55.1 F
San Francisco
Wednesday, May 13, 2026
Home Blog Page 1018

Egypt Proposes New Gaza Ceasefire Amid Escalation

Brent Edward
-
0
Egypt Proposes New Gaza Ceasefire Amid Escalation

 

Key Takeaways:

  • Egypt has introduced a new plan to restore a ceasefire in Gaza.
  • The move follows increased violence after Israel restarted attacks on Hamas.
  • A two-month period of calm was broken last week.
  • The situation remains tense, with global concern over rising tensions.

What’s Happening in Gaza?

Gaza has seen a surge in violence after Israel launched new air and ground attacks on Hamas last Tuesday. These operations ended a period of calm that had lasted two months. The escalation has raised global concerns about the safety of civilians and the possibility of a larger conflict.

Now, Egypt has stepped in with a new proposal to bring back the ceasefire. This move aims to stop the fighting and prevent further loss of life. Egypt’s plan is the latest effort to stabilize the region after violence flared up again.

Why Is Egypt Stepping In?

Egypt has long played a key role in mediating between Israel and Hamas. The country has often acted as a middleman to negotiate peace deals in the past. Egypt’s new proposal is part of its efforts to reduce tensions and restore calm in Gaza.

The Egyptian government is reportedly working closely with both sides to find a solution. Their goal is to create a peaceful environment that allows for dialogue and prevents further violence.

What Led to the Escalation?

The recent violence began when Israel resumed air and ground operations against Hamas targets. These actions were in response to security concerns and tensions in the region. However, they also marked the end of a period of relative calm that had lasted two months.

The escalation has caused widespread concern, with many countries and organizations calling for peace. The United Nations and other global leaders have urged both sides to avoid actions that could lead to more suffering for civilians.

What’s Next?

The situation in Gaza remains uncertain. Egypt’s proposal is a step toward peace, but it’s unclear if both sides will agree to the terms. Israel and Hamas have historically had difficulty reaching lasting agreements, and the road to peace is often fraught with challenges.

Meanwhile, the international community continues to watch the situation closely. Many hope that Egypt’s efforts will succeed in restoring the ceasefire and preventing further bloodshed.

Why Does This Matter?

The conflict in Gaza has far-reaching implications. It affects not only the people living in the region but also stability in the Middle East and beyond. A ceasefire would provide much-needed relief to civilians and create an opportunity for meaningful dialogue.

The involvement of countries like Egypt highlights the importance of international diplomacy in resolving such conflicts. Their efforts remind us that even in the face of violence, there is always hope for peace.

The Challenges Ahead

Restoring the ceasefire will not be easy. Both sides have deep-seated differences, and trust between them is limited. However, Egypt’s proposal offers a glimmer of hope. If successful, it could pave the way for longer-term solutions.

The coming days will be critical. The world will be watching to see if the ceasefire holds and if both parties are willing to work toward lasting peace.

Conclusion

Egypt’s new proposal to restore the Gaza ceasefire is a crucial step toward ending the current violence. While the road ahead is uncertain, the effort highlights the importance of diplomacy and international cooperation. For now, the hope is that both sides will accept the terms and work toward a peaceful resolution.

The situation remains tense, but with Egypt’s involvement, there is a chance for calm to return to Gaza. Only time will tell if this latest effort will succeed.

Trump Administration Freezes Family-Planning Funds, Investigations Underway

Brent Edward
-
0
Trump Administration Freezes Family-Planning Funds, Investigations Underway

Key Takeaways:

  • The Trump administration is freezing millions in federal family-planning grants.
  • The freeze is part of an investigation into how the funds were used.
  • The focus is on whether money went toward diversity efforts.
  • This could impact organizations that provide healthcare and family-planning services.

The U.S. government is taking a closer look at how certain organizations are using federal funds meant for family-planning services. According to insiders, the Trump administration has decided to freeze tens of millions of dollars in grants while it investigates whether the money was used for diversity initiatives. This move could have big implications for organizations that rely on these funds to provide healthcare and other essential services.

What’s Happening?

The federal government allocates money each year to support family-planning programs. These programs help people access birth control, reproductive health services, and education. Now, the Trump administration is pausing payments to some organizations. The reason? Officials want to check if the money was spent on diversity efforts instead of its intended purpose.

Diversity efforts often involve promoting inclusion and reducing discrimination. While these initiatives are important, the administration seems concerned that they might not align with the original goals of the family-planning grants.

Why Is This Happening?

The Trump administration has always had a keen interest in how federal money is spent. By freezing these funds, officials are signaling that they want to ensure taxpayer dollars are being used as intended. They are also highlighting their belief that family-planning grants should focus solely on healthcare-related goals.

This move is not entirely surprising. The Trump administration has been vocal about its priorities, and this appears to be another step in its effort to align government spending with its policies.

How Will This Affect Organizations?

Many organizations rely on these grants to provide vital services to communities. If the funds are frozen, these groups might struggle to continue their work. This could lead to reduced access to healthcare, fewer educational programs, and a bigger strain on local resources.

For now, the affected organizations will have to wait and see how the investigation unfolds. If the administration finds that the funds were misused, it could lead to further action, such as cutting off funding entirely.

What Are People Saying?

The reaction to this move is mixed. Some people support the administration’s efforts to ensure accountability and transparency in government spending. They argue that taxpayers have the right to know how their money is being used.

On the other hand, critics worry that this freeze will harm vulnerable communities that depend on these services. They argue that family-planning programs are crucial for public health and that investigating diversity efforts is unnecessary and harmful.

What’s Next?

The investigation is still ongoing, and it’s unclear how long the funds will remain frozen. In the meantime, organizations are bracing for the impact. Advocacy groups are speaking out, urging the administration to reconsider its decision.

This situation highlights the ongoing debate over how federal funds should be used and the role of diversity initiatives in government programs. As the investigation continues, all eyes will be on the administration to see how it proceeds.

In the end, this move by the Trump administration is another example of how political priorities can shape government actions. Whether you agree or disagree, one thing is clear: this decision could have far-reaching consequences for many Americans.

Classified Chaos: A Pattern of Disregard at the Top?

Brent Edward
-
0
Classified Chaos: A Pattern of Disregard at the Top?

Key Takeaways:

  • High-level officials are mishandling classified information casually.
  • There’s a double standard in how they apply rules compared to past administrations.
  • This behavior reflects a culture of irresponsibility and blame-shifting.

Introduction: Imagine a scenario where the leaders of a country seem to ignore the rules they expect others to follow. This isn’t just about one administration but a trend seen over the past few years. It’s like when the school principal breaks the same rules they enforce on students, leaving everyone confused and frustrated.

A Culture of Irresponsibility: Leaders are supposed to set examples, but lately, they’ve been careless with sensitive information. Instead of taking responsibility, they make excuses. This attitude shows a deeper issue where accountability is lacking, and excuses replace action.

Blame-Shifting Tactics: When confronted, officials often deflect blame. They point fingers elsewhere, like a student blaming the dog for not doing homework. This shift in responsibility undermines trust and shows a lack of accountability.

A Pattern of Behavior: This isn’t new. Past administrations have also faced similar issues, creating a cycle of neglect. Each case, whether past or present, highlights a recurring problem that needs addressing.

The Need for Accountability: Just as parents must model good behavior for their kids, leaders should uphold the standards they set. When they don’t, it erodes trust and sets a bad example for others.

Conclusion: The casual disregard for handling classified information is a concerning trend. It’s time for leaders to step up, take responsibility, and show they mean business. Trust is built on action, not excuses.

Transgender Military Ban Hits Another Roadblock: Judge Steps In

Brent Edward
-
0
Transgender Military Ban Hits Another Roadblock: Judge Steps In

Key Takeaways:

  • A New Jersey federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from separating two transgender Air Force members.
  • This is the second time a federal judge has ruled against the administration’s transgender military ban.
  • The ruling highlights ongoing legal battles over the policy.

A judge says no to Trump’s transgender military ban, again

A federal judge in New Jersey has stepped in to stop the Trump administration from removing two transgender service members from the Air Force. This isn’t the first time a judge has pushed back against the administration’s efforts to ban transgender people from serving in the military. Earlier, another federal judge ruled against the policy, and now this New Jersey judge has joined in, saying the ban can’t be enforced right now.

What’s the big deal about the transgender military ban?

The Trump administration first announced plans to ban transgender individuals from serving in the military a few years ago. The policy has been controversial from the start, with many argue that it unfairly targets transgender service members who are already serving their country. Supporters of the ban say it’s about military readiness and unit cohesion, but critics call it discrimination.

Why did the judge step in?

In this case, two transgender Air Force members were facing separation because of the policy. The judge decided to temporarily block the administration from carrying out their removal. The ruling doesn’t permanently stop the ban, but it does give the two service members a chance to keep serving while the legal battle continues.

This isn’t the first time courts have pushed back against the ban. Judges in other states have also ruled that the policy may be unconstitutional or harmful. These rulings have kept the ban from being fully enforced, even as the administration tries to move forward with it.

What happens next?

The fight over the transgender military ban is far from over. The administration may appeal this latest ruling, and the case could end up in higher courts. Meanwhile, transgender service members are left in limbo, wondering if they’ll be able to continue serving their country.

Advocates for LGBTQ+ rights are celebrating the judge’s decision as a victory, but they’re also staying vigilant. They argue that everyone who is qualified and willing to serve should have the chance to do so, regardless of their gender identity.

Why does this matter?

This case is about more than just military policy. It’s about fairness and equality. For transgender service members, the ability to serve openly and without fear of discrimination is a fundamental right. The judge’s ruling is a reminder that the courts play a crucial role in protecting the rights of marginalized communities.

As the legal battle continues, one thing is clear: the fight for equality in the military isn’t over yet. For now, this ruling gives hope to transgender service members who want to continue serving their country proudly and without fear of being forced out.

The transgender military ban has sparked intense debate across the country, with passionate arguments on both sides. While the administration continues to push for the ban, the courts are stepping in to slow things down. For the two Air Force members at the center of this case, the judge’s decision means they can keep serving—for now. But the larger question of whether transgender individuals can serve openly in the military remains unresolved. Stay tuned as this story continues to unfold.

Trump’s Executive Order Sparks Legal Firestorm Over Voter Rules

Brent Edward
-
0
Trump’s Executive Order Sparks Legal Firestorm Over Voter Rules

Key Takeaways:

  • Trump issues an executive order requiring proof of citizenship for federal voter registration.
  • The order mandates that no ballots be counted after Election Day.
  • Threatens states with loss of federal funds for non-compliance.
  • Legal experts question the order’s constitutionality, citing state and congressional authority over elections.

Introduction: President Trump’s latest executive order on voter registration and election deadlines has ignited a legal debate. This move, critics argue, oversteps presidential authority, potentially facing significant legal challenges.

The Executive Order: Understanding the Details Trump’s order introduces strict voter registration requirements and tightens ballot counting deadlines. It aims to enforce proof of citizenship and stop post-Election Day ballot counting. The order also threatens federal funding withdrawal for non-compliant states, leveraging financial pressure to enforce adherence.

Legal Challenges: Constitutionality in Question Constitutional experts argue that election laws fall under state and congressional jurisdiction, not presidential decree. This order, they claim, exceeds Trump’s authority, raising concerns about federal overreach. Legal experts anticipate swift challenges, questioning the order’s enforceability.

Potential Impact on States States face tough choices: comply with potentially unconstitutional federal demands or risk losing vital funds. This financial pressure could strain state budgets and election systems, sparking concerns over voter access and election integrity.

Preventing Foreign Interference The order also targets foreign election interference, tasking the Attorney General with enforcing relevant laws. While protecting elections is crucial, some worry about the broader implications on non-profits and lobbying, potentially stifling free speech and political engagement.

What’s Next? As the legal landscape evolves, this order may face numerous court battles. The outcome could significantly influence the balance of power between federal and state authorities, affecting future elections and governance.

Conclusion: Trump’s executive order has plunged the nation into a heated debate over voter rights and federal authority. As legal challenges unfold, the order’s impact on elections and governance remains uncertain, highlighting the delicate balance of power in American democracy.

Trump Officials Embroiled in Data Breach Scandal During Senate Hearing

Brent Edward
-
0
Trump Officials Embroiled in Data Breach Scandal During Senate Hearing

Key Takeaways:

  • A data breach occurred when Trump administration officials accidentally added a journalist to a Signal chat, leaking military strike plans for Yemen.
  • Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard denied being part of the chat, despite others confirming their involvement.
  • Gabbard repeatedly stated no classified information was leaked, which Senator Angus King challenged, questioning the absence of classification of sensitive details.
  • Concerns arose about officials potentially lying to Congress, highlighting national security risks.
  • Pete Buttigieg’s observation underscored the incompetence in keeping America safe.

The Data Breach

A recent Senate hearing revealed a significant data breach involving Trump administration officials. Unintentionally, they added a journalist to a private Signal chat, leading to the leak of detailed military plans for strikes in Yemen. This mistake not only exposed sensitive information but also raised questions about the administration’s handling of classified data.

Gabbard’s Denial

During the hearing, Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, faced tough questions. Despite other officials confirming their participation in the Signal chat, Gabbard refused to admit her involvement. She maintained that no classified information was shared, a stance that drew skepticism from Senator King.

Senator King’s Challenge

Senator Angus King pressed Gabbard on the classification of the leaked information. He highlighted that details like targets, weapons, and attack timings are typically classified. Gabbard deferred to the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council, sparking concerns about her understanding of classification procedures. King suggested releasing the chat to clarify, emphasizing the importance of transparency and proper handling of sensitive information.

Implications

The hearing raised significant concerns about the integrity of high-ranking officials. The possibility of lying to Congress underscores broader issues of trust and accountability. Pete Buttigieg’s statement captured the sentiment, questioning the administration’s ability to ensure national security.

Conclusion

The incident and subsequent hearing highlight critical issues of data security and governmental accountability. As concerns grow, the focus remains on ensuring transparency and competency in protecting national security.

Andrew Cuomo Enters NYC Mayoral Race: What You Need to Know

Brent Edward
-
0
Andrew Cuomo Enters NYC Mayoral Race: What You Need to Know

Key Takeaways:

  • Andrew Cuomo, a well-known political figure, has officially joined the NYC mayoral race.
  • He has been leading in the polls for months and has decades of political experience.
  • His campaign focuses on his experience, but questions remain about how he has used his power.
  • You can test your knowledge of Cuomo’s career with a fun quiz in our April print edition.

Andrew Cuomo Enters the NYC Mayoral Race

On March 4, Andrew Cuomo made it official: he is running for mayor of New York City. For months, Cuomo has been ahead in the polls, and now he has formally entered the race. As the son of a former New York governor, Cuomo has been a part of New York politics for over 40 years. His campaign is built around his experience, but many people are asking: what has he really done with that power?

Who Is Andrew Cuomo?

Andrew Cuomo is a name many New Yorkers recognize. His father, Mario Cuomo, was governor of New York for three terms. Andrew has followed in his father’s footsteps, building a long career in politics. He has served in various roles, including as New York’s attorney general and governor. Now, he is aiming for a new challenge: leading New York City as mayor.

Cuomo’s campaign focuses on his experience. He says his decades in politics make him the best person to solve the city’s problems. But critics argue that experience alone doesn’t always mean positive results. They want to know how he has used his power over the years and who has benefited from his decisions.

Test Your Cuomo Knowledge!

Want to learn more about Andrew Cuomo’s political career? Our April print edition includes a fun and interactive quiz that puts your knowledge to the test. You’ll find 20 true-or-false questions covering key moments in his career. After taking the quiz, you can check your answers and learn more about each topic.

Here’s how it works:

  1. Flip to page 10–11 of our PDF for the quiz.
  2. Answer the questions and tally your score.
  3. Multiply your correct answers by five for your final score.

The quiz is a great way to learn about Cuomo’s history and see how well you understand his impact on New York politics.

Why Does Cuomo’s Past Matter?

Cuomo’s long career has been filled with both achievements and controversies. Supporters point to his efforts on issues like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Critics, however, highlight concerns about how he has wielded power. For example, some question his handling of certain policies and his leadership style.

As he runs for mayor, voters are asking: what kind of leader would Cuomo be for New York City? Would he bring the same approach he used as governor to City Hall? And how would that impact the city’s future?

What’s Next for the Mayoral Race?

The NYC mayoral race is heating up, and Cuomo’s entry adds even more excitement. Other candidates are also vying for the top job, and voters will have to decide who they trust to lead the city forward.

Cuomo’s campaign will likely focus on his experience and track record. But voters will also be paying close attention to how he addresses criticism and outlines his vision for the city’s future. One thing is clear: this race will be one to watch.

Conclusion

Andrew Cuomo’s official entry into the NYC mayoral race marks a significant moment in the competition. His decades of political experience make him a strong contender, but voters will want to carefully consider his record. Whether you’re a long-time follower of Cuomo’s career or just starting to learn about him, now is the time to pay attention.

Take the quiz in our April print edition to test your knowledge of Cuomo’s career and see how much you really know about this influential figure. The race for NYC mayor is just getting started, and Andrew Cuomo is ready to make his case to voters.

Top Secret War Plans Leak Sparks Fiery Exchange Between Journalist and Defense Secretary

Brent Edward
-
0
Top Secret War Plans Leak Sparks Fiery Exchange Between Journalist and Defense Secretary

Key Takeaways:

  • Jeffrey Goldberg accuses Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of sharing secret war plans.
  • Hegseth denies the allegations, labeling Goldberg’s claims as false.
  • Goldberg stands by his report, citing detailed evidence.
  • The controversy raises concerns about national security and communication practices.

Fiery Exchange Over Secret War Plans

A heated dispute erupted between journalist Jeffrey Goldberg and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over the alleged sharing of classified war plans. Goldberg claimed Hegseth discussed sensitive information in a Signal chat, while Hegseth vehemently denied the accusations, calling them baseless.

Goldberg’s Accusations

Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, reported that Hegseth shared detailed plans in a messaging group. He implied that such actions were irresponsible, given the unsecured nature of the platform. Goldberg emphasized the seriousness of the leak, highlighting the potential risks to national security.

Hegseth’s Strong Response

Hegseth dismissed Goldberg’s claims, stating that no classified information was shared. He criticized Goldberg’s credibility, suggesting a history of unreliable reporting. Hegseth asserted that the discussion was mundane, not secretive.

Goldberg Stands Firm

Despite Hegseth’s denial, Goldberg maintained the accuracy of his report. He provided specifics about the plans, mentioning their origin from Central Command. Goldberg expressed concern over high-level officials using unsecured apps, risking security breaches.

Implications of the Controversy

The debate raises questions about officials’ communication methods. Using apps like Signal for sensitive discussions could expose information to potential leaks or hacks. This incident underscores the need for secure communication channels in handling classified data.

Why It Matters

The clash between Goldberg and Hegseth highlights issues of accountability and transparency. It questions the judgment of officials in using unsecured platforms and the credibility of journalists in reporting such incidents. The public’s trust in both institutions may be affected by how this situation is resolved.

Conclusion

The controversy between Goldberg and Hegseth continues to unfold, with significant implications for national security and journalistic integrity. As details emerge, the focus remains on ensuring secure communication and credible reporting.

Hegseth’s Signal Leak Sparks Security Concerns

Brent Edward
-
0
Hegseth’s Signal Leak Sparks Security Concerns

Key Takeaways:

  • Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth accidentally shared classified info via Signal, a messaging app.
  • He criticized the journalist who reported it, calling them deceitful.
  • Senator Mark Kelly expressed concern, noting this wouldn’t happen under a Democrat.
  • The discussion was overly casual, like ordering pizza, according to Kelly.
  • A Senate hearing is scheduled to address the issue with the CIA director present.

Hegseth’s Mistake and Response Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently made headlines for accidentally sharing sensitive military plans on Signal. Instead of addressing the error, he blamed the journalist involved, labeling them deceitful. This reaction has raised eyebrows, highlighting concerns about accountability within the administration.

Senator Kelly’s Strong Reaction Senator Mark Kelly, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, criticized Hegseth’s actions. He emphasized that such a breach wouldn’t occur under a Democratic administration, suggesting a double standard in how security issues are handled. Kelly’s remarks underscore the gravity of the situation and the need for scrutiny.

Upcoming Senate Hearing Kelly revealed that a Senate hearing is set to discuss this incident. The CIA director, who was part of the Signal chat, will attend. This hearing aims to delve into the security lapse and evaluate the administration’s handling of classified information.

Casual Communication of Critical Decisions The discussion on Signal was remarkably casual, likened to ordering pizza. Kelly pointed out that such informality is inappropriate when deciding on military actions. This highlights a worrying lack of seriousness in high-stakes communications.

Implications and Next Steps The leak and subsequent response have significant implications for national security and governmental transparency. As the Senate hearing approaches, all eyes are on how these issues will be addressed and what measures will be taken to prevent future breaches. The focus remains on ensuring accountability and upholding the integrity of classified communications.

U.S. democracy at risk?

Brent Edward
-
0
U.S. democracy at risk?

Key Takeaways:

  • The U.S. is facing a constitutional crisis due to actions by five Republican Supreme Court justices.
  • Trump is defying court orders and threatening judges, even prompting Chief Justice John Roberts to speak out.
  • America has a history of progress followed by backlash from wealthy elites and corporations.
  • Historic reforms like the 13th Amendment and Social Security were rolled back by conservative courts and politicians.
  • The Citizens United decision allowed billionaires like Elon Musk to influence politics, threatening democracy.
  • Progressives are fighting back, but the future of democracy depends on public action.

U.S. Democracy At Risk: How Corporate Power and Billionaires Are Hijacking America

The United States is in the middle of a constitutional crisis. Five Republican justices on the Supreme Court have made decisions that hurt the country, leading to fears of an oligarchic takeover. Oligarchy means a small group of wealthy and powerful people control the government.

Donald Trump, the former president, is making things worse. He is ignoring court orders and even threatening judges, which is extremely dangerous. Chief Justice John Roberts, who is usually quiet, has spoken out about this.

This isn’t the first time America has faced such a crisis. The country’s history is filled with periods of progress followed by pushback from wealthy elites and corporations.

A History of Progress and Backlash

The first 80 years of America were marked by the fight against an absolute monarch and corporations. But Southern oligarchs, who relied on slavery, rejected the Founders’ ideals. They turned the South into a brutal place and even started a war that Abraham Lincoln won.

Lincoln introduced progressive reforms like the 13th Amendment, which ended slavery, and the Homestead Act, which gave land to settlers. He also supported unions and created colleges with free education. However, his efforts were rolled back after his death, especially during the corrupt 1876 election.

In the late 1800s, corporations grew so powerful that presidents like Teddy Roosevelt had to step in. He broke up monopolies like Standard Oil. Laws like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Tillman Act tried to stop corporations from controlling politics.

But in 2010, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision changed everything. It allowed corporations and billionaires to spend unlimited money on elections, treating money as free speech. This decision has led to the current crisis, where billionaires like Elon Musk can influence politics like never before.

The Current Crisis

The third 80-year cycle started after World War II and is now ending. Presidents like Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson expanded Social Security, passed civil rights laws, and created Medicare. But the 1970s brought a new backlash with the Powell Memo, which encouraged corporations to take over politics.

Today, Trump and Musk are leading this push. They are breaking institutions, stopping the IRS from taxing the rich, and rewriting history to exclude women, Black, and queer people.

The 2010 Citizens United decision opened the door for billionaires to buy politicians. Elon Musk is now using his money to threaten Republican politicians and defeat Democrats.

Can Democracy Be Saved?

In 2022, Democrats tried to pass laws like the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. These laws would have limited corporate money in politics, stopped gerrymandering, and protected voting rights.

Both bills passed the House but failed in the Senate because two Democratic senators, Sinema and Manchin, sided with Republicans.

However, there is hope. Bernie Sanders and AOC recently drew 86,000 people to rallies. Voters are waking up, and there’s a chance Democrats could win in 2026 and 2028.

But to save democracy, laws like the For the People Act must be passed. Money in politics has always been a problem, and billionaires like Musk are making it worse.

The Power of Public Sentiment

Abraham Lincoln once said, “In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed.”

This means Americans have the power to change things. By supporting progressive politicians and joining protests, people can push back against billionaires and corrupt politicians.

Judges, lawyers, and politicians who know what’s wrong need the public’s support to stand up to Trump and Musk. Together, we can save democracy and bring back progressive values.

The fight isn’t over yet. Will America return to its progressive roots, or will billionaires and corporations take over? The answer lies in what we do next.

1...1,0171,0181,019...2,369Page 1,018 of 2,369

Explore

Trending

Follow us

© All Rights Reserved, Newspaper Theme.