I had the pleasure of co-editing @VICE Magazine's annual print photo issue, which loosely explores how our experiences online inform our identities. All the writers I commissioned are incredible (!!) and you can read their essays here: https://t.co/q2B6MqfbmU pic.twitter.com/KLlULh4UGf
— Sarah Burke (@sarahlubyburke) June 19, 2018
Deep State Targets Conservative Favorite Jim Jordan w/ Vicious Smear Campaign After Announcing Speakership Plans @CristinaLaila1 https://t.co/eEaj2vuFtZ via @gatewaypundit
— Jim Hoft (@gatewaypundit) July 3, 2018
With Mexico presidential election, another step in global populism — but this time from the left https://t.co/Qe2Nfnhmc7 pic.twitter.com/PQT7NtigPd— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) July 2, 2018
The victory of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in Sunday’s presidential election in Mexico is yet another advance for the global march of populism, an ideology that feeds on both fear and hope.RTWT.
In Mexico, however, populism comes with a twist: Lopez Obrador emerges from a leftist tradition in a sea of right-wing tendencies.
From the election in 2016 in the United States of Donald Trump to the rising leaders in Hungary, Italy and other U.S. allies, populism is posing new challenges to modern democracy.
An often anti-intellectual or xenophobic movement, populism capitalizes on existential worries among middle- and working-class populations who see their jobs being lost to technology or to lower-paid workers.
It can offer unrealistic expectations and often stokes people’s fears of immigrants and outsiders, criminals and terrorists, while railing against an ill-defined traditional elite portrayed as callously distant from the concerns of ordinary citizens.
Those touchstones are clearly part of a Trump playbook. Lopez Obrador also appeals to the common man, but his brand of populism does not employ the same level of negativity or tap into racist or nativist beliefs. It remains to be seen how it will evolve.
The underlying call to action in such a climate is to take a sledgehammer to the system, to “throw the bums out,” or, memorably, to drain the swamp.
Like Trump, Lopez Obrador benefited from a strong current of outrage where many voters felt disenfranchised, left out or overlooked.
His campaign rhetoric did not vary much from his earlier runs for president in 2006 and in 2012. He railed against Mexico's elite and the neo-liberal economic policies embraced by Mexico's leaders, but which many feel have left the working class behind.
What was different this time was the mood of the electorate.
“Mexicans are very angry,” said Genaro Lozano, a professor of political science and international relations at the Iberoamerican University in Mexico City.
It’s not difficult to understand why. Violence is at a modern high and fetid corruption infects seemingly every level of the established, sclerotic government. Around half of Mexico’s population lives in poverty, and the country ranks near the bottom of developed nations for social mobility, the chance to get ahead...
See the new @USSupremeCourt clearly: Abortion illegal; doctors prosecuted; gay people barred from restaurants, hotels, stores; African-Americans out of elite schools; gun control banned in 50 states; the end of regulatory state. My @NewYorker column.https://t.co/ik0fa4XDIK
— Jeffrey Toobin (@JeffreyToobin) July 1, 2018
It's time to move on. https://t.co/mh3GSM5Wpj
— American Spectator (@amspectator) June 29, 2018
Another Lazy ‘Never Trump’ Screed https://t.co/9uKUEvHR5J pic.twitter.com/lOnIN6PAKG
— National Review (@NRO) July 3, 2018
The fact that Joe Crowley's surprising defeat has created a leadership vacuum for House Democrats -- detailed nicely here by @pkcapitol -- underscores one of the party's problems https://t.co/mxyKBQwonM— Philip Rucker (@PhilipRucker) June 27, 2018
Rep. Joseph Crowley did not hide his ambition to be House speaker some day. Now, after his stunning primary loss Tuesday, the next generation of Democratic leaders is a blank slate.RTWT.
The congressman from Queens set out on a mission over the past year to put himself in place to one day, whenever Democrats won back the majority, grab the gavel and run the House.
“I find myself possibly in the position of — where what I’ve attained so far in terms of leadership — that may happen in the future. It may not,” Crowley told The Washington Post last fall while campaigning for several Democrats around Las Vegas.
On Tuesday, that dream came crashing down, with Crowley becoming the latest in an entire generation of Democratic emerging leaders to fail in their quest to seize the mantle from the 70-something trio of liberals atop the House caucus for more than a decade.
Crowley’s crushing defeat came at the hands of an underfunded challenger on his ideological flank in a party primary. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 28, is a former Bernie Sanders campaign organizer who called for the abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency amid the public outcry over President Trump’s migrant separation policy.
Crowley’s loss drew immediate comparisons to the stunning upset of Eric Cantor (R-Va.) four years ago when he was the sitting House majority leader and lost to now-Rep. Dave Brat (Va.) in the GOP primary.
But, in that instance, House Republicans had several other young lawmakers who had the standing and support to rise into top posts, including House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), who was waiting in the wings for another year to take charge.
Crowley, 56, despite being in his 20th year in office, was considered a relative newcomer to Democratic leadership circles because the other three have been at the top since early last decade, longer than most House Democrats have even served in Congress.
As President Trump consolidates power, Democrats face a moment of extraordinary conflict, with an activist wing pushing for a greater voice https://t.co/1jLN6oGBxW— The New York Times (@nytimes) June 30, 2018
WASHINGTON — The pitched battle looming over the Supreme Court, along with a jolt to the Democratic leadership at the ballot box last Tuesday, is threatening to shatter the already fragile architecture of the Democratic Party, as an activist rebellion on the left and a lurch to the right in Washington propels the party toward a moment of extraordinary conflict and forced reinvention.More.
For Democrats, the transformation could prove as consequential as President Trump’s consolidation of power in his own party and the conservative movement’s tightening grip on the federal government.
“The Trump presidency has changed the dynamics in our party,” said Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, acknowledging that he could not call recall a similar grass-roots uprising since he was elected to Congress in 1982.
The party’s traditional leaders absorbed one blow after another last week. Representative Joseph Crowley, a 20-year incumbent and potential future House speaker, was unseated by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old Latina political newcomer; Congress made clear it cannot pass even a limited immigration measure for the children of undocumented immigrants; and the Supreme Court handed down rulings that undermined the labor unions that are a backbone of the Democratic Party, while also limiting abortion rights advocacy and upholding President Trump’s travel ban.
And then Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced his retirement, effectively handing Mr. Trump the opportunity to cement a conservative majority on the bench.
Mr. Trump’s divisive and at times demagogic presidency has ignited much of the liberal upheaval, driving many left-of-center voters on to a kind of ideological war footing. That has translated into a surge in outsider candidates in the midterms who are pressuring Democratic leaders to support an ambitious liberal platform that includes single-payer health care, free college tuition and the abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
But this insurgency, which is both encouraging and alarming Democratic officials, is not merely aimed at pushing the party farther left ideologically. There is a deeper divide over how far to go in confronting Mr. Trump and attempting to thwart his agenda.
At a strategy session held over lunch last week, Senate Democrats settled on a careful strategy for the coming Supreme Court confirmation battle. They would drop their demands that Republicans not appoint a replacement for Mr. Kennedy until after the midterm elections, senators decided, and instead would highlight the threat to abortion rights and health care to try to mobilize opposition to Mr. Trump’s appointment.
“I’m sure many of them believe we have the power to stop this,” Mr. Durbin said of the expectations his party’s enraged base for Democrats blocking the court pick. “But the grim reality is that we have some power but not the power to stop this.”
But a few hours later, on the ground floor of the Hart Senate Office Building, nearly 600 women clad in suffragist white were arrested in a demonstration against the separation of migrant children from their parents — and they said they wanted their senators to do nothing less than lie down on the tracks to stop Mr. Trump’s nomination.
“I want to see this Congress actually follow our lead and resist in a real way,” said Winnie Wong, one of the organizers of the sit-in. “This kind of resistance can create a blockade and stop what will be a fast-track appointment. Imagine a world where you had the chamber do a civil disobedience, what that would that look like.”
With former President Barack Obama evincing little appetite to reclaim a leadership role and no clear 2020 presidential front-runner, Democrats lack a commanding figure to oversee strategy and help bridge the internal fissures in the party...
Analysis: The midterm elections shape up as a battle over intensity. Are Democrats ready? https://t.co/9nQgYhGdZU— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 30, 2018
The November election could be about many things. Immigration. Tax cuts and the economy. The Supreme Court and the future of abortion rights. Trade and tariffs. The menu changes with the cascading of events. Ultimately, the midterms will be about intensity. On that factor, Democrats ought not to underestimate President Trump.More.
Trump dominates like no president in recent memory. He dominates the daily conversation in the country. He manufactures diversions and distractions, starts brush fires or all-out conflagrations. He creates stirs constantly with tools his predecessors never had or imagined using. He says whatever he wants to say, regardless of the truth. He puts the news media on the defensive and calls journalists the “enemy of the people.” He makes himself impossible to ignore. His supporters love it.
As with all presidents, he dominates the executive branch, over which he has superior though not unlimited power, as his unhappiness with and hectoring of the Justice Department reminds. He dominates Congress, because of the acquiescence of Republican elected officials, nearly all of whom fear his wrath and see progress on their own agendas. Thanks to the retirement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Trump soon will put a bigger stamp on the Supreme Court. With the next nomination, he can shift the balance on the court for a generation.
Internationally, he is the dominant figure. He forces other leaders, with the possible exception of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, to react to what he says and does. His disregard for the Western alliances that have held together since the end of World War II have fostered strains and resistance. His pronouncements cause alarm and unhappiness in countries long allied with the United States. Everyone must react to him.
Two years ago, none of this seemed likely, and to Democrats and many others even possible. It was two years ago July 5 that then-FBI Director James B. Comey declared that the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails had revealed that she had been “extremely careless” in handling sensitive information but had produced nothing that warranted prosecution. While not a total clean bill of health, Comey’s findings lifted a burden that had plagued Clinton throughout her presidential campaign. Her path to November suddenly looked more open...
.@EdDriscoll “Abolish ICE” is #Democrat for “Open Borders” and Yes, #Dems are actually going to run on that: #SecureTheBorder https://t.co/cnpd4Jzv1H via @LegInsurrection cc. @PatriarchTree @MelissaTweets pic.twitter.com/9GSrLxF1ZN
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 30, 2018
“State of the nation” trumps money and work to be America’s primary source of stress. https://t.co/J3yaqMLJUZ via @BloombergQuint— Denzil Weitz (@Rhinosan1) June 30, 2018
(Bloomberg) -- Last week, Jen Wrenn, a children’s literacy advocate in San Diego, attended her first political protest after reading about the Trump administration policy of separating small children from their immigrant parents at the border.RTWT.
She had heard ProPublica’s audio of a little girl crying in the border camp and decided to do something about it. She shouted. She marched. And afterwards, she decompressed by watching the Mr. Rogers documentary, “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?”
“As soon as I hear the theme song, my blood pressure goes down,” Wrenn said. “I think that kind of calm is what we all crave mentally right now.”
The film about Fred Rogers, the beloved figure of American childhood, has made $4.9 million at the box office since it opened on June 8—more than 20 times the typical haul for a documentary. In interviews, director Morgan Neville paints the documentary’s success as indicative of our times. “We’re in this period in our culture where I feel like nobody wants to be an adult anymore,” Neville recently told Deadline. “A character like Fred takes us back to how we should treat each other.”
Last fall, the American Psychological Association found that almost two-thirds of Americans listed “the state of the nation” as their primary source of stress, above both money and work. More than half believed that America was at its lowest point in history. Almost 70 percent of all Americans feel a sense of “news fatigue,” according to the Pew Research Center. The nation’s emotional exhaustion even makes an appearance in a recent Enterprise Rental Car survey: When the company surveyed more than 1,100 Americans about their summer travel plans, the top three reasons given for traveling were stress, the news and the political climate.
“Just this morning I had a guy come in who is so distracted by the news that he can’t get his work done,” said Jonathan Alpert, a New York psychologist. “The levels of anxiety and stress I’m seeing are profound.”
“It’s way more relaxing than reading about Melania’s terrible jacket choice.”
Those heightened stress levels are reflected in Americans’ chosen leisure activities...
At the height of the Cold War and the Vietnam War era, the Socialist Party USA of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas split in two over the issue of whether or not to criticize the Soviet Union, its allies, and Communism: One faction rejected and denounced the USSR and its allies—including Castro's Cuba, the Sandinistas, North Vietnam and the Viet Cong—and supported Poland's Solidarity Movement, etc. This anti-Communist faction took the name Social Democrats USA. (Many of its leaders—including Carl Gershman, who became Jeane Kirkpatrick's counselor of embassy at the United Nations—eventually grew more conservative and became Reagan Democrats.) The other faction, however, refused to reject Marxism, refused to criticize or denounce the USSR and its allies, and continued to support Soviet-backed policies—including the nuclear-freeze program that sought to consolidate Soviet nuclear superiority in Europe. This faction, whose leading figure was Michael Harrington, in 1973 took the name Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC); its membership included many former Students for a Democratic Society activists.
DSOC operated not as a separate political party but as an explicitly socialist force within the Democratic Party and the labor movement. As such, it attracted many young activists who sought to push the Democratic Party further leftward politically. Among the notables who joined DSOC were Machinists' Union leader William Winpisinger, feminist Gloria Steinem, gay rights activist Harry Britt, actor Ed Asner, and California Congressman (and avowed socialist) Ron Dellums.
By 1979 DSOC had made major inroads into the Democratic Party and claimed a national membership of some 3,000 people. In 1983 DSOC, under Michael Harrington's leadership, merged with the New American Movement to form the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).
Harrington’s strategy was to force a “realignment” of the two major political parties by pulling the Democrats emphatically to the left and polarizing the parties along class lines. He expected that this would drive business interests away from the Democrats and into the Republican Party, but that those losses would be more than offset by an influx of newly energized minority and union voters to the Democratic Party, and that over time the Democrats would embrace socialism as their preferred ideology.[1] Thus Harrington sought to establish DSA as a force that worked within, and not outside of, the existing American political system. Following Harrington's lead, most DSAers were committed to electoral politics within the Democratic Party.[2] They feared that if they were to openly move too far and too quickly to the left, they would run the risk of alienating moderate Democrats and thereby ensuring Ronald Reagan's reelection in 1984.[3]
Early in DSA's history, political organizer Harry Boyte, convinced that even Michael Harrington’s non-revolutionary form of socialism would be rejected by most Americans, formed a “communitarian caucus” within DSA. As author Stanley Kurtz explains:
“The communitarians wanted to use the language and ethos of traditional American communities—including religious language—to promote a 'populist' version of socialism. Portraying heartless corporations as enemies of traditional communities, thought Boyte, was the only way to build a quasi-socialist mass movement in the United States. Socialists could quietly help direct such a movement, Boyte believed, but openly highlighting socialist ideology would only drive converts away. In effect, Boyte was calling on DSA to drop its public professions of socialism and start referring to itself as 'communitarian' instead.”[4]
But DSA rejected this approach, worried that if it failed to publicly articulate its socialist ideals, genuine socialism itself would eventually wither and die. Boyte’s opponents stated: “We can call ourselves ‘communitarians,’ but the word will get out. Better to be out of the closet; humble, yet proud.”[5]
DSA helped establish the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) in 1991 and continues to work closely with the latter to this day. Virtually every CPC member also belongs to DSA.
In 1998, WorldNetDaily (WND) published a two-part series of articles titled “Congress’ Red Army Caucus” (here and here), which exposed the close association between DSA and CPC. At that time, DSA hosted the CPC website. Shortly after the WND revelations, CPC established its own website under the auspices of Congress. Meanwhile, DSA scrubbed its own website to remove evidence of its ties to CPC. Among the items removed from the site were the lyrics to such songs as the following:
* “The Internationale,” the worldwide anthem of Communism and socialismIn 2000, DSA endorsed Pay Equity Now!—a petition jointly issued in 2000 by the National Organization for Women, the Philadelphia Coalition of Labor Union Women, and the International Wages for Housework Campaign. Together these organizations charged that “the U.S. government opposes pay equity—equal pay for work of equal value—in national policy and international agreements”; that “women are often segregated in caring and service work for low pay, much like the housework they are expected to do for no pay at home”; and that “underpaying women is a massive subsidy to employers that is both sexist and racist.”
* “Red Revolution,” sung to the tune of “Red Robin” (This song includes such lyrics as: “When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there’ll be no more lootin’ when we start shootin’ that Wall Street throng.…”)
* “Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?” (The lyrics of this song include: “Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, We’ll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie.”)
In 2001, DSA characterized the 9/11 terror attacks as acts of retaliation for transgressions and injustices that America had previously perpetrated across the globe. “We live in a world,” said DSA, “organized so that the greatest benefits go to a small fraction of the world’s population while the vast majority experiences injustice, poverty, and often hopelessness. Only by eliminating the political, social, and economic conditions that lead people to these small extremist groups can we be truly secure.”
Strongly opposed to the U.S. war on terror and America's post-9/11 military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, DSA is a member organization of the United For Peace and Justice anti-war coalition.
DSA was a Co-sponsoring Organization of the April 25, 2004 “March for Women’s Lives” held in Washington, D.C., a rally that drew more than a million demonstrators advocating for the right to unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.
In 2007, DSA National Political Committee member David Green expressed support for the Employee Free Choice Act as a measure that could “limit the capitalist class’s prerogatives in the workplace”; “minimize the degree of exploitation of workers by capitalists”; and “provid[e] an excellent organizing tool (i.e., tactic) through which we can pursue our socialist strategy while simultaneously engaging the broader electorate on an issue of economic populism.”
In 2008, most DSA members actively supported Barack Obama for U.S. President. Saidthe organization: “DSA believes that the possible election of Senator Obama to the presidency in November represents a potential opening for social and labor movements to generate the critical political momentum necessary to implement a progressive political agenda.”
In October 2009, the Socialist Party of America announced that at least 70 Congressional Democrats were members of its Caucus at that time—i.e., members of DSA. Most of those individuals belonged to the Congressional Progressive Caucus and/or the Congressional Black Caucus. To view a list of their names, click here.
In the fall of 2011, DSA was a strong backer of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Said DSA:
"The Occupy Wall Street protests have invigorated the American Left in a way not seen in decades … So we have urged our members to take an active, supportive role in their local occupations, something many DSAers had already begun doing as individuals, because they believe that everyday people, the 99%, shouldn’t be made to pay for a crisis set off by an out-of-control financial sector and the ethically compromised politicians who have failed to rein it in."On October 8, 2011, DSA co-sponsored a Midwest Regional March for Peace and Justice, a protest demonstration commemorating the tenth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Click here for a list of additional co-sponsors.
DSA members today seek to build “progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics.” “We are socialists," reads the organization's boilerplate, "because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.” "To achieve a more just society," adds DSA, “many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed.” A major hallmark of such transformation would be an “equitable distribution of resources.”
DSA summarizes its philosophy as follows: "Today … [r]esources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them. Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives."
True to its roots, DSA seeks to increase its political influence not by establishing its own political party but rather by working closely with the Democratic Party to promote leftist agendas. "Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party," says DSA. "We work with those movements to strengthen the party’s left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.... Maybe sometime in the future ... an alternative national party will be viable. For now, we will continue to support progressives who have a real chance at winning elections, which usually means left-wing Democrats."
In a document titled “Where We Stand,” DSA outlines in detail its political perspectives. Key excerpts from this document include the following:
“Nearly three decades after the 'War on Poverty' was declared and then quickly abandoned, one-fifth of our society subsists in poverty, living in substandard housing, attending underfunded, overcrowded schools, and receiving inadequate health care.”
“In the global capitalist economy, these injustices are magnified a thousand fold. The poorest third of humanity earns two percent of the world's income, while the richest fifth receives two-thirds of global income.”
“We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.”
“We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.”
“A democratic socialist politics for the 21st century must promote an international solidarity dedicated to raising living standards across the globe, rather than 'leveling down' in the name of maximizing profits and economic efficiency.”
“Equality, solidarity, and democracy can only be achieved through international political and social cooperation aimed at ensuring that economic institutions benefit all people.”
“Democratic socialists are dedicated to building truly international social movements—of unionists, environmentalists, feminists, and people of color—that together can elevate global justice over brutalizing global competition.”
“To be genuinely multiracial, a socialist movement must respect the particular goals of African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and other communities of color. It must place a high priority on economic justice to eradicate the sources of inequality; on affirmative action and other compensatory programs to overcome ongoing discrimination and the legacy of inequality; and on social justice to change the behavior, attitudes, and ideas that foster racism.”
“Free markets or private charity cannot provide adequate public goods and services.”
“The capitalist market economy not only suppresses global living standards, but also means chronic underfunding of socially necessary public goods,from research and development to preventive health care and job training.”
“U.S. dominance of the global economy is buttressed by its political power and military might. Indeed, the United States is engaged in a long-term policy of imperial overreach in a period in which global instability will probably increase.”
“Fifty years of world leadership have taken their toll on the U.S. The links among heavy military spending, fiscal imbalance, and a weakening economy are too clear to ignore. Domestically, the United States faces social and structural economic problems of a magnitude unknown to other advanced capitalist states. The resources needed to sustain U.S. dominance are a drain on the national economy, particularly the most neglected and underdeveloped sectors. Nowhere is a struggle against militarism more pressing than in the United States, where the military budget bleeds the public sector of much needed funds for social programs.”
“As inequalities of wealth and income increase and the wages and living standards of most are either stagnant or falling, social needs expand. Only a revitalized public sector can universally and democratically meet those needs.”
“Social redistribution—the shift of wealth and resources from the rich to the rest of society—will require: massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor and the public sector, in order to provide the main source of new funds for social programs, income maintenance and infrastructure rehabilitation, and a massive shift of public resources from the military (the main user of existing discretionary funds) to civilian uses.”
“Over time, income redistribution and social programs will be critical not only to the poor but to the great majority of working people. The defense and expansion of government programs that promote social justice, equal education for all children, universal health care, environmental protection and guaranteed minimum income and social well-being is critical for the next Left.”
“The fundamental task of democratic socialists is to build anti-corporate social movements capable of winning reforms that empower people. Since such social movements seek to influence state policy, they will intervene in electoral politics, whether through Democratic primaries, non-partisan local elections, or third party efforts.”
“Electoral tactics are only a means for democratic socialists; the building of a powerful anti-corporate coalition is the end.”
Snowflakes ❄️ be everywhere pic.twitter.com/PusRuYdP0f
— Kaya Jones (@KayaJones) June 24, 2018
🇺🇸 #America pic.twitter.com/KRBCl9X5QZ
— Kaya Jones (@KayaJones) June 24, 2018
She’s a badass crazy, who tells the truth and has a good heart, soft but strong and knows her own worth. Unapologetic and honest. She’s the type of woman you go to war beside - not against. pic.twitter.com/0SfU9LZn6p
— Kaya Jones (@KayaJones) June 24, 2018
Golden 🔥 hour 🔥 desert 🌵 pic.twitter.com/NnQbM1eWIl
— Kaya Jones (@KayaJones) June 25, 2018
Shooting a beauty right here #Remington #1911 photo cred to my bestie @vegasgungirl we had a blast today 😊✔️🌵🔥🔫💥💥💥💥💥 pic.twitter.com/vUwoIvy73w
— Kaya Jones (@KayaJones) June 25, 2018
Flamming 🔥 Dragon 🐉 pic.twitter.com/LksMAyZnN1
— Kaya Jones (@KayaJones) June 25, 2018
— Kaya Jones (@KayaJones) June 25, 2018
🌺🦋I hope you find someone who speaks your language so you don’t have to spend a lifetime translating your spirit ♥️ pic.twitter.com/ofRIIiaMAN
— Kaya Jones (@KayaJones) June 28, 2018
Socialist Darling Caught Celebrating, Campaigning With Known Anti-Semite And Racist https://t.co/nB3lS47qRS pic.twitter.com/KfR0BYShOV— The Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 27, 2018
Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stunned the political world and rank-in-file Democrats by defeating incumbent Joe Crowley in Tuesday’s New York primary. The Ocasio-Cortez win signaled the growing swing leftward for national Democrats, a party undergoing a power struggle and identity crisis after Trump’s election victory in 2016. The platform Ocasio-Cortez ran on was deeply progressive, calling on the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, nationalized health care, universal jobs guarantee and getting America to 100 percent green energy.More.
However, footage reveals that Ocasio-Cortez also has associates with regressive views.
One of Ocasio-Cortez’s most enthusiastic campaigners and a man who stood behind her at her victory party, Thomas Lopez-Pierre, is a known anti-Semite and racist. Lopez-Pierre has regularly used slurs against Jewish and black New Yorkers in public forums and while running for office himself.
While running for office in 2017, Lopez-Pierre specifically campaigned on “protecting tenants from greedy Jewish landlords.” Lopez-Pierre’s own campaign website shows his rantings agains “Greedy Jewish Landlords.” His campaign website applauds the arrest of “Greedy Jewish Landlords” and says that “Jewish Landlords” are “punishing” black and Hispanic families...
Again. As hysterical #NeverTrumper Jewish commentators attack the most pro-Israel president in history, their new party elects another Hamas supporter.— Caroline Glick (@CarolineGlick) June 27, 2018
I dare you to attack this bigot and
her Jew hating voters on MSNBC. https://t.co/i1fveOl9GT
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 28-year-old democratic socialist who became an instant Democratic Party heroine by unseating party caucus chair Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) in Tuesday’s New York primary, is an anti-Israel radical.Click the link to see anti-Israel tweets from Ocasio Cortez. Pollak continues:
Her victory is a further sign of the Democratic Party’s slide toward the extreme left — and toward the anti-Israel left in particular.
During her primary election, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted passionately about an alleged Israeli “massacre” of Palestinian “protesters” at the Gaza border, citing an Al Jazeera article.
The Jewish radicals of J Street will, no doubt, be thrilled to have another member of Congress who supports Hamas over Israel, and will rush to her defense. But for the few Democrats who still support Israel, her victory is worrying.Now, check out Pamela Geller, "New York's New Socialist Candidate, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Tweets: Israel Guilty of 'Massacre' of 'Palestinians'":
Ocasio-Cortez’s anti-Israel views are of a piece with her radical policies in general — such as government health care for all, free college tuition, guaranteed federal jobs, and abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). (At least she is consistent: she does not believe in a border fence with Gaza or a border wall with Mexico.) Her campaign even adopted the zombie-like “mic check” first seen at radical Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011.
Ocasio-Cortez’s anti-Israel views, like her other socialist policies, are ill-informed and would have devastating consequences if enacted. She is not stupid: far from it, the Boston University graduate is whip-smart. But like other far-left millennials, she has mastered the finer details of a fictional universe.
These are positions she will not easily walk back. Her victory has thrilled the Democratic base, but it spells trouble for the party, and for the country.
And at the Forward, "What It Means For Israel If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Democrats’ Future":New York’s New Socialist Candidate, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Tweets: Israel Guilty of ‘Massacre’ of ‘Palestinians’: New York's new socialist candidate for Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, just sent out a tweet that condemned Israel for its supposed… https://t.co/EfEAVUXNY4— Pamela Geller (@PamelaGeller) June 29, 2018
What It Means For Israel If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Democrats’ Future https://t.co/JmVofz5NYm— The Forward (@jdforward) June 27, 2018
Prominent progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders and activist Linda Sarsour are vying with each other to laud Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who notched a David-and-Goliath upset victory over 10-term Rep. Joe Crowley in Tuesday’s Democratic primary in New York.More.
Her victory — with 57% of the vote — raises larger questions about the party’s direction, including whether she won despite or because of her stinging comments about Israel on the campaign trail. Could her upset win be another sign that Democratic voters want the party to be more critical of the Jewish state?
“We’re seeing a pattern where the activist core of the Democratic Party is becoming highly critical of Israel almost as a default position,” Brooklyn College history professor KC Johnson, who has written about this shift, told the Forward on Wednesday.
Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign in a fast-changing Queens district was almost solely focused on domestic causes like “Medicare-for-All” and abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Her campaign website doesn’t mention anything about foreign affairs on its issues page.
But she did attract attention in May for calling the Israeli army’s killing of Palestinian protesters in Gaza a “massacre.”
Progressive Democrat who upset NY incumbent accused Israel of ‘massacre’ in Gaza https://t.co/kCPrgpCk7t pic.twitter.com/2ye5WfDWYh— The Times of Israel (@TimesofIsrael) June 27, 2018
Pro-Palestinian Bernie Sanders protege wins upset in NYC primary race https://t.co/VzImPGAk14 pic.twitter.com/0IN2R3oexW— JPost Politics (@jpost_politics) June 27, 2018
Democratic Socialist Who Upset NY Rep. Joe Crowley Said Israel Committed a ‘Massacre’ in Gaza https://t.co/3ySdgSq249 via @Algemeiner pic.twitter.com/CiVp3OzDxd— Israel News Links (@IsraelNewsLinks) June 28, 2018
The democratic party is a big tent. the powers that be need to decide who will be at the helm in 2020. For those of us who don't want a second trump term, lets hope its the centrists https://t.co/X70XB5CCPj
— Daniella Greenbaum (@DGreenbaum) June 27, 2018
The Republican Party had a big tent. Then, in 2016, its fringe elements elected Donald Trump, leaving moderates politically homeless and Democrats both politically and emotionally disturbed.
If Democrats put the right candidate forward, they can, in one political moment, reclaim the presidency and begin the process of healing the nation — and its parties. But for that to happen, Democrats needs to come to terms with the split that's happening in their own big tent.
The news this week highlighted two very different kind of Democrats. Earlier in the week came the familiar rumors and rumblings that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is planning to run for president in 2020. (Bloomberg is a political independent at the moment, but reports have suggested he would run this time as a Democrat.)
We've heard this before. But the question of whether the 76-year-old will actually run this time around is far less important than the question of what the Democrats would do if he — or someone like him — does.
The answer to that question, of course, is that there is no "the Democrats" right now. There is the party's left fringe, and then its more centrist counterpart. On Tuesday, 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dethroned Rep. Joseph Crowley, a powerful Democrat who had been a 10-term incumbent....
This election cycle will prove to be a season of choosing for the Democratic Party. There will be consequences either way. But when it comes to retaking the presidency, Democrats should focus on presenting a candidate who can appeal to people beyond the left-most fringe of their progressive wing...
