Fight back against ICE detention camps

Indivisibles,

Tomorrow, [Saturday, April 25], Indivisibles across the country are joining our partners at Detention Watch Network to demand an end to ICE detention warehouses. We’re showing up for peaceful protests, rallies, and vigils outside detention facilities, on street corners, and in front of city halls and courthouses in hundreds of communities.

For months, the Trump regime has been quietly expanding their detention capacity by converting warehouses into detention camps. This is a key part of their plan to deport more than one million people every year. In the process, immigrants will be separated from their families and lawyers, kept in horrific, inhumane conditions, and face increased likelihood of abuse and death.

The detention camps are moral abominations -- but they’re not inevitable. Local organizers have already prevented thirteen of these warehouses from being converted into detention camps and with your help we can prevent even more. 

We all have a role to play in the fight to end the warehousing of human beings and the criminalization of immigration. You can get started by joining the Communities Not Cages National Day of Action.

There are hundreds of events tomorrow, and no matter where you live, there’s an action you can take to fight back against ICE detention camps: 

1️⃣ Join a Communities Not Cages event near you. Stand in solidarity with immigrant communities, connect with local groups and activists leading this fight, and call on your local officials to use every tool to oppose the camps. 

2️⃣ Demand action from Congress. Email your Members of Congress and tell them to publicly oppose any new warehouses or detention centers and block any federal funding that would be used to build, renovate, or operate these facilities.

3️⃣ Check out our resource page for more ways to get involved. From Know Your Rights guides and recorded trainings to toolkits and an ICE warehouse tracker created by our partners, this page has everything you need to join the fight against Trump’s ICE detention camps. 

We hope you’ll join us tomorrow and stand in solidarity with immigrant communities across the country, and after the national day of action we’ll be in touch with more ways to continue organizing against the regime’s detention camps.

In solidarity,
Indivisible Team

A core principle behind all Indivisible events is a commitment to nonviolent action. We expect all participants to seek to de-escalate any potential confrontation with those who disagree with our values and to act lawfully at these events. No weapons are permitted under any circumstances.

 

Affirmations of Secular Humanism

     

We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.

We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.

We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.

We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.

We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.

We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.

We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed healthcare, and to die with dignity.

We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.

We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek and explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

A Statement of Principles by Paul Kurtz

 

The NFL Is “Socialist” on Purpose, and It Exposes Republican Economic Stupidity

 

NFL Super Bowl game was great. The guys wearing blue beat the guys wearing red, and Bad Bunny and Lady Gaga made MAGA snowflakes cry.

But the NFL can also teach Americans a huge lesson about economics, “socialism,” and the differences between Republican “free market” nuts and FDR’s re-regulation of the American economy that created the largest middle class in history and the first in the world to include more than half of a nation’s citizens.

Most Americans would be highly offended, for example, if the NFL took big bucks from Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg or somebody like these monopolists to change the rules so whichever team gave the League the most money could have an extra three players on the field at all times. 

But that’s pretty much exactly what Reaganomics and deregulation have brought us in our marketplaces; it’s the staggering difficulty that every small business in America faces today in the form of massive corporations like Walmart, Facebook, X, Google, and Amazon.

For capitalism to work in a way that doesn’t produce oligarchs and monopolies, it must be regulated. Capitalism, after all, is just a game that people play using money and mutually agreed-upon rules. Just like football.

The NFL heavily regulates football in the United States, at least the football played by its teams. Those regulations include how many players are on the field at any time, exactly what constitutes a down or a touchdown, and rules about how players may physically contact each other, and under what circumstances.

The NFL’s super-socialist regulations also decide which team gets first pick of new players: they decided that the worst-performing teams should have first choice of newly available players, giving every team an opportunity to rise through the ranks in the following season.

It’s much like progressive income taxation and the estate tax, giving the little guy a chance while slightly restraining those already at the top. These regulations guarantee the safety and stability of the game itself, and guarantee that fans of football have a consistent experience, because everybody understands and follows the rules.

That’s not meritocracy; it’s planned redistribution of future resources to maintain league balance. If American public policy worked this way, the millionaire opinion bots at billionaire-owned Fox “News” would spontaneously combust.

The league also pools its television and licensing revenue and divides it equally among all teams: No owner gets richer just because they’re in a bigger market. In a pure “free market,” the Cowboys and Giants would drown everyone else in cash. The NFL says, “Nope, everybody eats.” That’s redistribution by design.

And they impose a hard salary cap so rich owners can’t simply buy championships, and they require owners to spend what is effectively a minimum wage on players rather than hoarding profits. Teams that overspend are punished: that’s collective control of capital to prevent oligarchy, the exact thing conservatives scream about.

NFL teams are also required to spend a minimum percentage of shared revenue on their players. Owners can’t just hoard money; they must reinvest in labor. That’s closer to social democracy than laissez-faire capitalism.

The NFL figured out something America forgot after Reagan: markets only work when rules prevent the powerful from rigging the game.

In other words, the NFL is a regulated market with enforced rules that prevent monopolies, protect labor, and preserve competition. And because of that, small-market teams can win, dynasties don’t last forever, and fans get a fair game. If the American economy were run more like the NFL, we’d have fewer oligarchs, more competition, and a much healthier middle class.

But imagine if Milton Friedman, Robert Bork, or the other idiots like them who first advised the Reagan administration and now have guided Republicans ever since were to have taken over the NFL.

The teams with the wealthiest owners would always get the best players and thus would win every game. They might even decide that the team that gave the NFL the most money could have an extra player or three on the field at various times.

They’d assure us that the teams that didn’t perform as well just have to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” Perhaps their problem is just that their players are “lazy,” these people would tell us, and the solution is to cut their salaries and reduce the amount of protective equipment they can wear so that they will have a “incentive” to play harder and increase their performance.

Then the richest teams would begin buying the poorer teams, until all the teams are owned by three or four billionaires. Sounds like every industry in today’s America. But conservatives would try to convince you it would create a football paradise, right?

Of course it wouldn’t be a paradise: Fans would stop watching, kids would stop dreaming of playing, and the game itself would collapse under the weight of rigging and unfairness. Not to mention that if the socialist NFL ever actually tried some crazy “free market” stupidity like that, Congress would be holding hearings within a week, and the public outrage would be deafening.

But when the same thing happens in our economy, we’re told by Republicans that it’s just “the free market.” We’re told that “monopolies are natural,” that “billionaires are geniuses,” and that working people who can’t get ahead in a rigged system somehow “deserve their fate.”

We’re told by these fools that any attempt to re-write the rules so the American economy is fair again and our middle class can recover from the massive $50+ trillion hit it’s taken from 45 years of Reaganomics is “socialism,” even though FDR’s system is exactly how every successful capitalist system in history has worked.

Franklin Roosevelt understood this. He knew markets don’t self-police any more than football does. Without referees, rules, and consequences, the biggest and most ruthless players take over, the game stops being a game, and democracy itself is put at risk. And when the morbidly rich write the rules, they inevitably only benefit themselves; everybody else gets screwed.

The NFL doesn’t regulate football because it hates competition: it regulates football and “redistributes” wealth and opportunity so competition can exist at all. America once did the same thing with capitalism, and the result was the greatest middle class the world had ever seen.

Two-thirds of us were in the middle class when Reagan came into office and could get there with a single paycheck thanks to FDR‘s and LBJ‘s “socialist” New Deal and Great Society policies. Today it’s only roughly 45% of us and requires two paychecks. All because of 45 years of Reaganomics.

The choice in front of us is simple. We can keep pretending that letting billionaires write the political and economic rules and own the media is “freedom,” or we can remember that a fair game is what freedom looks like. Because when the rules only work for the owners, the rest of us aren’t players anymore. We’re just there to watch, pay, and lose what little we have so the billionaires can buy another super-yacht.

-Thom Hartmann

Make Your Voice Heard

 

President Obama's and Mrs. Obama's Statement on the Murder of Alex Pretti

JANUARY 25, 2026

The killing of Alex Pretti is a heartbreaking tragedy. It should also be a wake-up call to every American, regardless of party, that many of our core values as a nation are increasingly under assault.

Federal law enforcement and immigration agents have a tough job. But Americans expect them to carry out their duties in a lawful, accountable way, and to work with, rather than against, state and local officials to ensure public safety. That's not what we're seeing in Minnesota. In fact, we're seeing the opposite.

For weeks now, people across the country have been rightly outraged by the spectacle of masked ICE recruits and other federal agents acting with impunity and engaging in tactics that seem designed to intimidate, harass, provoke and endanger the residents of a major American city. 

These unprecedented tactics—which even the former top lawyer of the Department of Homeland Security in the first Trump administration has characterized as embarrassing, lawless and cruel—have now resulted in the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens. 

And yet rather than trying to impose some semblance of discipline and accountability over the agents they've deployed, the President and current administration officials seem eager to escalate the situation, while offering public explanations for the shootings of Mr. Pretti and Renee Good that aren't informed by any serious investigation—and that appear to be directly contradicted by video evidence.

This has to stop. I would hope that after this most recent tragedy, administration officials will reconsider their approach and start finding ways to work constructively with Governor Walz and Mayor Frey as well as state and local police to avert more chaos and achieve legitimate law enforcement goals.

In the meantime, every American should support and draw inspiration from the wave of peaceful protests in Minneapolis and other parts of the country. They are a timely reminder that ultimately it's up to each of us as citizens to speak out against injustice, protect our basic freedoms, and hold our government accountable.

In Solidarity

 

Since we sent the below email yesterday, federal agents have killed another person in Minneapolis. The video of them tackling 37-year-old nurse Alex Pretti to the ground before opening fire is absolutely horrific. Everything about ICE and Border Patrol’s brutal invasion of our communities is horrific.  It is increasingly clear that stripping the Department of Homeland Security down to the studs -- ICE, Border Patrol, all of it -- is the minimum we must do when we regain power. But we can’t afford to wait that long to rein in these agencies. Senators have a choice next week to vote for a DHS funding bill that gives ICE and Border Patrol more money to brutalize our neighbors or to say ENOUGH. We must demand our senators -- especially our Democratic senators -- refuse to give ICE and Border Patrol one more penny of taxpayer money or vote for any funding bill that doesn’t get these thugs the &$*# out of our cities.  Since senate offices are closed today, we’re asking you to email your senators and demand they use their vote this week to rein in ICE and CBP death squads. Then make a call. If your senators’ voicemails are full, call back on Monday. We can’t go on like this. It’s time for our leaders to step up and protect their constituents. And if they won’t, we’re going to elect new leaders.  In mourning and solidarity,  Indivisible Team ---- ORIGINAL MESSAGE ---- ICE is terrorizing our communities, violating our constitutional rights, and killing innocent people -- and the House just voted to give them more money. Yesterday, the House passed a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including hundreds of millions of dollars in additional funding for ICE. That increase comes with no meaningful restrictions or accountability measures to rein in ICE and Border Patrol. We’re demanding Congress use the appropriations process to end ICE and Border Patrol’s lawlessness. This bill doesn’t just fall short -- it increases the funding for their brutality. But this fight isn’t over.  The Senate will vote on the DHS appropriations bill next week -- and it cannot pass without Democratic votes. If you’re ready to take action, call your senators and demand they vote no on increased funding for ICE and Border Patrol. Call Your Senators >>   Everything wrong with the DHS funding bill ❌ The bill increases funding for ICE. If this bill passes, ICE will receive $400 million more for detention and $370 million more for its enforcement budget compared to last year. That’s on top of the $170 billion allocated by Trump’s Big Ugly Bill for his mass deportation machine. ICE is using taxpayer dollars to kill people, invade homes without warrants, and threaten peaceful protestors. The last thing we should be doing is giving them more money to enable their cruelty.  ❌ The reforms included in the bill are completely inadequate. The bill allocates funding for body cameras, officer training, and the DHS Inspector General’s Office, but these measures fall far short of what we need to actually protect our communities. We’ve already seen what ICE thugs are willing to do on camera -- one filmed the killing of Renee Good on his own cellphone. And there’s no reason to think that giving the Trump regime more money to investigate itself will stop the violence unfolding in our streets.  ❌ Actual restrictions on ICE were left out. Congress can end Border Patrol deployments to our cities; restrict ICE and Border Patrol’s dragnet operations, racial profiling, and mass surveillance; and prevent these agencies from stealing funds from other programs to run their mass deportation machine. All of these provisions would have real impact on the ground, but none of them were included in this bill.  There’s still time to act The DHS funding bill will move to the Senate where we expect a vote next week. Reminder: the bill needs 60 votes to pass, which means Democrats have real leverage here. But they won’t use it unless we force them to.  Atrociously, 7 House Democrats already voted yes on this bill (list here), and Chuck Schumer is not publicly whipping Senate Democrats to unify in opposition. With a vote on this bill coming next week, we need to act fast and be loud:  1️⃣ Call your senators today and demand they vote no on the DHS funding bill. After you call, share our script with your family and friends and encourage them to call too.  2️⃣ Email your senators in opposition to more ICE funding. Calls are more effective than emails, but if you are unable to call or want to call and email, we make it easy to reach your senators instantly.  In solidarity, Indivisible Team

Trump's Raging War Against Quality Education for Everyone

 

“Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.” Those are the opening words in the Education Chapter of Project 2025. In other words, there is no reason for anyone to be surprised that Donald Trump signed a proclamation shutting down the Department of Education and returning control to the states today.

Trump deceitfully distanced himself from Project 2025 after public discussion about it led to an uproar, but for anyone who was paying attention, and we were here, it was clear that the project was an effort to prepare for the coming Trump administration if it materialized.

Dismantling the Department of Education has been a longtime priority for Republicans. Trump simply adopted it, melding it with two of the key prongs of his current onslaught against government: it is wasteful, and it perpetuates liberal ideology.

The problem is, Congress established the Department of Education in 1979, and they, not the president, hold sway over its continued existence. It remains to be seen just how much force Trump’s direction to Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure (of) the Department of Education and return education authority to the States, while continuing to ensure the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely” will carry.

Trump called his executive order the “first step” to dismantling the department. McMahon has already cut the department’s workforce in half. And there has been $900 million in cuts after DOGE found there was “no need for much of its work.” It’s hard to view this as anything other than antagonism toward the notion of equality, education that is for all kids no matter who they are or where they come from.

In Trump’s America, quality education will be the prerogative of people who are wealthy, people who are white, people who are neurotypical. If your kid needs service for English as a second language or special education, you’re going to be out of luck if the administration gets its way. The Department of Education is responsible for the distribution of federal funding for schools, including two major programs: Title I, which provides funding for low-income students, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, designed to help students with disabilities.

In February 2023, Alabama Rep. Barry Moore introduced H.R. 938, a bill “To abolish the Department of Education and to provide funding directly to States for elementary and secondary education, and for other purposes.” Sixty Republicans joined Democrats in putting a stop to it. It wasn’t a one-off. Congressional Republicans have continued to offer similar bills, but without success. Hence Trump’s decision to attempt to kill off the department with a questionable executive order.

This is actually the second incarnation of the Department of Education, signed into law when Jimmy Carter was president. Adam Laats, a history professor at Binghamton University, explained to history.com, “You can’t overestimate how inflammatory it was for former Confederate leaders to have a federal Department of Education because they equated ‘federal’ with Reconstruction.” God forbid we should educate people. Especially BIPOC and other marginalized groups. They might learn to think for themselves instead of believing what people in power tell them.

That’s where we find ourselves tonight. “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” ― George Orwell

The department’s website, which as of tonight is still online, clarifies the mission:

"The U.S. Department of Education is the agency of the federal government that establishes policy for, administers and coordinates most federal assistance to education. It assists the president in executing his education policies for the nation and in implementing laws enacted by Congress. The Department's mission is to serve America's students-to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access."

That’s what we are losing. The states will take over education. Some will do a good job. Others not so much. And in some places, education will be privatized, with all the issues that implies. One thing that’s for certain, equal access to education will be a thing of the past, much of the progress of the last six decades wiped out.

In July of 2024, before it was clear that Kamala Harris would become the Democratic nominee, it was already clear that despite his denials, Trump was up to his eyeballs in Project 2025. I wrote about what that means. Today, it has all come true. It’s devastating. And it was predictable. Here’s an excerpt from that piece:

"Public education is important. Well-educated citizens are more employable and prepared to compete in the 21st Century economy. Education reduces crime. It improves public health and health equity. Education produces a more informed population, people able to think for themselves and their communities. As the saying goes, if you’re burning books because they contain some ideas you don’t like, you’re not afraid of books or courses—you’re afraid of ideas. That perfectly encapsulates the Project 2025 approach to education. The most important takeaway from the education chapter of Project 2025 is that the plan is to shut down the U.S. Department of Education. Donald Trump has been saying at recent rallies that it should be disbanded to 'move everything back to the states where it belongs.'"

While Trump lacks the ability to formally close the Department of Education, he can shrink it to the point of irrelevance and ask Congress to deliver the coup de grace. The 44 pages in the Education Chapter of Project 2025 contain precisely that suggestion. Dismantle the department into a hollow shell that does nothing more than gather statistics.

My conclusion tonight is the same as it was when I first wrote about Project 2025 and Trump’s plan for public education:

"Trump and the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 authors are afraid of an open marketplace of ideas where kids learn to think for themselves. Kids can learn about—and learn from—the history of slavery in this country. The idea that it must be suppressed because it might make white kids feel bad is ridiculous. The more we know of our history, events like the internment of Japanese Americans in camps during World War II, or the treatment of Irish, Italian, Jewish, and other immigrants as they came to country, the better we can become. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. That seems to be the plan here."

In the past, Congress has hesitated to choke off the Department of Education precisely because the public understands the good work it does on behalf of America’s children. My mom taught preschoolers from low income, predominately single-parent homes, in a school created by President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society program.

Great Society Programs were created to eradicate poverty and racial injustice with social welfare initiatives, including pre-k education. Her kids used to come back and visit her after they graduated from high school and college, and for my mom, their success was her greatest reward. Programs like hers and so many others mean more kids have access to education and the opportunity to succeed. That’s what Donald Trump is trying to kill off. Better lives, for real people.

This is a good moment to make sure your elected representatives understand your views. And thanks for being here at Civil Discourse. Your support and paid subscriptions make the newsletter possible.

We’re in this together,

Joyce Vance

 

"I'm a liberal, but that doesn't mean what a lot of you apparently think it does..."

 

Let's break it down, shall we? Because quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of being told what I believe and what I stand for. Spoiler alert: not every liberal is the same, though many liberals I know think along roughly these same lines:

1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. PERIOD.

2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that's interpreted as "I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all." This is not the case. I'm fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it's impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes "let people die because they can't afford healthcare" a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. And no, I'm not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen.

3. I believe education should be affordable. It doesn't necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I'm mystified as to why it can't work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt.

4. I don't believe your money should be taken from you and given to people who don't want to work. I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this. Ever. I just have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess most of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can't afford to go to the doctor. Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this. Somehow believing that makes me a communist.

5. I don't throw around "I'm willing to pay higher taxes" lightly. If I'm suggesting something that involves paying more, well, it's because I'm fine with paying my share as long as it's going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare.

6. I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage. Somehow this is always interpreted as me wanting burger flippers to be able to afford a penthouse apartment and a Mercedes. What it means is that no one should have to work three full-time jobs just to keep their head above water. Restaurant servers should not have to rely on tips, multibillion-dollar companies should not have employees on food stamps, workers shouldn't have to work themselves into the ground just to barely make ends meet, and minimum wage should be enough for someone to work 40 hours and live.

7. I am not anti-Christian. I have no desire to stop Christians from being Christians, to close churches, to ban the Bible, to forbid prayer in school, etc. (BTW, prayer in school is NOT illegal; *compulsory* prayer in school is - and should be - illegal). All I ask is that Christians recognize *my* right to live according to *my* beliefs. When I get pissed off that a politician is trying to legislate Scripture into law, I'm not "offended by Christianity" -- I'm offended that you're trying to force me to live by your religion's rules. You know how you get really upset at the thought of Muslims imposing Sharia law on you? That's how I feel about Christians trying to impose biblical law on me. Be a Christian. Do your thing. Just don't force it on me or mine.

8. I don't believe LGBT people should have more rights than you. I just believe they should have the *same* rights as you.

9. I don't believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet, especially since THIS ISN'T WHAT THEY DO (spoiler: undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all those programs they're supposed to be abusing, and if they're "stealing" your job it's because your employer is hiring illegally). I believe there are far more humane ways to handle undocumented immigration than our current practices (i.e., detaining children, splitting up families, ending DACA, etc.).

10. I don't believe the government should regulate everything, but since greed is such a driving force in our country, we NEED regulations to prevent cut corners, environmental destruction, tainted food/water, unsafe materials in consumable goods or medical equipment, etc. It's not that I want the government's hands in everything -- I just don't trust people trying to make money to ensure that their products/practices/etc. are SAFE. Is the government devoid of shadiness? Of course not. But with those regulations in place, consumers have recourse if they're harmed and companies are liable for medical bills, environmental cleanup, etc. Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation.

11. I believe our current administration is fascist. Not because I dislike them or because I can’t get over an election, but because I've spent too many years reading and learning about the Third Reich to miss the similarities. Not because any administration I dislike must be Nazis, but because things are mirroring authoritarian and fascist regimes of the past.

12. I believe the systemic racism and misogyny in our society is much worse than many people think, and desperately needs to be addressed. Which means those with privilege -- white, straight, male, economic, etc. -- need to start listening, even if you don't like what you're hearing, so we can start dismantling everything that's causing people to be marginalized.

13. I am not interested in coming after your blessed guns, nor is anyone serving in government. What I am interested in is the enforcement of present laws and enacting new, common sense gun regulations. Got another opinion? Put it on your page, not mine.

14. I believe in so-called political correctness. I prefer to think it’s social politeness. If I call you Chuck and you say you prefer to be called Charles, I’ll call you Charles. It’s the polite thing to do. Not because everyone is a delicate snowflake, but because as Maya Angelou put it, when we know better, we do better. When someone tells you that a term or phrase is more accurate/less hurtful than the one you're using, you now know better. So why not do better? How does it hurt you to NOT hurt another person?

15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs. There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil. Sorry, billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else.

16. I believe that women should not be treated as a separate class of human. They should be paid the same as men who do the same work, should have the same rights as men and should be free from abuse. Why on earth shouldn’t they be?

I think that about covers it. Bottom line is that I'm a liberal because I think we should take care of each other. That doesn't mean you should work 80 hours a week so your lazy neighbor can get all your money. It just means I don't believe there is any scenario in which preventable suffering is an acceptable outcome if money is saved.”

-Lori Gallagher Witt

What We Can Do about Authoritarianism

 

1. Protect the decent and hardworking members of your communities who are undocumented or whose parents are undocumented.

This is an urgent moral call to action. As Donald Trump’s Ice begins roundups and deportations, many good people are endangered and understandably frightened.

One of Trump’s new executive orders allows Ice to arrest undocumented immigrants at or near schools, places of worship, healthcare sites, shelters and relief centers – thereby deterring them from sending their kids to school or getting help they need.

If you trust your mayor or city manager, check in with their offices to see what they are doing to protect vulnerable families in your community. Join others in voluntary efforts to keep Ice away from schools, hospitals and shelters.

Organize and mobilize your community to support it as a sanctuary city, and to support your state as a sanctuary state. Trump’s justice department is already launching investigations of cities and states that go against federal immigration orders, laying the groundwork for legal challenges to local laws and forcing compliance with the executive branch. Your voice and organizing could be helpful in fighting back.

I recommend you order these red cards from Immigrant Legal Resource Center and make them available in and around your community: Red Cards / Tarjetas Rojas | Immigrant Legal Resource Center | ILRC. You might also find these of use: Immigration Preparedness Toolkit | Immigrant Legal Resource Center | ILRC.

2. Protect LGBTQ+ members of your community.

Trump may make life far more difficult for those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and of other expansive identities through executive orders, changes in laws, alterations in civil rights laws or changes in how such laws are enforced.

His election and his rhetoric might also unleash hatefulness by bigoted people in your community.

I urge you to work with others in being vigilant against prejudice and bigotry, wherever it might break out. When you see or hear it, call it out. Join with others to stop it. If you trust your local city officials, get them involved. If you trust your local police, alert them as well.

3. Help protect officials in your community or state whom Trump and his administration are targeting for vengeance.

Some may be low-level officials, such as election workers. If they do not have the means to legally defend themselves, you might help them or consider a GoFundMe campaign. If you hear of anyone who seeks to harm them, immediately alert law-enforcement officials.

4. Participate or organize boycotts of companies that are enabling the Trump regime, starting with Elon Musk’s X and Tesla, and any companies that advertise on X or on Fox News.

Don’t underestimate the effectiveness of consumer boycotts. Corporations invest heavily in their brand names and the goodwill associated with them. Loud, boisterous, attention-getting boycotts can harm brand names and reduce the prices of corporations’ shares of stock.

5. To the extent you are able, fund groups that are litigating against Trump.

Much of the action over the next months and years will be in the federal courts. The groups initiating legislation that I know and trust include the American Civil Liberties Union, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Environmental Defense Fund and Common Cause.

6. Spread the truth: [Talk to your neighbors about this situation. Write letters to your legislators. Create a blog and disseminate the truth.]

Get news through reliable sources, and spread it. If you hear anyone spreading lies and Trump propaganda, including local media, contradict them with facts and their sources.

Here are some of the sources I currently rely on for the truth: the Guardian, Democracy Now, Business Insider, the New Yorker, the American Prospect, Americans for Tax Fairness, the Economic Policy Institute, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, ProPublica, Labor Notes, the Lever, Popular Information, Heather Cox Richardson and, of course, my Substack.

7. Urge friends, relatives and acquaintances to avoid Trump propaganda outlets such as Fox News, Newsmax, X and, increasingly, Facebook and Instagram.

They are increasingly filled with hateful bigotry and toxic and dangerous lies. For some people, these propaganda sources can also be addictive; help the people you know wean themselves off them.

8. Push for progressive measures in your community and state.

Local and state governments have significant power. Join groups that are moving your city or state forward, in contrast to regressive moves at the federal level. Lobby, instigate, organize and fundraise for progressive legislators. Support progressive leaders.

9. Encourage worker action.

Most labor unions are on the right side – seeking to build worker power and resist repression. You can support them by joining picket lines and boycotts, and encouraging employees to organize in places you patronize.

10. Keep the faith. Do not give up on America.

Remember, Trump won the popular vote by only one and a half points. By any historical measure, this was a squeaker. In the House, the Republicans’ five-seat lead is the smallest since the Great Depression. In the Senate, Republicans lost half of 2024’s competitive Senate races, including in four states Trump won.

America has deep problems, to be sure. Which is why we can’t give up on it – or give up the fights for social justice, equal political rights, equal opportunity and the rule of law. The forces of Trumpian repression and neofascism would like nothing better than for us to give up. Then they’d win it all. But we cannot allow them to.

We will never give up.

What is giving me hope now.

Finding room in life for joy, fun and laughter. We cannot let Trump and his darkness take over. Just as it’s important not to give up the fight, it’s critically important to take care of ourselves. If we obsess about Trump and fall down the rabbit hole of outrage, worry and anxiety, we won’t be able to keep fighting.

-Robert Reich, The Guardian

 

Martin Luther King Jr.’s moral stance against the Vietnam War offers lessons on how to fight for peace in the Middle East

Since the onset of Israel’s deadly assault on Gaza and the West Bank after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack, debates have arisen among historians and media pundits about Martin Luther King Jr.’s stance on Israel and its conflicts with Palestinians.

Some claim King was a fierce Zionist and point to his speech on Mar. 25, 1968, before the annual convention of the Rabbinical Assembly.

“Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all of our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity,” King said. “I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land almost can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy.”

Others, like American-Israeli scholar Martin Kramer, have pointed to King’s views on Palestinian rights to their homeland. During a 1967 interview with ABC News, shortly after Israel launched the Six-Day War against Egypt, Syria and Jordan and seized control of land in Gaza and the West Bank, King said that Israel should return Palestinian lands.

“I think for the ultimate peace and security of the situation it will probably be necessary for Israel to give up this conquered territory, because to hold on to it will only exacerbate the tensions and deepen the bitterness of the Arabs,” he said.

As a scholar who researches social movements, racial politics and democracy, I believe there is a larger story beyond King’s stance on Israel and Palestinians. That story is on King’s views of war – and his courage to stand for peace.

This is the story of the anti-war King who understood that violence begets violence and that the political courage to speak for peace is essential to democracy.

Breaking his silence

For King, joining the peace movement was tantamount to walking a political tightrope. On one hand, the Civil Rights Movement had a great supporter in U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson, who signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

But LBJ was also at the heart of the escalation of the war in Vietnam, and many believed King’s anti war statements could and would be used against him.

The U.S. government’s hypocrisy in supporting the Vietnam War was not lost on King. In 1965, 61% of Americans supported U.S. military involvement.

At the same time, King was asking hard questions about Johnson’s wartime decision-making and unmet promises of social uplift through his Great Society programs. King wondered how a nation could drop tons of bombs and napalm on civilians in the name of peace and freedom while violently subjugating its own Black citizens.

How could a nation spend so much money on a war, King asked, when it could not feed or protect its own people?

“The promises of the Great Society have been shot down on the battlefield of Vietnam,” King said in a speech in Beverly Hills on Feb. 25, 1967. “Billions are liberally expended for this ill-considered war. … The security we profess to seek in foreign adventures we will lose in our decaying cities. The bombs in Vietnam explode at home. They destroy the hopes and possibilities for a decent America.”

The Johnson administration argued that military force was essential to protect South Vietnam from the encroachment of communism from the north. As Johnson saw it, North Vietnam and its National Liberation Front were a threat to democracy in Southeast Asia.

King’s advisers pleaded with him not to speak out and argued that the political costs would be too high. Most importantly, they reminded King that there was more than enough work to do in the U.S. to end poverty and secure equal rights for Black citizens.

But King ultimately broke with his advisers and President Johnson. By 1967, King followed the lead of his wife – and anti-war activist – Coretta Scott King and began speaking out.

In March 1967, King led his first anti-war march in Chicago. At the rally, he called on peace activists to organize “as effectively as the war hawks.”

A month later, on April 4, 1967, King gave the speech at the Riverside Church in New York City that changed the course of the last year of his life – “Beyond Vietnam − A Time to Break the Silence.” In that revolutionary speech, King described how he was morally compelled to speak out against the war.

In the days and weeks after, he would lose masses of supporters, Black and white alike. He lost hard-earned political allies, including President Johnson. King was also shunned and denounced by 168 newspapers that questioned King’s failure to condemn the enemy, fueling long-standing rumors about communist ties.

Saving the soul of America

King had no regrets. He understood the difficulty of speaking out against the war. “Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war,” he said.

For King, a preacher at heart, silence had become betrayal. Calling the U.S “the greatest purveyor of violence today,” King said the soul of America “can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over.” He warned that America had lost moral authority abroad and derided “the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long.”

King pointed to the role of the U.S. in prohibiting the realization of “a revolutionary government seeking self-determination” in Vietnam.

Most poignantly in that 1967 speech at Riverside Church, King detailed the devastating costs of the Vietnam War and described the millions of children and women who were killed by American bombs and bullets and the poor masses who were spared slaughter only to face a slow, painful death by disease and starvation.

Then King turned to the so-called “enemy,” the North Vietnamese. “Even if we do not condone their actions,” King said in the speech, “surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.” Then King called for a cease-fire.

The fight for justice and humanity

King’s words resonate today. Unlike in King’s time, 61% of potential voters support a permanent cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. Anti-war protests abound across the nation and around the world.

How can the U.S., as King would ask the nation, move forward from here?

In the 1960s, King grappled with this very question. On the one hand, he felt a deep solidarity with the Jewish struggle against persecution, and on the other hand, he rejected the violent occupation of Palestinian lands that would run counter to the noble cause.

He saw resolution through a commitment to breaking cycles of violence and practicing radical peace, “a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class, and nation.”

Nearly 60 years later, the fight for King’s “radical revolution of values,” where human life and dignity were the most valued, still rages. But as the life of King reminds us, speaking out for justice can be costly. Yet he would also say that the cost of remaining silent is far greater.    

-Hajar Yazdiha, Assistant Professor of Sociology, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Science

 The Conversation

 

Who Is Nobel Peace Prize Winner Narges Mohammadi?

 

The jailed Nobel laureate has been a prominent voice in Iran’s women’s movement.

When the chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced the winner of the peace prize, Narges Mohammadi, she recited a slogan associated with the women’s rights movement in Iran. “Women, life, freedom,” Berit Reiss-Andersen said on Friday.

Mohammadi is a prominent Iranian human rights activist and physicist who has been fighting against the oppression of women in Iran. Here is what we know about the Nobel Peace Prize winner:

Who is Narges Mohammadi? Mohammadi’s focus is on the fight for women’s rights in the region. The 51-year-old is also a writer and deputy director of the Defenders of Human Rights Center (DHRC). She also works on broader human rights issues, such as campaigning against the death penalty and corruption.

Is Mohammadi in jail? Mohammadi is currently serving a 12-year sentence in Evin Prison in Tehran for charges that include spreading propaganda against the state. This is not Mohammadi’s first sentence. She was first arrested in 2011 and held in Evin.

Mohammadi on Mahsa Amini: In September 2022, Mahsa Amini, 22, was arrested in Tehran by the morality police for alleged non-compliance with Iran’s dress code. She was taken to a re-education centre where she collapsed. She was then taken to a hospital where she died a few days later.

Her work with Shirin Ebadi: Mohammadi is the second Iranian woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize after Shirin Ebadi won the award in 2003 for her efforts to promote democracy and human rights.

“She has worked for human rights for everyone in Iran, so this is going to be a huge boost to the human rights defenders centre and one that is putting her work in Iran on the map,” Henrik Urdal, director of the Peace Research Institute, told Al Jazeera.

Why did she win the peace prize? Mohammadi won the prize “for her fight against the oppression of women in Iran and her fight to promote human rights and freedom for all”, according to the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

She has worked on Iranian women’s fight against oppression for the past 30 years. She has contributed to the grassroots movement in Iran by empowering women through education and advocacy. Her work has included organising protests and sit-ins and writing essays.

She was again arrested in 2015, days after she was charged in court with crimes against national security, propaganda against the state and forming an illegal group called Step by Step to Stop the Death Penalty, Mohammadi told the US-based International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran.

She was held in Zanjan Central Prison and released in 2020 after her sentence was reduced. “The regime has arrested her 13 times, convicted her five times and sentenced her to a total of 31 years in prison and 154 lashes,” Reiss-Andersen said at the announcement ceremony in Oslo, Norway.

Mohammadi said the day of Amini’s death has become a day that symbolises “the oppression of the theocratic authoritarian regime against Iranian women” in a message sent from prison, according to Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty.

After protests against Amini’s death broke out in Iran, Mohammadi has continued to report her experience of abuse as a woman in Evin Prison.

“What the government may not understand is that the more of us they lock up, the stronger we become,” she wrote for The New York Times.

Ebadi is an Iranian human rights activist and lawyer. In 1975, she was the first female judge to be appointed in the Iranian judiciary. She is also the first Muslim woman to win the Nobel prize. She has campaigned for the reform of Iran’s family law, including matters of divorce, inheritance and child protection.

Mohammadi has worked closely with Ebadi and is the deputy director of DHRC, which was founded by Ebadi.

Health and family: Mohammadi’s work has come at the cost of her health. She reportedly suffers from a lung condition and a neurological disorder that causes muscular paralysis. 

She has not been able to meet her husband and two children due to her imprisonment.

“This Nobel Prize will embolden Narges’s fight for human rights, but more importantly, this is in fact a prize for the women, life and freedom [movement],” said Mohammadi’s husband and activist Taghi Ramahi.

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES