Today, with the latest military attack, I feel overcome by grief and rage. So much of the world is dominated by autocrats heading up violent militaries, imperialist invaders seizing land, oilfields, water supply; militias hounding ethnic minorities, expelling people to concentration camps (whatever they call them); slaughtering at will, bombing apartment buildings and tents; destroying orchards and forests.

These men are in power by the rationales of patriarchy and racism, the supremacy of wealth, dominations upheld by oligarchic power, sold with nationalist and extremist religious myths. "I am your retribution." "Kill Amalek." "Restore the Caliphate." "Counterinsurgency." Greater Russia, Greater Israel, the Donroe Doctrine. Stoking fear and ethnic hatred to impose authoritarian force, and enact a surveillance society. Democracy in name only, authoritarian suppression of basic human rights.

Dominant men at the helm of a top dog social hierarchy, the wealthy few ruling over the many, but purporting to be for the people. Who are lured by the promise of Number One by proxy. Plenty bought into it; some are now seeing the real cost to their own families as the wealth is being looted. Under these regimes, though, you don't get to change your mind, or get a re-do. These top dogs do not hesitate to use force.

Institutionally, there has been little effective opposition, and too much compliance. In the US, Schumer and Jeffries slow-walked a bill affirming the power of Congress to declare war. Both parties enthusiastically funded and supplied the genocide in Gaza. Cheatocrat defies the Constitution and federal court orders with impunity, backed up by Rs in Congress, even some Ds. He is openly plotting to suborn the vote by multiple means, including disenfranchising married women who took husbands' names, and kneecapping vote-by-mail by allowing the Post Office not to postmark on time, or even to deliver mail. They're also floating forcing everyone to re-register, with notaries.

Misogyny and racism shape the agenda, along with naked greed and open self-dealing that no one seems able to stop. They've installed a new normal of wall-to-wall corruption and open repression of basic rights.

The main thing we have going for us is that people are standing up, like Minneapolis has done, LA and Portland. Several purchases of huge plants scheduled for ICE concentration camps have been shut down, and the same goes for water-and-power-sucking data centers.

People are already in the streets against the bombing of Iran—and it's not because they like the ayatollahs. Maybe 40,000 Iranians lost their lives in the streets, calling for their overthrow. An Iranian friend told me the other day, people there don't want the Pahlavi dynasty to return, but that's probably who Trump and Netanyahu want to install.

Everything is churning now. Best not to lose our heads. But I had to vent. Things could be so different on our beautiful planet, with thriving forests in the Amazon and orangutan habitat in Papua, boreal forests instead of tar sands desolation. With funding going to medical research, disabled support services, and child care instead of the gargantuan military industrial complex. These things can happen, but not while women's leadership and rights are scorned, and Indigenous rights are trampled.

Our challenge to build a just and cooperative society will have to start at the grassroots. It's not coming from the top.

 

It amazes me how quickly money appears when it’s for war, billionaires, or corporate bailouts.

But when it comes to healthcare for families, helping the homeless, feeding the poor, or taking care of people who are struggling… suddenly the money is gone.

The truth is, it’s not that the money isn’t there.

It’s that the priorities are wrong.

I hope more people are starting to see what’s happening.

 

This 1984 poster, titled “The Trickle-Down Theory,” emerged during the U.S. presidential campaign between incumbent President Ronald Reagan and Democratic challenger Walter Mondale. The image was created as political satire, criticizing Reagan’s economic agenda, which opponents often labeled “trickle-down economics.”

The phrase was commonly used by critics to describe the administration’s supply-side approach—cutting taxes, particularly for corporations and high-income earners, with the argument that the resulting economic growth would ultimately benefit people across all income levels.

Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which reduced individual income tax rates broadly and lowered the top marginal rate from 70 percent to 50 percent. Later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the top rate further to 28 percent.

Supporters of these policies argued they stimulated investment, strengthened business activity, and helped drive the economic expansion that followed the early-1980s recession. Critics, however, pointed to rising federal deficits and widening income inequality during the decade as evidence that the benefits were unevenly distributed.

The poster captures the political tensions of the era, reflecting the sharp national debate over whether prosperity generated at the top of the economy would meaningfully reach those at the bottom.

 

 

Joe Rogan EXPOSES Oprah’s Role In Epstein’s Baby Farm!

The recent release of Department of Justice files related to Jeffrey Epstein has done more than just provide data; it has shattered the fragile veneer of "coincidence" that elite circles have hidden behind for decades. As Joe Rogan recently pointed out, the presence of names like Oprah Winfrey in these documents doesn't necessarily dictate a crime, but it exposes a deep-seated rot in how power is brokered. In the upper echelons of Hollywood and global politics, status is the ultimate currency, and for Jeffrey Epstein, celebrities were the gold standard of legitimacy.

See More: https://news.xwrapper.com/ikhrfi

DOUBLE IMPEACHMENT IN MOTION? Calls to Remove Both Trump and JD Vance Following Iran Strikes

BREAKING: The political storm in Washington has reached unprecedented levels. Following tonight’s joint military strikes against Iran, a coordinated movement has emerged in Congress demanding the impeachment and removal of not only President Donald Trump but also Vice President JD Vance.

The Legal Argument: Multiple legislative sectors are denouncing the order of a military offensive of this magnitude without prior Congressional approval as the "very definition" of an impeachable offense. Critics argue that by bypassing the Legislative branch’s authority to declare war, the Trump administration has violated the fundamental principles of American democracy.

The Context: In this February 2026, Middle East tensions have exploded following the bombings reported by CNN. Because this was an offensive operation coordinated with Israel—rather than a response to an imminent attack on U.S. soil—the legality of the executive order is under heavy fire. The proposal to remove both leaders (Trump and Vance) seeks a total restructuring of the Executive Branch in response to what many consider a "usurpation" of war powers.

Do you believe Congress should act immediately to remove both Trump and Vance for launching a war without authorization?

The Constitution is being tested! Share your stance below.

#Trump #JDVance #Impeachment #BreakingNews #USA2026 #Washington #Iran #Constitution #War #Congress #Accountability

 

The U.S. has just taken part in joint, large-scale attacks on Iran alongside Israel, and officials are openly describing it as “major combat operations” against Iranian targets. The attacks were not approved by Congress.

President Donald Trump has described this as a “massive and ongoing operation,” saying the goal is to neutralize Iran’s military capabilities and leadership targets and urging Iranians to “take over your government.”

U.S. officials say they are attacking Iran to remove “imminent” threats and stop Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon, but legal experts, many governments, and critics at home argue those claims are thin, contradictory, and amount to an unauthorized war for regime change.

International law experts point out Trump has not shown evidence of an imminent, specific attack that would legally justify preemptive force; they argue this looks like a preventive or punitive war, not self‑defense.