still believe that there would be tension, there have been plenty of other societies that have successfully gone through de-segregation (Think of America for example). Many people would simply have to get used to it much in the same way how white Americans in the south had to get used to the liberation of Black Americans from slavery, or to the ending of segregation, or even more recently, how many simply just had to get used to the legalization of gay marriage. This is not an unrealistic expectation.

    We should continue to advocate for the liberation of Palestine and for an end to the Zionist project of colonial expansion and ethnic cleansing. The solution necessarily demands equality, democracy, restorative justice, and for a continued struggle against American Imperialism. Keep on pushing for a free Palestine!

  • Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitic

    In the face of a rising anti-Zionist movement, there are many attempts from pro-Israeli organizations, politicians, and media which try to paint these movements as anti-semitic. They attempt to conflate the Zionist Ideology of the state of Israel and it’s interests with Jewish diaspora as a whole. Therefore, many claim that any attempt to criticize Israel or to engage in anti-zionist action is a direct threat to the Jewish community world wide. This however, is not the case.

    Anti-Zionists criticize the system which upholds the zionist ideology. Zionism is an Ethno-nationalist movement which seeks to maintain a Jewish state through the colonization of Palestine and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

    The result, of course, is a state which engages in ethnic cleansing, genocide, and an Apartheid which segregates Palestinians and guarantees only Jewish people rights, citizenship, and protections.

    Anti-Zionism is not about removing all Jewish communities from the region or targeting Jewish people generally, it’s about advocating against a system and a state structure which only guarantees rights and citizenship for Jewish populations, while ethnically cleansing and legally subjugating Palestinians, codifying their status as sub-class inhabitants. The goal ultimately is for Palestinians to be treated as equal citizens, to have a right to return to and exist in their homeland, and for such to be legally and structurally guaranteed.

    It is akin to protesting the state of Nazi Germany and the Nazi ideology, not German people as a whole. Akin to protesting South African Apartheid and the state which maintains it, not Europeans as an entire ethnic group. Or akin to protesting American Apartheid and Jim Crow, not advocating for the subjugation of all White Americans.

    The conflation of Zionism and Jewish Populations lends itself to anti-semitism far more than any anti-zionist action. Convincing the general population that apartheid, genocide and mass starvation is conducted at the behest of Jewish people worldwide does not combat anti-semitism. This is a conflation that many Pro-Palestinian activists dismiss time and time again. It is possible to be Jewish and Anti-Zionist, just as it is possible to be a White American and not believe in a White American Ethno-State. It is of utmost importance that Politicians, Organizations, and other prominent figures separate the two, as many Pro-Palestinian activists have.

    Responsible rhetoric means undertaking a position which both calls for an end to ongoing genocide, connecting that to the Zionist project, while also dismissing any position that naturalizes a connection between Zionism and Jewish People.

    Additional Notes

    The United States’ involvement with Israel has never been in the interest of the well being of the Jewish community. The relationship with Israel has been levied by many global powers to secure their interests in the region.

    The likes of Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, and even Joe Biden have all recognized Israel’s Strategic importance.

    The U.S. has always utilized Israel to prevent the rise of popular movements which threaten the influence and control that the U.S. enjoys over the region’s natural resources and strategic positioning.

  • New Hampshire Judge Blocks The Trump Administration’s Birthright Citizenship Order Nationwide

    The Trump administration’s executive order to terminate birthright citizenship has been blocked by a federal judge in New Hampshire on Thursday, July 10.

    The Judge granted an injunction in a class action lawsuit, protecting children born to undocumented migrants or to migrants with temporary protected status from the revoking of their citizenship by the Trump administration’s executive order.

    This is especially significant due to the Supreme Court’s ruling last month in Trump V. CASA, which ruled that the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions to prevent select actions of an administration exceeded their authority. This ruling threatened to unshackle executive power and chip away at the nation’s checks and balances, limiting those who could push back against unconstitutional federal actions.

    However, the court imposed no limitations on class action lawsuits, where the party who is suing represents an entire class of individuals; in this case, all children born to undocumented or temporarily protected migrants, who happen to live nationwide. The New Hampshire judge worked around the supreme court’s ruling by imposing an injunction through a class action lawsuit to protect these individuals from the administration’s executive order.

    The targeting of those born to undocumented or temporarily protected migrants clearly outlines the intentions of this administration to extend deportation rhetoric beyond their stated “criminals only” approach. There is no world in which the targeting of citizenship serves the American people and sets no precent for this power to expand beyond the individuals currently in the crosshairs. It has never been about the “criminals” but rather about a targeting of those deemed to be an “other”.

    This rhetoric and useless policy goals are what justify an allocation of 175 billion dollars to agencies like ICE while public schools, hospitals, nutrition assistance programs, and the like struggle for funding. This administration continues to pursue unjust policies while leaving behind millions of struggling Americans.

  • Public Healthcare Serves the American People, not the Private Option

    The defunding of Medicaid as a result of the Trump Administration’s Big Beautiful Bill puts at risk the healthcare coverage of about 17 million Americans in addition to necessary funding for rural hospitals and the majority of nursing home patients.

    While many will be left without an option, the alternative should not be a reliance on the privatized healthcare model, the very system that often denies Americans the coverage they need or leaves many individuals with crippling debt. The issue is that the private model is structured like a business with the primary intention of generating profit for shareholders. It operates as a for-profit industry, and the best way to generate those profits is to up-charge, under provide, and deny claims. It’s a business, a commodity, an investment opportunity.

    How Private Healthcare is modeled

    A universal option is not out of reach for Americans. The U.S. is the only OECD nation without universal healthcare, a structure which in many other countries provides citizens with better healthcare outcomes at a much lower cost. A universal system would be significantly cheaper than the common employer provided private option by almost half a trillion dollars.

    Americans currently spend roughly 4.5 trillion for healthcare every year, while a universal solution would drop it to just over 4 trillion. That means the average cost that each person pays would drop by approximately $1,500 every year while also providing better outcomes. This universalized system would cut out administrative costs, bureaucracy and paperwork, cut the cost of medicine and care, and would be far more accessible for every American. No premiums, co-pays, or deductibles. Additionally, It would not be able to deny lifesaving or preventative care and would give Americans direct access to services that are often denied under the current model.

    While some may fear that universalizing healthcare would overburden the system, this is a fear that is already being realized under the current structure. Due to medicaid cuts as a result of the Trump Administration’s Big Beautiful Bill, hospitals face funding shortages which will impact staffing, access to resources, and overall performance. A Hospital in rural Nebraska has already announced its imminent closure due to a foreseeable lack in funding from the passage of this bill. This will push more demand to hospitals in more dense regions who likewise, will face similar funding cuts. Hospitals across the country will face even more strain on an already failing system. On the other hand, the establishment of a universal option would ensure a well funded healthcare system and would ensure access to a hospital within reach for every American.

    Americans can either continue paying large sums to private corporations and still get denied claims, over priced drugs, and obnoxious paperwork, or pay far less for a service that is practically free at the point of use. This system would treat healthcare as a human right, not an investment opportunity. It would provide reliable access to a wide variety of health services ranging from preventative care, to personalized health consultations with trained professionals, to cheaper and readily accessible medication and treatments, to a lack of denials for any healthcare need.

    Rather, our government is choosing to provide tax cuts to the richest billionaires instead of using that money to provide Americans with a system that would guarantee cheap and effective Medicare for all.

  • Why the U.S. is so Invested in Israel

    The U.S. has long maintained imperial interests in the Middle East and has actively propped up Israel as a regional watchdog to maintain those interests militarily. The 1953 American orchestrated coup, toppling Iranian democracy and securing ownership over 40% of Iranian oil and a pro-American/Israeli government perfectly highlights the interests that America has maintained in the region: That is, maintaining economic domination over the region’s natural resources and geopolitical positioning. The management of these types of operations are a role which Israel now serves for U.S. Interests.

    Summarized, these interests are: Preventing the rise of popular movements which threaten the influence and control that the U.S. enjoys over the region’s natural resources and strategic positioning.

    A few more examples (out of many) which highlight this role include:

    • Israeli invasion of Egypt after the Egyptian President dared to kick out lingering colonial control over the Suez canal
    • Repeated Israeli invasions Lebanon and the supply of weaponry and training to right wing rebel groups in order to prevent the rise of democratic movements or otherwise Nationalistic movements which sought to assert Lebanese sovereignty over Lebanon. It also served to prevent the success of a movement which could serve as an example to neighboring nations on asserting national sovereignty.
    • Israel again supplied rebel groups in Iraq with weapons and trainings to destabilize a movement which sought to nationalize Iraqi oil and resources that were owned by western corporations.
    • Israel supplied rebel groups in Syria with weapons and training to destabilize the Syrian government, which at the time was nationalizing key industries owned by western corporations.

    The list could go on, however, the point is the same: Israel serves to prevent the rise of popular movements which threaten the influence and control that the U.S. enjoys over the region’s natural resources and strategic positioning.

    This domination isn’t solely for use in the domestic market, but also for strategic leverage in America’s greater foreign policy goals, whether it be during the cold war or in current trade related escalations with China.

    The larger impact of this constant intervention is not a positive one. It has not only lead to the destruction of regional democracies, but it also encourages constant destabilization and war. Every multi-billion dollar military contract signed with Israel, or even the hundred billion dollar contracts signed with Saudi Arabia, line the pockets of American arms manufacturers who get great business deals and forever-clients in the region. These arms dealers make billions at the immense cost of human lives, decades long death and destruction, and at the cost of civilian populations who endure never-ending destabilization, forever unable to advocate for their own advancement; no development of democratic movements, no ability to advocate for rights and protections for women, no ability to demand the dignities of a stable life and government, etc. The death of millions and destabilization of entire countries serves well the profit industry and wartime / oil profiteers.

    Background History Regarding the Creation of Israel and it’s use as a British Proxy, and later as an American Proxy.

    Israel’s Creation as a Watchdog for Western Interests

    The middle east has long held the attention of foreign powers for it’s vast wealth of natural resources and key positioning along important trade routes. With the resolution of World War 1 and the subsequent fall of the Ottoman empire, which ruled the general region for several hundred years, Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot agreement which split up the region between the two powers.

    The British and the French established semi-colonial entities called mandates within the region. The region had seen a rise in Arab Nationalism and independence movements, so the goal of the mandates were to establish the groundwork for independent states that adhered to British and French interests while not outright offending liberation movements within the mandates.

    The British and French recognized, however, that these nationalist movements could pose a serious threat to their interests in maintaining control over natural resources like oil (The British owned the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Iraq Petroleum Company,etc), as well as control over key trade routes like the Suez Canal which the British and French owned at the time.

    To address these concerns, the British government sought the creation of a state within historic Palestine which could not succumb to growing Arab nationalism. This would come to be the State of Israel. The British government utilized a growing Zionist movement headed by Theodor Herzl, who, in his book titled The Jewish State wrote, regarding the creation of a state in Palestine: “We should there form a wall of defense for Europe in {west} Asia, an outpost of civilization against barbarism”.

    Britain had hoped that a Zionist state would serve as a regional watchdog to prevent any threat to the Interests of British industry. Winston Churchill recognized such, writing in an article: “Should there be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a jewish state under the protection of the British Crown… an event would have occurred in the history of the world which would, from every point of view, be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.”

    With the issuing of the Balfour declaration, Britain gave it support for the creation of Israel, helping to facilitate the settlement of Jewish populations in Historic Palestine. This was followed with the declaration of Israeli Independence in 1949 and Israel’s subsequent ethnic cleansing campaign against the Palestinians, the Nakba.

    The U.S. Enters as the Dominant Power

    After the end of the Second World War, with Britain’s global influence on the decline, the United States emerged as the dominant world power, using that position to take control where previous western powers once had influence. The U.S. saw the same strategic value in the middle east as did the British and the French before. U.S. foreign policy sought to take advantage of the oil rich nations and to secure trade routes for the benefit of American Imperialism. Israel would later serve as a watchdog to ensure the stability of U.S. interests either by assisting in direct western invasion or destabilization, or by invading and meddling themselves.

  • Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill is Disastrous for Working Americans

    After receiving majority vote in both the House and the Senate, Donald Trump is set to sign the Big Beautiful Bill into law on Friday, July 4, 2025.

    The consequences of this bill, once in effect, will be absolutely disastrous for working Americans, cutting social spending by over $1 Trillion, including over $900 billion in cuts to medicaid and almost $300 Billion in cuts to food assistance programs. It will also extend trillions in Tax cuts which will disproportionately benefit the wealthy at the cost of the now gutted social programs that benefitted working Americans.

    It is estimated that about 17 million Americans will lose access to medicaid coverage, threatening long term health and in many cases, their lives. Many rural hospitals also receive funding and reimbursements through medicaid. Lack of stable funding poses a serious threat to their ability to stay operational. A Hospital in rural Nebraska has already announced its imminent closure due to a foreseeable lack in funding from the passage of this bill. This will push more demand to hospitals in more dense regions who likewise, will face similar funding cuts. Hospitals across the country will face even more strain on an already failing system.

    Medicaid also covers 60% of patients in nursing homes, threatening access to care to a majority of our nations elderly who receive care, increasing the cost of family care that many Americans rely on.

    The bill also includes an additional $175 billion in funding for “border security” operations, bringing the operational budget for entities like ICE at levels which surpass almost every single standing Army in the world, excluding the U.S. and China. This budget will be used to expand the capacity of detention facilities and to hire more personnel. Keep this additional $175 Billion budget in mind as the administration ramps up what it has stated to be the largest deportation operation in U.S. history.

    Increasingly dehumanizing rhetoric and an additional 175 Billion Dollars.

    Additionally, the bill will allot an extra $150 billion to the defense budget, bringing military spending just shy of about $1 Trillion. Regardless of what the money is spent on, it will go to benefit arms and defense sales for weapons manufacturers, deepening the entrenchment of the Military Industrial Complex while leaving behind the sick and hungry in the very same bill.

    The new budget also incorporates plentiful small text provisions that haven’t made much noise but still none the less chew away at everyday working Americans. A few of these additional provisions include a restructuring of student loan repayment plans, increasing monthly payments on those who sought personal advancement, eligibility for private space projects to receive public funds and tax free investments, $45 billion in extra funding for private prisons for ice detention centers, eligibility for private corporations to write of additional capital investments at the cost of public tax dollars, the rolling back of clean energy investments, and so on.

    While proponents have claimed that the bill is a pro-American, pro-working class budget, the amount saved in taxes will be nowhere near what has been taken away from health insurance, hospital funding, elder care, food assistance programs, etc. Working Americans will bear the full weight of this bill while the wealthiest in the nation enjoy permanent, trillion dollar tax cuts.

    Keep in mind what this money can be used for instead of lining the pockets of the already ultra-wealthy. The Recent Democratic Mayoral nominee in New York City, Zohran Mamdani, has shown that a single city alone can provide universal childcare, free busses, and affordable housing projects all by increasing the corporate tax rate by a few percentage points. Americans can enjoy stable housing, fast and free transportation, undeniable healthcare, childcare to relieve stress on new parents, food assistance programs, elder care, a hospital within reach for every American, quality education for every student, and so much more. But instead, our politicians chose to prioritize the greed of those who can afford all of the aforementioned dignities without making a dent on their personal fortunes.

  • Supreme Court unshackles Executive Power While Ruling on Birthright Citizenship, Limiting Nationwide Injunctions

    On June 27, while addressing Trump’s January executive order on birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court ruled that federal judges lack authority to impose nationwide injunctions, a tool that has historically been used to prevent controlling parties, both Democrat and Republican alike, from enacting key agenda goals.

    This ruling deliberately gives the Executive and the ruling party in congress exceptional power to enact their agenda and sets an incredibly dangerous precedent towards authoritarian control by this administration.

    What is a Nationwide Injunction?

    Put simply, an injunction is an order or demand by a judge. When applied Nationwide, it is often used to set back agenda goals by either party. For example, Biden era policies attempting to enact student loan forgiveness were stopped by judges in red states imposing nationwide injunctions. Likewise, Trump’s agenda is often stopped by judges in blue states via the same methods.

    What are the Greater Implications?

    The new court ruling now prohibits federal judges from imposing nationwide injunctions, meaning federal judges will now be unable to stop unconstitutional actions at the national level. Federal judges may still impose statewide injunctions but it would cause a legal mess between the states, leaving certain actions or policies legal in some states, and illegal in others.

    The consequences reach far beyond the issue of birthright citizenship, opening the door for the Trump administration to push through the republican agenda leaving few with the power to push back against the administration. While a California judge may be able to prevent the administration from carrying out it’s agenda in California, they will be completely powerless to stop it at a national scale.

    As for this legal Balkanization, it would create a huge mess concerning policies like birthright citizenship. If for example, the Trump administration were successful in repealing birthright citizenship, a California judge may be able to impose an injunction preventing the enactment of the policy while other states like Texas remain complicit. This would leave gaping legal questions about whether certain individuals would be citizens in California but not Texas, and likewise with every other state that either chooses to impose an injunction or remain complicit. This type of fragmentation would exist for any other federal policy pushed by either the Executive or Legislative branches.

    What we are left with is an administration that is now free to push through it’s agenda nationally, only being stopped in individual states with judges willing to impose statewide injunctions. Keeping in mind the greater objectives of this administration and their desire to proceed with mass deportations, while children born to migrant parents in California may receive greater protections compared to those born in states complicit with this administration, this type of fragmentation leaves behind migrant communities in other states who will lack any legal protections to keep them safe.

  • Israeli Aggression Against Iran Could Drag the U.S. into War

    Video Transcript:

    Good morning, Good afternoon, Good evening, whenever and wherever your listening to this

    Today, We’re going to be talking about Israels aggressive escalation and attacks against Iran

    Israel has launched what it calls “preemptive strikes against Iran” when in reality, Israel is the one who is escalating towards a potential war.

    In order to get a full grasp of the severity of this escalation, we’ll have to go over some history of American and Israeli involvement in the region

    The U.S. has long maintained imperial interests in the region and has actively propped up Israel as a regional watchdog to maintain those interests militarily. The 1953 American orchestrated coup, toppling Iranian democracy and securing ownership over 40% of Iranian oil perfectly highlights the interests that America has maintained in the region. The conducting of these types of operations are a role which Israel now plays for U.S. Interests.

    Summarized, these interests are: Preventing the rise of popular movements which threaten the influence and control that the U.S. enjoys over the region’s natural resources and strategic positioning.

    A few more examples (out of many) which highlight this role include:

    • Israeli invasion of Egypt after the Egyptian President dared to kick out lingering colonial control over the Suez canal
    • Repeated Israeli invasions Lebanon and the supply of weaponry and training to right wing rebel groups in order to prevent the rise of democratic movements or otherwise Nationalistic movements which sought to assert Lebanese sovereignty over Lebanon. It also served to prevent the success of a movement which could serve as an example to neighboring nations on asserting national sovereignty.
    • Israel again supplied rebel groups in Iraq with weapons and trainings to destabilize a movement which sought to nationalize Iraqi oil and resources that were owned by western powers.
    • Israel supplied rebel groups in Syria with weapons and training to destabilize the Syrian government, which at the time was nationalizing key industries owned by western powers.

    The list could go on, however, the point is the same: Israel serves to prevent the rise of popular movements which threaten the influence and control that the U.S. enjoys over the region’s natural resources and strategic positioning.

    Iran stands as the last major power and meaningful resistance against U.S.- Israeli domination in the region. The U.S. in conjunction with Israel have already squashed movements in Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran once before, have formalized relations with Syria and Jordan, and have secured the Gulf states under their umbrella.

    Iran is the last piece of the puzzle.

    With this history in mind, this should highlight why Israel and the U.S. have been so eager to escalate tensions with Iran over the last several decades. This should also highlight the interests involved, namely, to secure control that the U.S. enjoys over the region’s natural resources and strategic positioning.

    As this is unfolding, Oil stocks have gone up 11 percent, further highlighting the interests at play amidst these rising tensions.

    Lets get into the Reaction by U.S. media and statesmen. They have been pushing this line that Israel has somehow subverted Trump. Statesmen like Marco Rubio have also been pushing the line that the U.S. had nothing to do with it. Additionally, not too long ago the media was pushing the “Trump turning on Netanyahu” narrative.

    Do not believe any line that you hear on the media that Israel is subverting trump and acting as a rouge entity or that “Trump cant command Netanyahu’s respect”.

    The Media and Top officials have been trying to distance themselves from this provocation even though we know that the U.S. has acted in conjunction with Israel in order to lay the groundwork for this escalation.

    The U.S. and Israel have been prepping for this for some time now. They have been coordinating a strategy to weaken several of Iran’s proxies to limit Iran’s threat to Israel.

    • During Trump’s gulf tour, he formalized relations with Syria
      • Here is a great summary provided by Zei on X, I will link it below. They had this to say concerning the formalization of Relations with Syria: This is not only to eliminate the land corridor between Iran and Hezbollah, but also to have the ISIS-fascist proxies serve as an attack force against them in the case they get involved, with an invasion of Lebanon from the East being threatened.
    • Additionally, they have been targeting Hezbollah for some time now, going back to the pager attacks and long before as well. They have also continued with their Dahiyah Doctrine of destroying civilian infrastructure with Israeli authorities insisting “that it’s a legitimate tactic of war and helps deter future attacks on Israel by its enemies.” as reported by Al Jezeera.

    Israel has also severely weakened Hamas with its horrific ethnic cleansing campaign and the restriction of any aid for months, only to now allow meager amounts of food with no significant improvements to aleive malnourishment.

    The point here is: Israel and the U.S. over the last several months have been making moves to cripple Iranian proxies and thus cripple the threat to Israel in the event of escalating tensions with Iran, which we are now seeing.

    This is not “Israel subverting Trump”, this is a deliberate plan of action to secure an American dominated status quo in the region, a status quo which goes back decades.

    The purpose of this distancing that we are seeing in the media is to manufacture consent for U.S. involvement later down the line.

    Let’s Elaborate: Iran has already stated that if the negotiations with the U.S. fall through and tensions escalate, they will target U.S. military bases in the region.

    If the media and these state actors can successfully push the line that the U.S. had nothing to do with it, even though the U.S. and Israel have been working together on establishing the ground work for this escalation for months now, then, when Iran inevitably retaliates on Israel and the main supplier of Israel’s weaponry and their close ally, the U.S., the media can frame these retaliatory attacks as an initial provocation from Iran.

    They’ll say “we had nothing to do with and they attacked us”. It’ll be an effective tool to manufacture consent for escalation towards war with Iran.

    Here’s a great analysis from Ilhan Omar as well.
    “Regardless of what Trump thinks, Israel knows America will do whatever they want and feels confident about their ability to get into war and have the American government pack them up. Israel also knows they can always rely on getting America to protect and serve its needs. Everyone in America should prepare themselves to either see their tax dollars being spent on weapon supplies to Israel or be dragged into war with Iran if this escalates.”

    This is a direct escalation towards war with Iran that the U.S. and Israel have been pushing for, which perfectly lines up with U.S. interests in the region since the cold war.

    The only people this will benefit are the aforementioned Oil stock holders and War-Time profiteers. If the U.S. heads to war or even just supports Israeli war efforts, it’ll be weapons manufacturers who will get the multi-billion dollar contracts at the immense cost of human lives.

  • U.S. Senator Van Hollen Shows Power that the Democratic Party Should Use More Often

    U.S. Senator Van Hollen Shows Power that the Democratic Party Should Use More Often

    On April 18, 2025, Senator Chris Van Hollen pressured the Salvadorian government to allow him to meet with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who the Trump administration admitted to wrongfully and illegally deporting.

    Van Hollen elaborated in a press conference on how he obtained a meeting with Abrego, stating that he requested visitations and calls with Abrego, petitioning as well for the Salvadorian government to allow him some contact with his lawyers or family as well.

    After repeated no’s from Salvadorian Officials, Van Hollen drove to CECOT, where he was stopped by soldiers and was told that he could not proceed. Upon preparing to leave the country, Van Hollen stated that he received word that he would be allowed to meet with Abrego.

    El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele shared photos on X of the meeting, stating that they had allegedly been drinking margaritas. It’s clear that Bukele gave in to the pressure that a U.S. Senator can procure.

    The lesson to be learned here is that party officials, including Senators, do indeed have lots of power to demand attention to an issue, to pressure action and response from government officials, and to push back against misinformation and injustice.

    The sad reality is that this is a power that is all too often forgotten by Democratic Party leaders. By making the issue unavoidable to the press, party officials can garner the media attention required to push back on harmful and false narratives, can lead the way for positive policy development.

    It can be extremely effective in combatting misinformation about migrant crime (when in reality migrants in the U.S. commit less crimes per capita than U.S. born citizens), or in combatting narratives about student protests “supporting terrorists”, or to bring attention to conflicts or ongoing genocide, etc.

    Rather, there are numerous instances where party officials capitulated to the right on their narratives and their framing, from a supposed immigration crisis, to supporting genocide, to outright agreeing with the Trump administration on the suppression of free speech, among various other cases.

    Chris Van Hollen’s actions showed the power that a single U.S. senator can have in shifting the narrative about an issue, simultaneously combatting misinformation and raising awareness, which can ultimately have effects on policy or even elections. By making a situation unavoidable to the press, elected party officials can procure the means to shift the narrative about import issues in society, and can use their power to advocate for just policy and positive change.

  • Opinion: How they use “Criminals” to Take our Rights Away

    Within Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office, we have seen several highly controversial cases, from the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil and the revoking of his green card, the arrest of Mohsen Mahdawi and the threat of removal of his green card, to the illegal and unjust deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, to the detainment of U.S. citizens and high profile lawyers at points of entry, and to ICE agents smashing car windows illegally to detain individuals, among many other cases.

    In each of these instances, we see the administration pushing the limits of our constitutional protections, from arrests for exercising the right to free speech, to the blatant refusal to provide due process, to illegal search and seizure. And while the administration claims it’s only targeting criminals, they have been detaining U.S. citizens as well.

    In fact, in many of these cases, these individuals were otherwise law abiding residents. However, the framing of these individuals as criminals only serves to manufacture consent for these illegal actions, allowing the administration to test the limits of our rights.

    Khalil, Mahdawi, and Abrego serve as particularly effective targets. They are individuals who were law abiding or had proper legal protections. They are individuals who are in the same legal position as most other law abiding residents. If the administration can successfully violate their rights, they can successfully violate anyone else’s. Point being, this will not stop at the “criminals,” this will inevitably affect everyday Americans.

    Law is based off of precedent, so if precedent exists to remove the green cards of people who were exercising their right to free speech based solely on vague claims and loose evidence, then precedent exists to remove the green cards of otherwise law abiding residents based off of loose and vague claims as well. If the administration can get away with deporting a legally protected migrant, then they can get away with deporting any other legally protected migrant.

    This falls in line with the administrations own stated goals. Donald Trump, throughout his campaign repeatedly praised Operation Wetback, which infamously deported legal residents as well as U.S. citizens. He ran on promises to repeat a similar project. If the administration can get away with the deportation of Abrego, Khalil, and Mahdawi, then it establishes the precedent for the administration to fulfill its goal of mass deportations of migrants, legal residents included.

    For example, Kilmar Abrego Garcia is not a criminal, and in fact is in a very similar position to many migrants you may know: migrants who are allowed to stay on work permits, asylum, withholding of removal, etc. If the Administration gets away with the unjust deportation of Abrego and establishes that as precedent, then it establishes precedent to do the same with your neighbor, your friends, your family.

    Khalil and Mahdawi were green card holders who violated no laws, they only exercised their right to free speech. If the administration can get away with the revoking of their green cards and their deportations, then it sets the precedent to do the same with other law abiding green card holders.

    The framing of these individuals as criminals only serves to manufacture consent amongst the public for the government to test and unravel our constitutional rights without anyone batting an eye. This will ultimately set precedent for the very same things to happen to you or to people you know.

    It isn’t just a migrant issue either. If the administration can simply arrest and deport any individual or ship out any detainee, citizen or not, to a foreign country and subvert any due process, then they can target just about anyone for any reason with no evidence whatsoever.

    This isn’t just about “criminals.” This could open the door to political suppression and dangerous overreach towards anyone the government determines as an enemy: dissidents, political opponents, disruptive legal professionals, etc. In the worst case scenario, you are who the government says you are, and if you’re deemed to be a criminal, what due process do you have to say otherwise? What sort of power do you have to say otherwise?