Part 2 Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down ...

[admin]

‘Democrats Are Last Line Of Defense’: Bernie Sanders Roaring Speech In US Senate On Shutdown
Hook Global
653,671 views Nov 5, 2025 UNITED STATES

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders took the Senate floor on November 4 to speak on the government shutdown and Democrats' demand for healthcare to reopen the government.



Transcript

civil war.
The decisions that we in Congress make
right now will impact this country for
generations to come.
In America today, we have a
megalomaniacal
president
who consumed by his quest for more and
more power is undermining our
constitution,
the rule of law, and is pushing this
country closer and closer toward
authoritarianism.
I'm talking about a man who threatens to
arrest and jail his political opponents.
Yeah. right here in the United States of
America, not debate political opponents,
not respectfully disagree with
opponents. You oppose me, we're going to
prosecute you.
This is a man who is deploying the US
military, our armed forces, into
democratic cities and allowing masked
ICE agents to pick people up off the
streets and throw them into vans without
due process and take them to god knows
where.
I'm talking about a president who has
sued virtually every major media outlet
because he cannot tolerate criticism,
who has taken funds away from PBS and
NPR
because he doesn't want objective
reporting about what his policies are
doing.
And this is a man who is actively
encouraging his multibillionaire friends
to buy up more and more of the media
so that he will have a media friendlier
to him.
This is a man who has extorted funds
from law firms and is withholding
federal funding from states that voted
against them. Can you imagine that?
There has never been a president,
Republican or Democrat, who did not
understand that he was president of the
United States.
Oh, the people in Utah voted against a
Democratic president. We're not going to
fund them, give them the funds that they
are entitled to. That's never been the
case. And this guy is open. Trump is
quite open. Oh, Madani is going to be
elected mayor of New York City. Well,
you're not going to get federal funds.
Unheard of. Illegal. unconstitutional.
And because we have a president who does
not believe in the rule of law, we have
just seen right now, we're experiencing
literally this moment. We have a
president who is illegally
illegally withholding $5.5
billion dollar in emergency SNAP funds,
nutrition funds from 42 million
Americans, including 16 million
children.
The Congress put money into a fund to do
to make sure that if the government
shuts down, there will be funding
for the millions of people who depend
upon SNAP funds
so that children in America and their
parents and their grandparents will not
go hungry in the richest country in the
world. And Trump says, "No, I'm not
going to do that. I'm not going I'm
going to withhold the funds. But then he
announced changed his mind and he
announced he would comply with the court
orders.
Told him that he had to release the
funds. Okay, I'll comply with those
orders and release the funds.
And then he announced this morning this
morning that he was not going to release
the funds and would allow children in
this country to go hungry. But wait a
minute. A few hours later, a
spokesperson
for the White House said that he would
comply with the court's order. Withhold
funds, release funds, withhold funds,
release funds, all within a period of a
few days. Does anyone wonder why faith
in our government now is so very low?
Mr. President, let us be clear. This
government shutdown, now in its 35th
day, did not happen by accident.
In the US Senate, it takes 60 votes to
fund the federal government. 60 votes.
Republicans have 53 members. The
Democratic caucus has 47.
That means Republicans must negotiate
with Democrats to move the budget
forward. This is what has always
happened until now. Common sense. You
don't have 60 votes. You got to sit down
and negotiate with the minority. That's
what Republicans have done. That's what
Democrats have done in the past.
But right now, for the first time in
modern history, Republicans are simply
refusing to come to the table and
negotiate. What they are basically
saying, it is our way or the highway.
Yeah, we need 60 votes, but we're not
going to you. You have to come to us.
This is the way it will be. To make
matters worse, the Republican contempt
for negotiations is so bad, so absurd
that the House Speaker, Mike Johnson,
has given his chamber, House of
Representatives,
a six-w weekek paid vacation. They're
not here in Washington, DC. We're in the
middle of a government shutdown.
Federal millions of federal employees
are not getting paid right now. They are
wondering how they're going to feed
their families. Federal employees are
going to food banks worried about paying
the mortgages
right now. Millions of Americans are
receiving notices from insurance
companies and their insurance premiums
are rising precipitously, double in some
cases triply.
And as I mentioned, people are worried
about whether or not they're going to
get their food stamps and other
nutrition programs. That's what's going
on. But the House of Representatives is
not in town. They're on a paid vacation.
How absurd? How insulting is that?
So the bottom line though, Mr.
President, is really what is this whole
conflict about? Democrats accusing
Republic, Republicans accusing
Democrats, media does its thing. What
really are the issues that we are
talking about? So let me tell you what,
in my view is going on.
I think almost everybody in the country
understands that we have an economy
today in which the very wealthiest
people in this country, the people, the
oligarchs who were sitting right behind
Trump at his inauguration,
multi-billionaires, they have never ever
had it so good. They're making huge
amounts of money.
But at the same time, as the very
richest people in America are becoming
richer,
Trump and my Republican colleagues
want to pass a budget that throws 15
million lowincome and workingclass
Americans off the health care they have
by slashing Medicaid and the Affordable
Care Act by a trillion dollars.
On one hand, they want to give massive
tax breaks, trillion dollars in tax
breaks to the 1%. And they're going to
pay for that by cutting Medicaid and the
Affordable Care Act by a trillion
dollars, throwing 15 million people off
the healthcare they have.
Mr. President, it is no great secret
that well before Trump, before this
whole shutdown and cuts to Medicaid and
the Affordable Care Act, no secret to
any American that our current health
care system is broken. It is
dysfunctional and it is cruel. Today,
despite spending twice as much per
capita as almost any other the people of
any other major country on earth, 85
million Americans are uninsured or
underinsured.
Before these cuts,
half a million Americans are going
bankrupt every year due to medically
related debt. Bad enough, you have
cancer or some other terrible disease.
And in addition to worrying about
whether you're going to stay alive, you
got to worry about how you're going to
pay hundreds and hundreds of thousands
of dollars in medical bills. Many can't.
In fact, 42% of cancer cancer patients
drain their entire life savings within
two years of their diagnosis. If that's
not a broken system, I don't know what
is.
Mr. President, one out of every four
cancer patients lose their homes to
foreclosure or eviction because of the
outrageous cost of health care in this
country. And in the midst of all that, a
broken,
dysfunctional, and wildly expensive
health care system, Trump wants to make
the situation even worse by throwing 15
million people off of the health care
they currently have.
So what happens when you do that? What
happens if you say to 15 million
low-income and workingclass people,
sorry, you no longer have health care?
Well, it's not hard to understand. If
people can't go to a doctor and if they
have a chronic health care problem, you
know what happens to them? They die. So
let's be clear about it. When you throw
50 When you throw 15 million people off
the health care they have, according to
a variety of studies from Yale,
University of Pennsylvania, up to 50,000
Americans will die unnecessarily each
and every year. These are people who if
they had decent health care would not
have to die. That is what we are voting
on. That is what we are debating right
now.
Will we allow 50,000 of our fellow
Americans in every state in this country
to die unnecessarily?
And let us be very clear, these cuts
will not only kill people,
uh, not only throw 15 million off the
health care that they have,
it will devastate nursing homes that are
highly dependent upon Medicaid for their
funding.
It will devastate community health
centers and rural hospitals all over
this country. That means the quality of
care in nursing homes, in rural
hospitals, and in community health
centers will deteriorate.
In other words, the budget that Trump is
demanding
to be passed here in the United States
Senate will be a harup for working
families all across this country. But
that's not all. That's not all. It's not
just throwing 15 million people off the
healthcare they have. At a time when
health insurance in this country is
already outrageously expensive, people
can't afford it today.
Trump's
proposal, his big beautiful bill, and
what he wants Democrats to do is to vote
for a budget that doubles healthc care
premiums. In my state of Vermont, it's
not just doubling, some cases tripling,
even quadrupling.
So, how when right now people can't
afford healthcare, how you going to see
a doubling of your premiums, a tripling
of your premiums? That is going to
impact some 20 million Americans, many
of whom, by the way, are getting their
notices right now from insurance
companies, people who are on the
Affordable Care Act.
Mr. President, according to every poll
that I have seen, the American people
quite understandably
by overwhelming margins, do not want to
see a doubling of their health care
premiums. According to the Kaiser Family
Foundation,
78% of Americans, including 59% of
Republicans, want to extend the
Affordable Care Act tax credits.
Now, I have got to say, I'm not a great
fan of the Affordable Care Act. I
believe that we should do what every
other major country on earth does and
guarantee healthcare as a human right
through a Medicare for all singlepayer
program. You want cost effective
universal healthcare, that is the way to
go. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of
support for that here in the Senate. So,
our immediate job at least is to make
sure that 20 million people who get
their health insurance through the
Affordable Care Act do not see a
doubling of their premiums.
And this impacts, believe me, not just
Democrats, but Republicans as well. Tony
Verbizio, President Trump's own postal
has said, and I quote, "This is Donald
Trump's own pulser." Quote
by broad bipartisan margins, voters want
to see the Affordable Care Act tax
credits extended rather than expire at
the end of the year. whether in the
context of premiums doubling or five
million families losing their health
insurance. This includes solid
majorities of Trump voters and swing
voters. End quote. Tony Forbesio,
President Trump's own poster. So, it's
not just Democrats, it's not just
independents, it's not just the far
left, it is Trump supporters.
Further, at a time of massive income and
wealth inequality, the American people
do not want to see the billionaire class
receive a trillion dollars in new tax
breaks for the 1%.
So, let me be clear. I know this is a
radical thought, but the truth is Elon
Musk, the richest man alive, worth some
$500 billion,
man who owns more wealth than the bottom
52% of American households. You know
what? I don't think he needs a tax
break. Now, around here, that's a
radical statement. Nor does Mr. Bezos,
nor does Mr. Zuckerberg, nor does Mr.
Ellison, nor do anyone in the top 1% who
today are doing phenomenally well.
It is time that we started worrying
about the working families of this
country. People who cannot afford health
care, who can't afford to pay rent or
mortgage cost of housing outrageously
high. who can't afford child care, can't
afford to send their kids to college,
who can't afford to buy decent quality
food at the grocery store. Those are the
people that we should be worrying about,
not tax breaks for Mr. Musk and the
other billionaires in this country. So,
Mr. President, let me be very clear in
telling you what I will not be doing. I
will not vote
for a budget that throws 15 million
Americans off the health care that they
have. I will not be voting for a budget
that doubles premiums for 20 million
Americans. I will not be voting for a
budget that decimates rural hospitals,
nursing homes, and community health
centers.
I will not be voting for a budget that
causes over 50,000 Americans to die
unnecessarily every year. I will not be
voting for a budget that provides a
trillion dollars in tax breaks to the
top 1%.
And I hope very much that we can win
some Republican support in opposition to
these disastrous proposals. But at the
very least, I would hope that the vast
majority of my colleagues in the
Democratic caucus will not vote for
these proposals. In my view, Democrats
in the Senate must stand with the
working families of our country and in
opposition
to Trump's effort to virtually destroy
the American health care system today.
The American health care system was
broken before Trump. But when you throw
15 million people off of healthare, you
decimate rural health care, you raise
premiums for 20 million people in the
Affordable Care Act, you are bringing
the health care system to the verge of
collapse.
As the president, poll after poll shows
that the American people know what in
fact is going on. They understand who is
responsible for the shutdown. They want
strong opposition to Trump's
unprecedented and dangerous agenda. Not
just Democrats, not just independents,
but Republicans as well. And despite the
Democratic Party's all-time low approval
rating,
independents and even a number of
Republicans are now standing with the
Democrats in their fight to protect
health care for working families. If
Democrats surrender now at a time when
Trump already has no regard for our
democratic system of checks and
balances, he will simply be emboldened
to go forward and decimate programs not
just in healthcare, but programs that
protect the elderly,
protect the children, protect the sick,
and protect the poor while giving more
tax breaks and other benefits to the
people on top. So, Mr. President, now is
the time for us to stand with the
American people. They know the economy
is rigged.
They understand that it is absurd and
unfair to give tax breaks to
billionaires and throw millions of
people off of the health care they have.
They understand that it will be a horror
show if 20 million plus Americans are
forced to see a doubling in their health
care premiums.
The American people want the Senate to
stand tall and say no to Mr. Trump and
the Republican leadership. I hope we
will be able to do that. Thank you, Mr.
President. With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. President,
Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. President, I rise today along with
my colleagues. I see.

[admin]

Judge Cannon gets SMACKED DOWN by Appeals Court for TRUMP COVER UP?!?
Legal AF
Nov 6, 2025

The long-buried second volume of Jack Smith's final report on Donald Trump's classified documents case may be one step closer to seeing the light of day. The 11th Circuit ordered Judge Aileen Cannon to rule on an application to release the report within 60 days. The Knight First Amendment Institute filed that application, and its senior counsel Scott Wilkens joins Adam Klasfeld of All Rise News to unpack the development.



Transcript

The long buried second volume of Jack
Smith's report into Donald Trump's
classified documents criminal case is
one step closer to seeing the light of
day. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
ordered Judge Ailen Cannon to stop
dragging her feet in adjudicating an
application to release that report.
They've given her 60 days to fully
resolve a motion before her, an
application before her asking her to
release and unseal that document. The
application was brought by the Knight
First Amendment Institute based in
Columbia University and a senior counsel
from that group, Scott Wilkins, joins us
today to discuss the breaking ruling.
Here to discuss a ruling from the 11th
Circuit is Scott Wilkins from the Knight
First Amendment Institute. Scott, thank
you for joining us. As a senior counsel
of Night First Amendment Institute,
what's your first reaction to this
ruling?
Thanks for having me. It's very
important. Um uh this report um Jack
Smith's volume two of his report about
the classified documents case um has uh
been you know held behind closed doors
for a very long time now um for eight or
nine months and it really needs to be
released to the public and finally we
have an order from the 11th circuit
telling the district court judge Ailen
Cannon that she has 60 days to rule on
the motion that we filed quite a long
time ago to get this report released. at
least and so we will at least get her
ruling within 60 days and then we'll
have to see where we need to go from
there
and from what I understand the ruling
they are saying it needs to be fully
resolved in 60 days it can't be a hash
half measure am I right
that's right so you know we filed a
motion to intervene and then we asked
for various kinds of relief including
the release of the report so the 11th
circuit is saying judge cannon you can't
just decide that they can intervene you
have to then go on to decide ide whether
the report gets released or not. Uh so
they really want it fully resolved. This
is really uh an important ruling and I
will say it's it's notable the 11th
circuit um often times um in these kind
of mandamus petitions that the court
will ask for briefing from the other
side and we'll ask the judge actually to
submit a brief if the judge wants to.
But here the court just said, you know
what, we think that the institute
has shown that there is undue delay. So
we're just going to go ahead and order
we're going to give Judge Canon 60 days
and you know that's all she has. She's
got to respond. And the court has held
our petition in obeyance, meaning that
uh the court still has jurisdiction. If
for some reason Judge Cannon does not do
what she's supposed to do, the court
could then order some further relief if
need be. And it also means as you ring
in the new year, there could be a full
resolution of this by early January.
Isn't that right?
That's right. That's right. Now, no, I
was going to say, you know, it may be
that Judge Cannon um uh grants our
motion to intervene and then and then on
the merits she decides that for whatever
reason uh volume two of the of Jack
Smith's report should not be released.
If that happens, then we would need to
appeal in the normal way to the 11th
circuit um to get a ruling uh from the
higher court. So, it doesn't mean that
we will necessarily get volume two um in
60 days. It may mean that it will still
take longer. I hope that we will get
volume two in 60 days. And you know, we
I I think we've made very strong
arguments. And I think that's part of
why the 11th Circuit uh gave us this
ruling without requiring briefing and
argument. They just said, "You know
what? This has gone on too long. The
judge cannon needs to decide this this
uh this issue."
And one of the members of the three
judge panel was appointed by Donald
Trump as well. And just to put things
into perspective for viewers, the this
was granted to you on a writ of
mandamus. That is a very rare occurrence
when an appellet court finds that there
is such a clear failure by the lower
court judge or or institution to fulfill
a clear directive or duty. Can you talk
about just what kind of rebuke this is
and how rare an occurrence this type of
victory is?
Sure. It it is it is very rare. Um the
11th circuit has done this um from my
recollection only maybe two times where
they've said a lower court has delayed
too long and needs to decide a motion
that is before it. Uh and so this it's
extraordinary. I think it's
extraordinary from really any court of
appeals. Um, and it's also
extraordinary, as I mentioned before,
that the court ruled without hearing
from the defendants in the case, from
the two associates of Donald of Donald
Trump who who uh certainly could have um
if they were allowed to filed an
opposition that they didn't ask for
briefing from Judge Cannon because this
mandamus petition um the way that it
works, it's actually a petition against
her. It's a a petition against the
court, the district court. So sometimes
the district court judge will be given
an opportunity to write a brief. So this
really is um a very rare thing to have
happen. Uh and uh you know I think I I
suspect the reason why it's happened in
this case is because the first amendment
uh interests here uh for the public to
have access to this report are extremely
significant. And we made the argument in
our petition that, you know, every day
that goes by is a first amendment uh um
free speech um uh uh injury and that
that you that the court therefore needs
to really resolve this probably faster
than it would uh other cases that don't
involve, for example, a first amendment
right. Uh and that's why I think they
they didn't need the briefing from other
sides. They just went ahead and said
this has to be resolved. And for a
little bit of background for viewers
watching this right now, this isn't the
first time there's been a rebuke of
Judge Ailen Cannon from the 11th Circuit
before the criminal case went to her
docket when she presided over the
criminal investigation
uh after the raid of Mara Lago. The 11th
Circuit struck down two of her orders,
one of which that had blocked the
investigation of certain classified
documents seized in that raid and
another one that disbanded the special
master review. So, this is the third
very stern rebuke by that appellet
court. Shift gears a little bit. But I
want to talk about the fact that Jack
Smith himself has asked permission from
Congress to testify publicly and to
testify about the contents of the
report. And I guess my question to you
is what are the avenues by which the
public can learn more about this
report's long buried second volume
from our lawsuit. There are two ways
that the public could get access. Judge
Cannon has in her chambers a copy of the
report and we've said okay because she
has used that copy in making a judicial
ruling that that copy that she has is
subject to what's called a first
amendment right of access. The right of
access to the courts the right of access
to judicial documents. So we have said
uh to uh the court to judge Canon you
should post that volume on the public
docket. So that's one way that the
public could get access to the whole
thing. The other way which she has also
prevented from happening up until now is
that we've submitted a request under the
Freedom of Information Act to the
Department of Justice saying you have
volume two. We're entitled to it under
the Freedom of Information Act. You need
to release it. and DOJ has said to us,
"Oh, we can't release it because Judge
Cannon has put in place an injunction."
So, the second way that we could uh um
get the report or the public could get
the report is if Judge Cannon lifts this
injunction. That's one of the things
we've asked her to do. That would then
allow us to proceed against the DOJ to
get DOJ to release the volume two that
they have. So, those are two ways that
the public would get the actual report
or at least a lot of it. And then of
course there's this third uh way you've
mentioned which is if Jack Smith is
allowed to testify in Congress um about
volume two and he's asked specifically
to be able to testify about um grand
jury materials and other materials in
the report that have not been released.
Um that would also be an important way
for the public to find out about it.
And of course Trump's government has
claimed over and over again that the
most transparent administration in
history. They have been blocking the
release of the Epstein files. They have
been uh refusing to fi to let the public
know what happened to the $50,000
handed by undercover agents in a paper
bag to Tom Hman. What could a precedent,
if you're successful in getting the
disclosure and the release of this
volume two of the report, what could
this mean for prying open other pieces
of information that the Trump
administration has been refusing to make
public?
This is is such a particular document,
volume two, its importance. It's it's
it's just a very unusual I think in some
ways almost a singular case because of
what volume two the it is you know a
supposedly a thoroughgoing report on the
investigation and prosecution of a
former and now the current president for
quite extraordinary uh criminal charges
um under the Espionage Act and
obstruction of justice. So, uh, you
know, I I think a, um, a decision that,
um, releases this report to the public
could be viewed as a, you know, an
unusual, uh, case that doesn't
necessarily have a lot of implications
for the situations that you mentioned,
but I think it would be very important
going forward to underscore the
importance of the public interest in
documents like this. from from my
research, this is the only uh report by
a special counsel uh that has not been
released to the public.
Why did it take a private free speech
institute to enter this fray and to push
for the release of this report? Why did
the Knight Institute enter this legal
battle? You know, it's I think it's
really important to understand that
after January 20th uh when the
Department of Justice uh became uh you
know uh came under the control of the
Trump administration, all of a sudden in
this case before Judge Cannon, you had
the plaintiffs and the defendants in
full agreement about what should happen
with this report. There was no what we
call adversity in the case. there was no
controversy really and so it it was very
important for a third party like the
night institute to intervene to protect
the public interest and seek the release
because if we hadn't done that I don't
think this report would ever see the
light of day and two of Trump's
codefendants uh Walt Nata and Carlos doa
uh they had argued that this report
should not see the light day because
they had pending charges against them.
Those cases are now gone. What is left
of their position?
There really isn't anything left. I
think the the the justification that
they came up with and that the
Department of Justice um under uh
President Trump agreed with and that
Judge Cannon agreed with um was that
while the case against them was pending,
uh volume two shouldn't be released
because uh of the need to protect their
fair trial rights. But all charges
against them were dropped by February
11th, I believe. And so as of that date,
there was no case against them anymore.
And there was no reason uh to keep this
injunction in place to for judge cannon
to keep this injunction in place. No
longer any any just justification for
that. But yet um on uh in March n and
I's lawyers and DOJ submitted a report
to Judge Cannon saying we we're not
going to you know we think it's fine if
the if the report is not released. And
so it really did require um uh you know
a third party like like the institute,
the night institute to come in and say
the the public has a fundamental right
to see volume two and the court judge
cannon you need to order it released.
Thank you Scott for joining us and
breaking it all down.
And it's great to join you. Thanks so
much.
To find more about my reporting visit
www.allisnews.com. allrisnews.com.
That's www.allrisnews.com.
I'm a fully independent journalist. So,
by becoming a subscriber, you can get
the news that I report straight to your
inbox and support the work that I do,
either through a free subscription or if
you have the means to get a paid
subscription for full access and to keep
me covering the stories that you care
about. And to watch other videos like
these, take a moment to subscribe now to
Legal AF.
Can't get your fill of legal AF? Me
neither. That's why we formed the Legal
AF Substack. Every time we mention
something in a hottake, whether it's a
court filing or a oral argument, come
over to the Substack. You'll find the
court filing and the oral argument
there, including a daily roundup that I
do called, wait for it, Morning AF. What
else? All the other contributors from
Legal A are there as well. We got some
new reporting. We got interviews. We got
ad free versions of the podcast and hot
takes where legal AF on Substack. Come
over now to free subscribe.
[Music]

[admin]

Why Israel really fears Zohran Mamdani, with Ali Abunimah
The Electronic Intifada
Nov 6, 2025

Ali Abunimah, executive director, discusses Zohran Mamdani's victory as New York mayor.

This is a segment from The Electronic Intifada's livestream on day 762 of the Gaza genocide. Ali Abunimah, Nora Barrows-Friedman, Jon Elmer and Asa Winstanley were joined by writer and journalist Peter Oborne.



Transcript

You're watching and listening to the electronic liveream and I'm Alia Boner.
Um, and of course as we know that on November 4th, Zahan Manni won the
mayoral election in New York City with just over 50% of the vote. He was the
first mayoral candidate to win more than 1 million votes since 1969. And this
election also had the highest turnout since that year. Um,
Zahan Manni moved to the US at the age of seven. He attended public school in
New York and became a US citizen in 2018. His father is Mahmud Mamani, the
Colombia University professor, well known for his book, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, which came out in the context of
the so-called war on terror in the years after 911. and his mother is the noted
uh film director Mir Miran. Now uh since 2021, Zahan Mdani has
represented New York City's Atoria neighborhood um in the New York State Assembly and that was his first elected
office. He ran a campaign for mayor that focused
on reforms aimed at aimed at improving the lives of New Yorkers and making the city more affordable. uh particularly
free fast public buses and controlling rent. Um his opponents ran a national
and even international smear campaign against him inciting bigotry because of his Muslim and South Asian Ugandan
background and particularly because of his longtime support for Palestinian rights which of course is uh why this is
a topic for us. First uh some disclosure I suppose um I actually uh first got to
know uh Zohan Mandani in 2013 when he was a student at Bowden College in
Maine. he was in his uh third year there and he was the uh co-chair of the SJP
group there, the students for justice in Palestine group and he invited me to go and give a talk at Bowden College which
I did in 2013. You can actually see there Zahan K Manni mayor elect of New
York City uh saying Bowden SJP is so excited to be hosting Ali Abon to the
Shannon room at 7:30 Monday 28th of October that was back in 2013 and my
talk there the battle for justice in Palestine. Um and
uh I spent you know a day with Zuan Mdani and his colleagues there and
frankly he impressed me uh as very smart, very engaged and very sincere in
his support for Palestinian rights which he also has expressed for many years. He
was also a uh an avid reader of the electronic inif father. Here you can see
him back in 2014 sharing an article by
Max Blumenthal published by the electronic inif. So um I am not a close
personal friend of Mahm of Zoran Mani by any means but since I met him in 2013 we
you know we we've uh sort of stayed in in touch with each other from a distance
on and off. Um and my exposure to him gives me the sense that he's very
sincere in his basic conditions. These uh basic uh positions that these were
not positions that he suddenly adopted in order to um you know uh win support
from a a left-wing or grassroots base. So how would we sum up his views? In
general, he is describes himself as a democratic socialist, which means in practice he is a mild reformist. He has
been a strong supporter of Palestinian rights. And I think this moment early in
the Democratic Party primary for the mayor of New York caught a lot of people's attention when he distinguished
himself from the rest of the field by not uh automatically prostrating himself to Israel. Let's take a look at this
video and remind ourselves. visit by a mayor of New York is always considered significant. Where would you
go first? That's right. Matters. First visit, I would visit the Holy
Land. Mr. Cuomo, given the hostility and the anti-semitism that has been uh shown in
New York, I would go to Israel. Mr. Tilson, where would you go? Yeah, I'd make my fourth trip to Israel,
followed by my fifth trip to Ukraine. Two of our greatest allies um fighting on the front lines of the global war on
terror. Mr. Mani, I would stay in New York City. My plans are to address New Yorkers across the
five burrows and focus on that. Mr. Mani, can I just jump in? Would you visit Israel
as mayor? I will be doing as the mayor. I'll be standing up for Jewish New Yorkers and I'll be meeting them wherever they are
across the five burrows, whether that's in their synagogues and temples or at their homes or at the subway platform
because ultimately we need to focus on delivering on their concerns. Yes or no? Do you believe in a Jewish
state of Israel? I believe Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state as a state with equal
rights. He won't say it has a right to exist as a Jewish state. Be very and his answer was no. He won't visit
Israel. I I said that that's what he was trying to say. No, no. Unlike you, I unlike you. I answer question directly.
My goal would be to take my first trip to Israel. My wife's life work in this area means a lot to our family.
So uh although he did say he believe believes in Israel's right to exist
language I wouldn't not use myself. Uh he did say inequality which of course is
something that uh all the people on stage there object to because they don't believe in equality when it comes to
Israel. They believe Israel has the right to be a racist Jewish supremacist state, an apartheid state. and Manny uh
at least held the line on that. Um and uh he made some other pledges during
the campaign that were very notable. For example, uh we can see the headline
here. Manny, if elected mayor, pledges to order NYPD, that's the New York
Police Department, to arrest Netanyahu. So he he stuck to that position during
the campaign. He also did not back down from calling Israel's mass slaughter in
Gaza a genocide. However, he did make gestures towards supporters of Israel
during the campaign as we can see from uh from this clip of him speaking on the
view on October 1st. Let's look at that. running for mayor of New York and not
prime minister of Israel, but you've made inflammatory statements like calling Israel an apartheid state and
questioning its right to exist as a Jewish state. Just this week, you were evasive with a reporter about condemning
Hamas. Given New York has the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, why
should voters who see this as a a moral red line trust your clarity and judgment? Well, I really appreciate this
question and an opportunity to just clear up, I think, a number of misconceptions. You know, first and foremost, you're right. I am running to
be the mayor of the city, and this city will be the focus of my administration, ensuring that we make this a city
everyone can afford and everyone knows that they belong to. And also, millions of New Yorkers, myself included, care
deeply about what's happening in Israel and Palestine. And so, to be very, very clear, of course, I condemn Hamas. Of
course, I've called October 7th what it was, which is a horrific war crime. And of course, my belief in a universality
in international law is also the same set of beliefs that have led me to describe what's happening in Gaza as a
genocide because what we see
so as you can see there he stood by the term genocide but some of the positions
you heard there and others during the campaign did dismay many of his supporters who worried that they these
were early signs that he might back down in the face of pro-Israel pressure, you
know, playing the condemnation game uh and and condemning October 7th in the
terms that Israel supporters describe it rather than u saying this was a
resistance operation. Yes, any deliberate harm to civilians we would
condemn, but nonetheless there's a right to ex right to resist. you know, that that might be something uh a position
closer to what I might say or what someone else might say, but it's definitely not what Zoharan Mandani
said. Um, and so, you know, this generates criticism. There are a lot of
people on the left who are critical and skeptical of anyone who remains within
the Democratic party. And uh you know the the the saying goes, you don't
change the party, the party changes you. and they point to uh his close
association with uh Alexandria Okaziocortez, who people see ha as
having um really betrayed many progressive positions that she ran on
and built a base of support for, including on Palestine, and also his close association with Bernie Sanders,
who I think has disillusioned many people by his uh absolute refusal at
first to even call for a ceasefire and then his refusal until it was really
much too late to even call it a genocide. So those are things that have
attracted uh uh criticism. Uh also uh recently he
again sort of in response to some of this kind of constant pushing uh on um
these these issues he referred to the leaders of Venezuela and Cuba as
dictators at the very moment that the Trump administration is ramping up for war there. uh he could have said nothing
but uh he he chose to use that language and that has certainly generated
criticism of him from the left. But there's no doubt that Mandani is well informed about the pro-Israel complicity
of the city he is about to lead. And here he is speaking specifically about the New York Police Department. Uh and
this was according to the v the label on the video in 2023.
We have to make clear that when the boot of the NYPD is on your neck, it's been
laced by the IDF. So what he said there, just to repeat,
we have to make clear that when the boot of the NYPD is on your neck, it's been
laced by the IDF. And what he's referring to there is the fact that the
NYPD has close ties to the Israeli military and police, including many
exchange programs. And the NYPD even has a leazison office in Israel. And here's
a story from the New York Post just a few days ago quoting the outgoing head of that liaison office, Detective
Charlie Benim. And uh quote, it says Benim has been in
charge of gathering intelligence, investigating events, and sharing information with the NYPD to keep the
city safe since 2007, he told the Post last year. When the October 7, 2023
Hamas attacks happened, he was working with local authorities in Israel and sharing information with the NYPD. He
said, quote, "Whenever there's a terror attack in Israel, I respond to the scene." Bernim said after the terror
attacks by Hamas in southern Israel. He then sends his assessment back to the department. The priority is to identify
these trends and stop them before they have the potential to come to our city. said.
Now, this is particularly disturbing since the NYPD ran a massive secret
spying and surveillance program against Arabs and Muslims even beyond the borders of NYC in New Jersey, a state
where it has no jurisdiction after 911, as the Associated Press
revealed in a series of dipl of of investigative reports for which its team
of reporters won uh a number of pulit. surprises. Uh this was back around 2011
2012 detailing this massive surveillance of mosques, of businesses, of just
people who look uh you know based on racial based on racial profiling.
Um, one uh New York police official even confirmed to the Associated Press that
the NYPD spying program was modeled on how Israeli authorities spy on
Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. So that's the NYPD.
And a big concession that Manny has already made is agreeing to keep
Jennifer Tish on as the NYPD police commissioner. Tish comes from an
extremely wealthy, powerful pro-Israel family. And of course, the NYPD played a
key role in crushing the Palestine Solidarity Encampment at Columbia University and other colleges in New
York City over the last two years. Uh so the NYPD is an extremely powerful
and largely unaccountable force and basically uh even though the mayor is sort of
nominally in charge it is a a power unto itself. It is as often noted larger than
the militaries of of many countries and has a larger budget than the militaries
of many countries. So, uh, I suppose some people would argue that
this is a pragmatic choice because the NI NYPD can ruin a mayor's tenure if
they choose to because they are basically unaccountable. But that is the reality.
So, what could Mamani do as mayor? Uh, I think it's important to remember that
he's the mayor of New York City or he's going to be as of January 1st. So, it's unrealistic to expect too much. He There
are things he could do. For example, um perhaps end New York Police Department
involvement with Israel. Uh he could end New York City's purchasing of Israel
bonds. In fact, the current city controller uh did not renew a $39
million investment in Israel bonds when they when they matured in 2023.
and Manny has said he will maintain that policy. In other words, uh he says New York City will not purchase Israel bonds
anymore. And there is a battle uh shaping up over hundreds of millions of
dollars of city pension funds which are in invested in Israel. That's another area where the mayor could uh
conceivably act. and he could in end city involvement or concessions towards
Israeli institutions in New York like Technneondon, the Israeli university that's deeply involved in weapons
development and oppression of Palestinians. In fact, Mandani has said he will look at Cornell University's
partnership with Technon, which uses city-owned land in New York City uh when
he becomes mayor. All that said, whatever Manny may or may not do,
whether he holds the line or makes more concessions, you know, what's the meaning of his
victory, aside from the direct implications of for New York City, aside
from what we think about Mandani as a person or his intentions, and I think
there's a few conclusions to draw from here. It is a massive repudiation by
voters of the pro-Israel establishment. Billionaires, uh, Donald Trump, the
Israeli government and its lobby all lined up against him with an unprecedented smear and hate campaign.
It failed. He won more than 50% of the votes on a record turnout. That sends a
broader message nationally and internationally. I think it exposes the battle within the
Democratic Party over uh Israel. We've talked about uh in previous weeks we've
talked about how support for uh Israel in the base of the Democratic Party. In
other words, the voters is in single digits, but this is not reflected in the leadership. this sort of aging
establishment in the Democratic party that refuses to let go of power and refused to endorse Manny for the most
part, but he still won. And this does reflect the profound shifts in public opinion we've been talking about and the
loss of support for Israel across the board. And I think significantly it reflects the failure of tried and tested
strategies of racist fear-mongering and hatred especially targeting Muslims that
have been really both democratic and republican plays uh for decades
particularly since after 911. So what's likely to come next? Uh
I think an important lesson here uh and one I really hope that uh Zoharan
Mandani will take on board is that his more consiliatory tone and comments
during the election, the some of the things we heard just in the last few minutes, they did absolutely nothing to
appease his critics, which is not surprising since all of their attacks
are in bad faith. These are white supremacists. These are Islamophobes.
These are Israel firsters. Nothing you can say will appease them. There will never come a moment, no matter how much
Zaharan Mandani gives them, where they say, "Okay, you're a good boy now. We'll support you." That day will never come.
Here, for example, is an editorial in the Washington Post just the day before the election. The headline there,
Zoharan Mamani's success is a warning. And there's uh this one line in the um
in the in this staff editorial from the Washington Post that says, quote, "Mamani
uh sorry, yeah, um Mamani has walked back
some of his old positions, but never very convincingly. While he apologized to the NYPD and said he would retain the
current mayor's police commissioner, he recently admitted he hadn't spoken to her since making the offer. So that
concession wasn't enough for the Washington Post. And then they say, "And while he no longer defends
eliminationist rhetoric about Jews, he remains fixated with Israel."
I mean, there's so much dishonesty in this. First of all, he has never used eliminationist rhetoric about Jews or
defended it. And he has not been fixated on Israel in this campaign. It is his
opponents who have been fixated on Israel and who insisted on making this campaign a referendum on Israel. And the
absolute lie about him engaging in or defending eliminationist rhetoric about
Jews is exposed by none other than the Times of Israel. Take a look at this
article in the Times of Israel which was published after he won. The headline there, facing an anti-ionist mayor,
Mdani's election win puts New York Jews in uncharted waters. Now, this is a
story designed to feed the scaremongering. But even here, the Times of Israel has to admit, quote, his
condemnations are solely aimed at Israel and Zionism, not at Jews or Judaism.
That's the Times of Israel. Perhaps the Washington Post uh editorial writers should read the Times of Israel.
I think it's also notable, according to CNN's exit poll, that Mandani garnered
33% of Jewish votes in New York City, while his main opponent, Andrew Cuomo,
who is backed by the Democratic Party establishment and by Donald Trump, um
got 63% of the Jewish vote. I think the fact that one-third of Jewish voters
opted for Mamani is significant given the enormous smear campaign aimed at painting him as a mortal danger to Jews
and there were all these scare stories that if Mamani wins, Jews are going to flee New York and this kind of thing. Um
I think all obvious nonsense. Um this caught my eye uh this tweet from uh the
academic Shibli Tami. He says uh and I think this is uh really
some astute uh observations. He says deep down Israeli leaders likely know
that Manny won not despite his support for Palestinian rights but partly because of it. And uh uh Shibli Teli
points to this tweet from Israeli official or former official Gilad Erdan.
uh he is a former senior minister in the U Netanyao government. is also the uh
until recently the US the Israeli ambassador to the US and then before that the United Nations and what Gilad
Erdan wrote and this is very I'll say why I think this is so important he says
the mayor of new of New York is Zan Manni it's crucial to internalize this an Israel hater who sees us as an
apartheid state who perpetrates genocide and does not recognize Israel as a Jewish state was elected tonight to lead
the most important city in the world, home to the largest number of Jews outside Israel. This is a dark day, a
sad day for everyone who understands the immense importance of the alliance with the United States and is anxious about
its future because what happened in New York could happen next across the entire
United States, including in Congress and the White House. This is a huge warning
sign and Israel must wake up and implement a comprehensive plan to rebrand ourselves in the United States.
A plan that will foster broad and deep connections with the younger generation and minority communities in the United
States. Uh so there's a lot packed into this uh tweet by Gilad Erdan. Why do I
think it's significant coming from him? because one of his positions uh about a
decade ago, Gilad Erdan was minister for strategic affairs in Israel and his job
was to fight the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, particularly in the United States. and his job was to do
precisely what he claimed Israel needs to do now, which was to rebrand it and
to build support among minority what he says broad and deep connections with the younger generation and minority
communities in the US. And he miserably failed at that because the understanding
that Israeli leaders still have is they they look at it and they say there's nothing wrong with what we're doing.
It's just that we're bad at public relations. we're bad at marketing and if we hire a better PR firm then no one
will have a problem with Israel. They can't internalize the reality that people are revolted and revulsed by what
Israel does and no more so than in the past two years with this genocide. But
one of the things that Gilad Erdan used to point out when he was minister of
strategic affairs uh more than a decade ago is that we have to stop the rock now
uh particularly on college campuses because the students now who are in
students for justice in Palestine or exposed to uh Palestine activism on
campus they are going to be the mayors, the members of Congress, the secretaries
of state, the leaders of media organizations in the future, maybe even
the president. And so, uh, Zahan Mdani's
rise, again, this is regardless of what you personally think about, you know, he
said this or he said that or what he's going to do, his rise is their worst
nightmare because he was literally the co-chair of Students for Justice in
Palestine on his college campus uh when they invited me uh to go and speak all
those years ago. go at the time. I believe that Gilad Erdan was in charge of trying to stop this. So, uh I think
it's significant in that sense. And then finally, you know, just what's going to
happen next. It's very clear that Israel and its lobby will continue uh to join
the rightwing smear campaign to destroy Mamani uh to ensure that he he is a
failure as may mayor uh on all his promises and to try to do to him what
they successfully did to Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. Already two major Israel lobby groups have announced efforts to
monitor Mamdani and we can expect an endless stream of smears and fake anti-semitism scandals. Uh for example,
the American Jewish Committee, one of the major pro-Israel lobby groups. The
director in New York wrote uh we may not be able to change your mind on these
issues. He he's referring to Israel. He he wrote this open letter to Manny. He
says, "We may not be able to change your mind on these issues referring to Israel. However, we will be vigilant in
ensuring that New York City government and your position as mayor are not used to hold Israel to a double standard or
to attempt to isolate Israel economically in an effort to dismantle the world's only Jewish state." So here
we have the American Jewish Committee pledging to be a watchdog and a guardian
for a foreign state for the interests of a foreign country. And similarly the
Anti-Defamation League, another major Israel lobby group, they very proudly la
announced that they uh that the ADL launches initiative to track and monitor
Mamani administration policies and appointments. And it says here, quote,
Meillech Me Mdani has promoted anti-semitic narratives associated with
individuals who have a history of anti-semitism and demonstrated intense animosity toward the Jewish state that
is counter to the views of the overwhelming majority of Jewish New Yorkers. We're deeply concerned that
those individuals and principles will influence his administration at a time when we are tracking a brazen surge of
harassment, vandalism, and violence targeting Jewish residents and institutions in recent years, said
Jonathan Greenblat, ADL CEO and national director. So you can see that none of um
Mandani's copious rhetoric condemning anti-semitism, pledging to fight
anti-semitism, which I believe he is entirely sincere about. I've never seen any evidence that Mamdani is a racist in
any way. On the contrary, he is deeply opposed to all forms of bigotry. Uh but
none of his assertions about that have done anything to appease these Israel
lobby groups because they don't care about anti-Jewish bigotry. They only care about maintaining Israel as a
genocidal apartheid state. And as long as Mandani doesn't support Israel and
Israeli apartheid, they will continue to accuse him of being an anti-semite. So again, the message there is do not um
appease them. it won't work. It will only uh weaken you. So, uh I think I'll
leave it there uh and and we can uh bring everyone in for some discussion.
Thanks for that, Alli. Yeah, it's uh yeah, the the uh the Corbin model um
needs to be disrupted whenever it pops uh pops up and and Asa, I know you can
talk about that. Um, a couple of years ago before the genocide, I spoke with
Mom Dani for an article um that I was writing for EI um about uh when he was
an assembly member. Um, I believe his office actually contacted us um because
uh he was um spearheading this bill uh to stop New York City B or New York
state uh based charities from uh from funding settlement colonies um
in the West Bank. Um he Manny introduced the bill. Um he stood with you know
various local um Palestine solidarity groups uh in New
York City um to support it. And I mean I just I remember my conversation was uh
with him was you know he was very appreciative of the coverage and um you
know very charismatic and he said you know funding colonialism and violence is
not a charitable activity and I look forward to working with my colleagues in our fight to make that explicit in New
York state law. Um he had a lot to say about uh settler violence and and the US
support of colonialism in Palestine. Um and uh yeah I it's you know I just I I I
I am like all of us cautious because
whenever someone you know is elevated to that uh level in politics especially you know
given um blessing by of course uh Barack Obama in in recent weeks um and you know
of course by AOC and uh and Bernie Sanders as he mentioned. Um, you know,
we have to kind of double down on our caution. Um, but
I I guess it remains to be seen whether his his values that he um says he grew up with and especially as a member of
SJP and someone who's been working um, you know, to to make New York City um, a
less uh, racist place. I don't know. I mean,
we can be optimistic maybe. Yeah. Well, I mean, the bigger question is like how much power does the mayor of
New York really have? I'm not suggesting this this is not an important and powerful position. It
certainly is. Yeah. But you know even on the key pledges he made that he focused
on which is affordability and housing uh it's going to be really difficult for
him if not impossible to fulfill those pledges because um you know the the the
property barons of New York will not want that. They will not want limits on
luxury development. They will not want controls on rent. they will not want initiatives that uh support really
affordable housing or social housing for people. So he's going to face tremendous
opposition and not probably not primarily because of his views on on uh
Palestine. So it's going to be he's going to be under tremendous pressure to surrender on really those key promises.
And if he doesn't give in, they will do everything to to uh break him. So it's
uh really a a huge challenge that he's facing.
Yeah. Yeah. and and it is, you know, the MMO of the Democratic Party to um you
know, to platform uh real progressives, people who start off, you know, as as
real leftists um and even call themselves socialists
and then wear them down into, you know, faint shadows of what they were um in
order to tow the the the Democratic Party line. And um you know we've seen
we've seen those tactics over and over again. Um and uh you know I don't have a
lot of faith um in it this time but uh but my my my ears are remain open.
The view you're giving Nor is one that a lot of people share. You know they they are deeply skeptical if not outright
hostile to the Democratic party because of what it's done. stands for for very good reasons. I mean
the fact that the that that Camela Harris and Joe Biden were in charge of
this genocide for uh you know the first year and um
you know this may not matter in the end because ultimately you know how much power does an individual have? It may
not uh matter in the end, but to be fair to Zoharan Mandani, I think he's
different from uh some of the other figures you've talked about uh on a
personal level, whether it's Bernie Sanders or Barack Obama who is seen as the great betrayer uh and uh AOC
in that Zaharan Mdani has a very long and very explicit and very detailed
commitment to supporting Palestinian rights that none of them had. I mean,
Bernie Sanders, yes, he's been critical on on Israel for many years, but within very strict liberal Zionist limits. And
we saw during the first, you know, until very recently, he wouldn't call this a genocide. He wouldn't call for a
ceasefire. AOC had uh gained attention and support for making statements about
Palestine uh when she was running, but then as soon as she Yeah. Uh she was pressured, she said, "Oh, I
don't really know enough about it. I need to learn more." It it will be so there's two aspects of
this. One, I think Mdani's commitment is deeper and longer and because he has a
long record of stating these positions, it's much harder for him to turn on
them. And that is a new element here. And what that does in terms of uh
shaping discussion within the Democrat within and beyond the Democratic party
will be interesting to see. uh will this embolden more candidates to uh to say
some of the things which they may think already given the shift in opinion in
this country but don't dare to say in other words while not having you know
again this is the mayor of New York he's it's not the president of the United States it's not you know
understanding the limits I think we have to be
uh at least open to unexpected consequences from this unintended
consequences even if Mamani disappoints people on ABC and D
which he will you know because he's a politician politicians are politicians no matter how much you like them personally
they're still politicians you have to remember that but still this is both the conse this is
the consequence of the opening of base that has accelerated because of the
genocide in Gaza and at the same time it will have consequences of their own and
we just need to be attentive to attentive to that and not just think we know in advance oh th this it doesn't
mean anything because of this this and this or it means everything we don't know
things are changing people are skeptical because they say things are the same
because they've always been the same but then eventually they change. Is this that moment? I don't know. Probably not.
Could be. Might be the start of it. I'm saying keep an open mind. Politicians are politicians and they
they have to be held to account. You know, that's that's the beginning and the end of it really. You know, no matter uh you know, even if we like him
more, he we he still has to be held to account. You know, that's that's really ultimately the the issue. And none of
these people are above criticism um or being held to account, which is
really the Yeah. And you know, I I I believe in that too. That's why what I've laid out
and some of the things I've said on social media have been critical or just honest just saying the positions that of
Zoharan Mandani that I don't agree with that people have criticized and I think
with with justification in in many cases doesn't mean I don't like him. I I
personally like him. I I I can't say I don't like I you know I liked him the
day I met him and I I've liked him ever since. But I will hold him accountable. I will hold him accountable because this
is not about personal loyalty to any individual or to any politician. This is
about fundamental basic principles that we have to defend. Yeah. And we're not like the New York
Times. We're not going to um you know uh kiss ass uh any politician who gives us
you know some attention or even praise. um you know we're we're not we're not um
seeking access you know and and trying to to cement our access to the halls of
power. We wouldn't do that. Although I would say Zor and Mom Danny come on the electronic interfer live
stream. I don't know. I don't know. We would we would we would be happy to
talk to you. Um well uh what I mean if I could advise Zor Danny what I would say
is um don't and like don't rest on your your laurels like don't think that
you've become because you've won this victory and it is a you know a very significant victory
don't underestimate the ability of the pro-Israel lobby in particular to make your life difficult. I mean, I think
that is really should be the lesson of Jeremy Corbyn, of the failure of Jeremy
Corbyn to become the prime minister, you know, when he he won the victory that he
did back in 2015 of becoming the leader of the opposition, becoming the leader
of the Labor Party. It's easy to forget now what a massive victory that was. You know, it was incredibly significant.
And yet, you know, Jeremy Corbyn did similar things to what Zoran is doing
now in embracing this police commissioner who acted
uh for, you know, the crackdown against the student protests. He's now embracing her and keeping her on. Jeremy Corbyn
did very similar things at at the beginning of his term as leader of the opposition and he made his entire shadow
cabinet out of uh the right-wing of the Labor Party because he said it he didn't bring his own people on at first. He
didn't bring on Diane Abber and John McDonald and all those people on the left of the Labour Party. He brought on
the right wing of the Labour Party because he was trying to say he was trying to embrace them and to disprove
the scare stories about him. when he was trying to say that, oh, we're a broad church of the Labour Party, and he
actually meant it. Well, his enemies weren't acting in good faith. No. And so there's there's a there's a real
danger that Zoran could fall in the same trap. And actually, the the police commissioner, we you know, he he Zoran
saying he's going to keep her on. Will she want to stay on? I don't know. I mean, I don't know enough about New York
politics to to to say that she may she may want to stay on, but there is certainly a possibility that the people
he tries to embrace like this will actually quit on him and kind of backstab him because that's what
happened to Corbyn with his um with his right-wing shadow cabinet. They conspired um backed by the pro-Israel
lobby. they conspired against him and they all quit in succession to kind of
engineer this crisis against him in 2016. Um, which led to a a second
leadership campaign against him. Um, so you know there's a lot of lessons there
to be learned which I I don't think enough people are really taking on board.
Remains to be seen. Um but yeah uh
we'll be watching all the lessons apply and we will be watching I I just think it's too simplistic for
people to say oh you know none of this ma it's significant that
people voted for someone they understood to be
calling what Israel is doing a genocide. So let's not forget, let's not make this I mean I say this after I just spent all
that time talking about Mamani. Let's not make this about just Manny. This is
about the people who voted and the message they sent. And I think that, you
know, when a vote is a pretty blunt instrument, you know, you can't say you
vote for a candidate, you agree with you can't split your vote a
thousand ways and say, well, I'm voting for this part, not for that. It's a yes or no with a candidate. And I think this
was a resounding yes to somebody who was expressing
in very human terms the horror that so many people feel at this genocide. And
that's not a small thing. No, it's not a small thing. It's always delicious to watch the Zionist um you
know communities crash out over somebody who um doesn't capitulate to their
pressure isn't one of those mayors that just you know robotically said my first trip will be to the Holy Land or you
know to Israel. Um that's what they expected. That's what they paid for. And
when Zoron said, you know, in that clip that you played, well, I'm going to stay
here in New York cuz I'm I want to be the mayor of this city. I, you know, I
think um that was that was the beginning of the great Zionist crash out um over
him. And um it's been it's it's been
honestly um yeah pretty fun to to see them, you know, tripping over
themselves. um and and trying to understand where they went wrong when,
as you were saying, Ally, this is a this is a referendum um not just by people in
New York City, but by people all over the country um who are uh you know, who
are fed up with the propaganda, who who aren't um taking the bait anymore.
And these organizations like, you know, the the um AJC and and the ADL
are simply being marginalized to the point of total uh you know
like people just don't think about them anymore. They don't have any weight anymore. And I think that is due
um to people, you know, understanding what Israel has always been about, the US's role in it,
and people don't, you know, you don't just forget about a genocide being live
streamed to your phone for two years. Um, so we'll see what that means in terms of the political future for this
settler colony on this continent. Um but yeah, we're uh our eyes are open and we
should remain so.
[Music]

[admin]

Trump DEFIES COURT ORDER as Admin SCRAMBLES in COURT
Legal AF
Nov 7, 2025 Democracy Forward X Legal AF

The Trump Administration has filed a motion with the First Circuit Court of Appeals to starve Americans, and are now in open defiance of a second emergency retraining order by Chief Judge McConnell to make $8 billion for November anti-hunger SNAP payments today by 5 pm, as they race to an appellate court to allow them to not make the payments. Popok is joined by Democracy Forward's Skye Perryman who briefs our audience on the "in real time" developments in this fast moving story, with orders expected today and tomorrow in the case.



Transcript

We are increasingly seeing what is an
autocratic playbook unfold. An
administration that actually is
operating as if they will never be held
accountable to the people. They are
being held accountable. They're being
held accountable by the people in court.
They've been held accountable in
elections. We're seeing it in with the
millions of people at the no kings
marches when the president's threatening
people and millions are still showing up
and saying not on our watch are you
going to take this country down this
path. But I think that that is going to
be the fight that we're all going to
have to be engaged in in the in the days
and months and years ahead.
Welcome to a special edition of Legal
AF. As I promised, coming off the
emergency temporary restraining order,
the second one issued by Judge McConnell
in Rhode Island to help 42 million
people to prevent them from starving
because the president refuses to allow
$8 billion of of funding for SNAP
anti-hunger payments to be paid out as
ordered by this judge. It required
another emergency hearing which happened
yesterday. And as promised, we have Sky
Perryman from Democracy Forward who's
leading the charge in the Rhode Island
case representing groups like the Rhode
Island State Council of Churches and
other not forprofits. This is the case
right now that is on everybody's mind.
Um, and coming out of yesterday's
hearing, there's already been
developments all against the American
people by Donald Trump. We had a win
yesterday. And as uh I'm going to bring
Sky in here in a minute. Um Skye's uh
immediate statement was this immoral and
unlawful decision by the administration
has shamefully delayed SNAP payments,
taking food off the table of hungry
families. We shouldn't have to force the
president to care for his citizens, but
we will do whatever is necessary. But
not only do we have the order of 27
pages, we already have an attempt by
Donald Trump to evade the order, to
block the order, to have it stayed by
the first circuit court of appeals. I
welcome Sky to uh Legal AF on Friday. Hi
Sky. Thank you for having me. Good to
see you as always.
Absolutely. And let's catch everybody up
who might be joining this story already
in progress. The judge issued an order
from the bench yesterday followed by a
27page written temporary restraining
order. I'll read from it in a little bit
later in which the judge effectively
said that the Trump administration is
playing fast and loose is arbitrary and
capriccious is harming Americans and
making them suffer and not addressing
their hunger uh and is talking about
agency double talk instead of actually
funding which he's ordered to happen uh
by uh today at at a time certain u talk
about uh how we got here with last
week's orders and the new orders and
then what's happened even since the
hearing yesterday and since this order
in terms of blocking these payments to
the to our most underprivileged
Americans.
Yeah. So, I mean, we got here because
the president is truly playing politics
with people's lives. There's no other
way around it. For days and weeks, he
and administration officials claimed
that they could not fund SNAP. Um, we've
actually never not had SNAP funded, even
in government shutdowns. And the judge
yesterday made that clear. They claimed
that they just their hands were tied.
They couldn't do it. We had to take them
to court. The court was clear last
Friday that not only did the Trump
administration um have the legal
authority to pay SNAP benefits, but that
they had an obligation under the law to
do so and that their um dragging their
feet was unlawful. That's what happened
last Friday. Um on Monday, the Trump
administration showed up to court and
said it wanted to pay partial benefits,
not full benefits. And as a result of
that decision, um it submitted its own
documents that suggested that people in
this country would have to wait weeks
and in some cases months for their SNAP
benefits. So just to make sure that we
understand what that means, it means
that a mom that needs to go to the
grocery store to put food in the cabinet
for her kids can't do so for a period of
days and weeks. There just no way of
there's truly just no way of tolerating
that. The court was clear in its first
order that the administration needed to
expeditiously
resolve any issues so that people could
get their SNAP benefits. They did not do
so. And so yesterday we had fireworks in
the court. We had a great team at
Democracy Forward and our co-consel um
with the lawyers committee in Rhode
Island um were were on the Zoom hearing
yesterday. Um and the court just had a
lot of questions for the government. um
said that the government had done
nothing to comply with the order from
the prior week and enforced uh that
order so that people will get their SNAP
benefits and then made some further
findings um to require that the
government pay full benefits. So that is
what they are supposed to do today but
um they have noticed an appeal. Now, an
appeal does not stop a court order. And
so, right now, there is a live court
order that this administration must obey
to ensure that people in communities get
their SNAP benefits. And that's what
we're really focused on. We also have
confidence that um what the government
has done here is so unlawful it will be
upheld on appeal.
And you said fireworks. Um give give our
audience a little bit of color from the
reporting. For people that are in the
room, it sounds like the the the lawyer
for the Department of Justice got a
little what's the phrase I'm looking
for? A little pissy at times, was a
little a little a little defiant, got
his back up in front of a federal judge.
What's your understanding as to what
happened in the courtroom when you say
fireworks?
Yeah. I mean, I think the judge really,
and this is what we've seen with judges
across the nation, but the judges are
very concerned when the government feels
as if it is optional to do what they say
in their court orders. And so you saw
the judge really pushing that yesterday
in the courtroom, asking questions um
probing questions and really knowing um
and saying that that judge made very
clear last Friday that time was of the
essence that the irreparable harm was
already occurring, that there was no
time for the administration to drag its
feet. And so we saw, you know, we we
sort of heard that at the hearing
yesterday. Um the good news for 42
million Americans is that um the courts
are continuing to um call it like it is
and this is an unlawful effort. The
judge was very clear this is the first
time in United States history. The first
time in United States history that SNAP
benefits have lapsed. I mean that is
it's just it's unconscionable.
Let me read uh for our audience some of
the quotes from the written order that
came out yesterday from the judge u from
page two. It is estimated that 42
million individuals, approximately 1 in
eight Americans, rely on the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program. This includes 14 million
children, 8 million elderly, and 1.2
million veterans. A core mission of the
United States Department of Agriculture
is to ensure that American children are
properly nourished. Yet, their decision
to not feed hungry Americans through
SNAP leaves this court to address the
issues the agency has failed to resolve.
While the president of the United States
professes a commitment to helping those
it serves, the government's actions tell
a different story. Faced with a choice
between advancing relief and entrenching
delay, it chose the latter. An outcome
that predictably predictably magnifies
harm and undermines the very purpose of
the program it administers. Such conduct
is more than poor judgment. It is
arbitrary and capriccious. One cannot
champion the public interest while
simultaneously adopting policies that
frustrate it. Discretion exercised in
this manner ceases to be discretion at
all. It becomes obstruction cloaked in
administrative formality. Accordingly,
intervention is necessary. I mean that's
some powerful words from this.
Yep. Um and and and what he the way I
read the order is he's saying your
decision to arbitrarily partially fund
has created your own crisis of weeks and
months of delay. It's only weeks and
months of delay which is what is which
is what Mr. Pen wrote in his declaration
because you're going through an exercise
of trying to figure out how to make 56%
payments through a table and a schedule
given to the states who have never had
to make partial payments before. Here's
an idea. Top it up to 8 billion. Take
the funds from the other programs that
you've identified and then you don't
have an administrative delay problem.
Well, and that's and the judge last week
on Friday in his order was quite clear.
um you know if the government wanted to
go down the path of partial funding uh
it had to ensure there was expeditious
payments which it didn't do and so I
think that you see the judge you know
being crystal clear again about what's
required um in this moment and you know
incredibly upset that we yesterday we're
six days into the month and you're
talking about that's almost a full week
where people haven't gotten the benefits
that they need
six days of no milk in the refrigerator,
no eggs, no nutrition for people who are
most fragile. Here's what the judge says
as he leads into his argument that any
of this arguments that are being made in
his courtroom are obviously pretextual
and and he points to actual social media
postings by Donald Trump uh uh uh
against their position that they're
taking in court. He says on page 23,
contrary to what the defendants claim,
because at one point they're arguing,
well, we can't take it from the the
child nutrition funds because bad things
will happen if we do that. He says,
"Contrary to what the defendants claim,
29 million children who participate in
the child nutrition program are not at
risk of immediately going hungry in the
event of a transfer of section 32 funds,
which are these customs funds, which
could be used to top up the payments
here. Instead, SNAP recipients, 16
million of whom are children, will go
hungry if they do not receive the SNAP
benefits this month." And then he goes
into the the the postings by by Trump um
about it and and agreeing with your
argument that this is all just a
pretext.
And you know the backstory there is on
Monday we went in uh after the
government filed its paper uh I guess
Tuesday morning we went into court to
say under the government's own telling
people are going to have to wait too
long. that is not compliant with the
court order and ask the court to enforce
the order which is what the hearing was
on yesterday. About an hour after we
filed that paper on Tuesday, Trump goes
and takes to social media and starts
admitting that what he is doing is a is
playing politics with people's lives and
says I am not going to pay these
benefits out uh because of these
political issues. We actually took that
and went back to the court and said, you
know, we want to draw the court's
attention to um this posting, which
which we did believe um and the court
agreed yesterday supported the argument
that the team had been making in the
paper. So, I just want to lift up the
team at Democracy Forward. This is not
these is not legal work that happens um
just between 9 and 5. This team has been
working around the clock um you know
starting with the crisis the government
created last week to get on file to get
that court order monitoring the
situations of our plaintiffs that are
all over the country on the ground
getting back into court having to
prepare for this hearing and then now of
course we are ready for what the
government is putting out there trying
to appeal and get out from under this.
we truly have a team that is not going
to rest until people get these benefits
and um and they've just done a
tremendous job
and that and that makes our audience
feel so much better knowing that your
team is is on the ground and focused
with the energy that's required to uh to
oppose a rogue Department of Justice and
Trump administration. Here's just at
just at the end here. This is the
statement that Donald Trump made that
you ran into court with, your people ran
into court with. This is after his
Treasury Secretary went on Sunday
morning talk shows and said they were
making the payments,
right?
Uh he then comes out and says SNAP
benefits which increased by billions and
billions of dollars manyfold during
crooked Joe Biden's disastrous term in
office due to the fact that they were
half-hazardly handed to anyone for the
asking as opposed another runon to
adjust those in need which is the
purpose of SNAP will be given only when
the radical left Democrats open up
government which they can easily do and
not before. Thank you for your attention
to this matter, President DJT. I mean,
just complete callous indifference to
making people political hostage to his
to his minations while a mother can't
feed her loved one, child, disabled
person, veteran in their home.
Yeah. And remember the scenes, you know,
the Mara Lago scenes, right? So last
weekend as we had people, lawyers, we
represent churches, we represent food
kitchens, we represent workers that work
every day but that nevertheless have to
rely on SNAP because of what their wages
are and cyclical employment. You know,
all of these people are working to make
sure that we can secure basic nutrition
for people across the country. And then
of course Trump is at Mara Lago having
this Great Gatsby party. There's been a
series of projections um here throughout
Washington on federal buildings and
things um that are saying, you know,
that are really shining a light on um
that hypocrisy that is, you know, it's
unlawful what the administration's
doing. It's also immoral. And that's not
a word we use all the time at Democracy
Forward, but this is really um just
there's not a single ethical, moral,
religious, spiritual, secular tradition
that I'm aware of that says that you
turn your back on people like this
administration has done. And I think
that people are really feeling that of
all different stripes across the
country.
Agreed. And I think election night
showed that you can't build golden
ballrooms and marble bathrooms and Great
Gatsby, you know, let him eat cake
moments and have Americans suffer. He
actually posted that one I just read
that he trolled the poor on election
day.
Yeah. And Right. And so the broader
point, which we'll talk about, I'm sure
when we have more conversation, is that
we are increasingly seeing what is an
autocratic playbook unfold. an
administration that actually is
operating as if they will never be held
accountable to the people. They are
being held accountable. They're being
held accountable by the people in court.
They've been held accountable in
elections. We're seeing it in with the
millions of people at the no kings
marches when the president's threatening
people and millions are still showing up
and saying not on our watch are you
going to take this country down this
path. But I think that that is going to
be the fight that we're all going to
have to be engaged in in the in the days
and months and years ahead. And lastly,
Skies, I know you have so much work to
do today with your your hundreds of
cases, including this one, still still
not uh you we still haven't accomplished
what you want to accomplish, which is
getting people fed,
which is what the judge wants to
accomplish. We have a motion that's now
been filed with the First Circuit Court
of Appeals because, as you said to me
coming onto the air today, Judge
McConnell rejected the oral request to
stay his order to give the Trump
administration time to pay. That means
the Trump administration trying to block
payments to poor and underprivileged
people. It's up at the first circuit and
I I assume there'll be some sort of
briefing and a ruling by the first
circuit soon.
Um well, you know, we'll see. I mean,
what the four first circuit does. I
think like the main thing is there's a
live court order right now that this
administration needs to be complying
with right now that is unequivocal. Um
we are very confident, of course, that
what the administration's done is
unlawful, that the courts will continue
to see it that way. We also want to make
sure the American people are paying
attention. This is the president who had
his associates out on social media and
on media for weeks saying we would pay
these benefits if we could. They've now
not only been told that they could,
they've been told that they must. And
they are appealing that because they do
not want American people to be served.
That is um that is shocking even for
this administration. Um it is believable
yet unbelievable. And um that is you
know what is going to motivate our team
to continue to stay in the courts and in
communities until we can make sure
people get what they need.
And as you said Government coming out of
the court yesterday that no one should
have to force the president to care for
his citizens but we will do whatever is
necessary to protect people in
communities. And the only way out for
the president right now and for him not
to defy a federal court order is to pay
the full $8 billion today to American
families. Right.
Right. which is there available. The
courts have said it needs to happen and
he needs to do it.
All right, this is a story we're going
to stay closely and thank you for being
with the Sky Perry of Democracy Forward.
Can't get your fill of legal AF. Me
neither. That's why we formed the legal
AF Substack. Every time we mention
something in a hot take, whether it's a
court filing or a oral argument, come
over to the Substack. You'll find the
court filing and the oral argument
there, including a daily roundup that I
do called, wait for it, Morning AF. What
else? All the other contributors from
legal layout are there as well. We got
some new reporting. We got interviews.
We got ad free versions of the podcast
and hot takes. Where? Legal AF on
Substack. Come over now to free
subscribe.
[Music]

[admin]

Trump FUMES After BRILLIANT Protest Statue Appears In Switzerland
Really American
Nov 5, 2025

Really American host Steve Harness breaks down an insanely accurate statue of Trump shows up in Switzerland in an epic show of protest and camaraderie with our struggle!



Transcript

It appears President Trump was up late
last night watching election results. In
a flurry of rambling social media posts,
he weighed in on why Republicans lost
across the board.
Well, Trump seems to be taking the news
of the blue wave very well. Or maybe
this is a glimpse into the future after
a dictator chief is put on trial for
murdering people in boats. Or perhaps
it's an alternate universe where Donnie
lost the last election and is finally
being held accountable for his crimes.
Well, it could be any of that. But it's
actually yet another installment of
protest art. Ah, yes. And this one is so
realistic, it's a good thing it's
happening in another country or somebody
might be getting deported or a call from
the Secret Service. So, let's get into
it. Hit subscribe to Really American
media as we travel to Switzerland who
seems to be decidedly unneutral on the
topic of Trump. Even though President
Ompa has more holes in his brain than
Swiss cheese, but they still don't like
the guy. A few months back, they
actually put on a parade for Trump. And
this might be the first parade that King
Trump does not like.
[Music]
[Music]
I don't know.
[Music]
Yeah, very subtle. Do I need to
interpret any of that for you? No. All
righty. Allow me to introduce you to
Mason Storm, a British artist who is
wise to hide his face and should not be
confused with the Steven Seagal
character from Heart to Kill, also named
Mason Storm. But Mr. Storm, the masked
artist version, recently took his
disdain for Trump to the land of Swiss
chocolate. And this is now on display in
a storefront window in a popular part of
Basil. And it's called Saint or Sinner.
And I think we all know which one he is.
[Music]
4.
Will you be one?
[Music]
Yeah. To say that that's realistic would
be an understatement. And to say that
it's a dream come true for me would also
be an understatement. And I'm not sure
which is creepier, the statue or the
real Trump. And people on the streets
there in Basil had some thoughts on that
topic as well. It is scary realistic.
That is what I can really confirm
because when we installed it, we came
that close and and you would see every
wrinkle and and and the skin is so
realistic. It's really scary. And of
course, people react to that.
Yeah, people often do react to how scary
Trump is, both with how he looks and how
he governs. And I feel bad for Mason
Storm. He spent a lot of time studying
Trump's face up close. Makes me think
that being a proctologist would be a
better job than that as far as what you
have to stare at for a living.
Well, I don't I think it's quite cruel
what to see him like lying like that.
Yeah. Um, I hadn't quite decided what I
really think about it, but uh, he
belongs also to the um, human family.
Yeah, she said it's cruel to see him
lying like that. Doesn't she know? Lying
is what he does best. And it's highly
debatable if he's a human or just some
sort of demon sent here to torture
America for inventing Crocs. And I hope
you noticed that Trump statue is wearing
orange Crocs just to make it all even
more disturbing.
Yeah. Must be be free to to show what
you want
as long as it's uh in certain
uh yeah legal legal space.
Yeah, it's okay to display if it's in
that tiny little space. And of course, a
little space is perfect for Trump's
little hands. And fun fact, a little
space is how Trump's doctors described
what they found in his skull after they
did that MRI recently. And yeah, that's
a funny joke. Thank you. And as always,
Trump supporters can't handle a funny
joke or any other criticism of their
dear leader, like this comment that
says, "Fuck Sebastian. [ __ ] Mason, and
[ __ ] the entire country of Switzerland."
Now, Sebastian is just the poor guy that
took those pictures I've been showing
you. But as for Switzerland, this mega
snowflake would fit in very well at one
of their famous ski resorts with all the
other snowflakes. Here's a great comment
that says, quote, "How the world feels
about taco." Yeah, our taco president is
really the laughingtock of the whole
world. There's no debate about that. But
there is a debate about whether this
Trump statue thing here, the sinner or
the saint. Is he on a crucifix or is he
on a gurnie getting a lethal injection?
Or is it both? And this comment dissects
it by saying, quote, "He's demonic,
perhaps, but crucifixion is reserved, we
think, for godly souls, not monsters."
Sigh. However, it would certainly be
pleasing and wholly appropriate to place
this convicted felon orange clown in
prison for the remainder of his rotten
life. Touche.
[Applause]
[Music]
Yeah. And by the way, this Trump protest
art is also available in a mini me
version as you can see here. I can only
hope somebody bought that for me. And
speaking of great giftgiving ideas, this
whole thing also comes in a festive
holiday version. That would be the
perfect tree topper for my house. Or how
about this tactical ice inspired Trump?
Oh, but wait, there's more. Order now
and we'll throw in this orange
jumpsuitwearing Trump statue. And the
best part is on the back where it says
foolome prison, which would make Johnny
Cash very proud. And this should all
make America very embarrassed. Like I
said, the whole world is laughing at our
joke of a president. You throw a party,
maybe with some stakes, right? Beautiful
stakes. But I'm sorry, not everybody
gets in because it's a private party, a
very classy, exclusive party, right? If
you're not on the list, I'm sorry,
you're going to have to wait outside of
the wall.
Yeah, we have seen protest art all over
the planet making fun of Trump. And to
all of those artists out there, we
salute you. And to everyone who showed
up yesterday in America to vote and bury
Trump in that blue wave, we thank you.
But our work is far from over. We have
got to keep this momentum rolling into
the 2026 midterm elections. So start
right here. Like this video, comment
below, and get vocal. From the Vocal
Minority with Nick and Steve podcast,
newest episode available right here on
this channel. I'm Steve Harnesses for
Really American Media.
[Music]

[admin]

Transcript


So the United Fruit Company, he knew what happened in Chile in 1973 when Salvador Allende was murdered. Pinochet
installed because Chilean socialism endangered American corporate interests. He knew the stories of Nicaragua and El
Salvador, of the school of the Americas where Washington trained the death squads that terrorized Central America
for generations. He knew about the Monroe Doctrine, that
19th century declaration that Latin America was the cracks in Washington's imperial facade are showing. And
Venezuela has become the fracture line nobody in power wanted you to see. For decades, the playbook was simple.
Sanctions, regime change operations, demonization in the media, and eventually a compliant government that
opened its resources to American corporations. But something fundamental has shifted.
Venezuela isn't collapsing on command. Despite the longest and most brutal economic siege in modern history,
sanctions that have devastated its economy more severely than strategic bombing campaigns, the nation remains
standing, defiant, and increasingly connected to a new axis of global power
that doesn't answer to Washington. This isn't just about one country's resistance. It's about the unraveling of
a 70-year system where American dictate determined which governments lived and which died. What we're witnessing are
the birth pangs of a multipolar world. A world where military might and financial
coercion no longer guarantee obedience. Nations are finding alternative pathways
through Chinese investment, Russian cooperation, and regional solidarity. The panic in Washington isn't hysteria.
It's the cold realization that the empire's most reliable tools are breaking in its hands, and Venezuela's
survival is the proof that terrifies them most. Let's step back for a moment and look at what no one in Washington wants to
acknowledge. Venezuela was never supposed to survive this long. The architects of American foreign policy,
the strategists in think tanks funded by defense contractors and energy conglomerates had drawn up the timeline
years ago. maximum pressure, they called it, starve the economy, freeze the
assets, cut off the banking system, prohibit the sale of oil, make it impossible for medicines to reach
hospitals, for food to reach markets, for spare parts to reach factories. The
calculation was cold and precise, 6 months, maybe a year at most, and the
government would fall. Maduro would be gone. The military would fracture.
Washington's chosen legitimate leader would walk into Miraaf Flores palace holding the keys to the nation's oil
reserves. That was the plan. That was always the plan. But years later, Venezuela is still there, battered,
wounded, struggling under the weight of economic warfare that would have toppled almost any other nation on Earth, but
still standing, still sovereign, still refusing to hand over the keys to its future. Now, I want you to understand
something crucial about how empires operate because this isn't really about
Venezuela at all. It's about the president. It's about what happens when a small country, a relatively weak
country, uh, by conventional military standards, looks at the most powerful
empire in human history and says, "No, that single word is the one thing
empires cannot tolerate. Rome couldn't tolerate it. The British Empire couldn't tolerate it and the American Empire
certainly cannot tolerate it. When you control the global financial system, when your currency is the reserve
currency of the world, when your military has 800 bases scattered across
every continent, when your intelligence agencies have overthrown more governments than most people can count,
the idea that a country like Venezuela could simply refuse your demands becomes an existential threat to the entire
architecture of power. It's not really about oil, though the oil matters. It's not about ideology, though they'll tell
you it's about democracy and human rights. It's about obedience,
about maintaining the system in which Washington decides which governments are
legitimate and which are not, where American economic interests outweigh national sovereignty, and where the
so-called rules-based international order means rules that America writes
and everyone else follows. Venezuela understood this from the beginning. Hugo Chavez understood it. Whatever one
thinks of Chavez, his governance, his policies, or his authoritarian ten
denses, he grasp the fundamental truth of Latin America's relationship with the
United States. He had studied history. He knew what happened in Guatemala in 1954
when the CIA overthrew a democratically elected government because it dared to enact land reforms that threatened the
profit America's backyard. its private sphere of influence, its territory to
manage as it saw fit. And he decided that Venezuela would not be managed. It
would chart its own course. He used the nation's oil wealth not to enrich
foreign corporations or domestic elite, but to fund social programs, literacy campaigns, healthcare initiatives, and
housing projects. Were they perfect? No. Were they sustainable? That's debatable. But they were Venezuela's choices made
by Venezuelans for Venezuelans. And that to Washington was unforgivable.
The American response was predictable because it's always predictable. First came the diplomatic pressure, the
stern warnings, the moral lectures about democracy from a government that has interfered in more elections than any
other in history. Then came the economic pressure, targeted sanctions, financial
restrictions, quiet conversations with banks and corporations about the risks of doing business with Venezuela. Then
came the demonization, the media campaign portraying every action of the Venezuelan government in the worst
possible light. Every opposition voice was amplified while millions of government supporters were ignored. A
complex political reality was flattened into simple morality play. Dictatorship
versus democracy. And finally came the real sanctions. The comprehensive
economic warfare not designed to change specific policies but to destroy the economy entirely to create such misery
that the population would have no choice but to overthrow its government. This they said was humanitarian
intervention. They destroy your economy. watch your children starve, block the medicine that could save lives, and then
blame your government for the crisis they engineered. But something went wrong with the plan.
The Venezuelan government didn't collapse. The military didn't defect. The uprising Washington expected never
came. And that's when the empire began to realize that the old playbook no longer worked.
Most importantly, Venezuela found alternatives. And this is the part that truly terrifies the empire because the entire
sanctions regime rests on one central illusion that there is no alternative to the American dominated global financial
system. If you're cut off from Swift, if you can't access dollars, if US banks won't touch your transactions, then
you're supposed to be finished. That's the leverage. That's the power. That's the myth that keeps smaller nations
obedient. But Venezuela refused to vanish. It started selling oil to China and yuan.
deepened its economic and military ties with Russia and built new trade channels through Turkey, Iran, and India,
countries that were uh willing to defy US pressure and find creative ways to
keep the Venezuelan economy alive under siege. And this is where the real panic
began in Washington. Because if Venezuela can survive maximum
pressure, if it can navigate around American coercion, then what does that
mean for the entire system of hegemony built on financial dominance? Inside the
corridors of power in Washington, there's a quiet recognition spreading. The toolkit isn't working anymore. The
sanctions that were supposed to be surgical have become blunt. instruments punishing entire populations while
leaving governments intact. The regime change operations that used
to feel routine now end in humiliation. The absurd coup attempt involving former
Green Berets captured almost immediately on Venezuelan shores. The farcical
recognition of Juan Guaido as legitimate president. A man who controlled no territory, no military, no government,
yet was declared head of state by American decree. It was a political theater so detached from reality that
even Washington's closest allies eventually abandoned the act. For a
while, the world pretended. Some governments nodded along. Some media
outlets echoed the narrative. But you can't conjure reality from press releases. Guyaido was a president of
American imagination and the fiction collapsed under its own absurdity. Venezuela's endurance became something
larger than itself. It became a symbol, a proof of concept. Every country in the
global south began watching. Watching to see if defiance could succeed, watching
to see if the US could be resisted without total destruction. Could there
be alternatives to the Washington consensus, to the neoliberal dogma that promised
prosperity and delivered dependency, debt, and despair? More and more nations began to think, "Yes, sovereignty might
still mean something. Independence might still be possible. The American order might not be eternal." After all, China
emerged as the largest trading partner for more countries than the United States itself. The Belt and Road
Initiative, for all its controversies, offered infrastructure and investment without lectures or ideological strings
attached. Russia positioned itself as a partner for nations tired of interference.
Regional blocks like Alba and Seac began coordinating Latin American interests without US participation. And that's the
nightmare scenario for Washington. Not chaos, but success. Because success is
contagious. If Venezuela can make it, others might try. And if they succeed
too, then the entire illusion of inevitability. The idea that the empire cannot be
defied starts to crumble. For decades, US policy in Latin America relied on a
single assumption that resistance was feudal, that no small nation could withstand the combined weight of
American money, power, and control. But Venezuela has done just that. It hasn't
triumphed. It hasn't prospered. But it has endured. And endurance in the
face of empire is victory enough to rewrite the rules. The reality that Venezuela is still standing, that it has
survived the full force of American economic warfare cannot be dismissed or explained away. It defies the logic of
hegemonic dominance. It exposes the limits of US power in a world that is no
longer as easily controlled as it once was. Because Venezuela's resistance is
not happening in isolation. It's part of a much broader global pattern. While
Caracus was enduring sanctions, Russia was withstanding its own. Years of
Western restrictions meant to break its economy. Instead, pushed it to re-industrialize, strengthen internal
production uh and deepened ties with China, India, and Iran. The outcome
wasn't collapse. It was adaptation. At the same time, China was building an
alternative system, one that now rivals the United States. in both scale and technological sophistication. The BRICS
nations were talking openly about ddollarization, creating new banks, new payment
mechanisms, and new trade networks that bypass American intermediaries altogether. Across Africa and Asia,
countries began quietly refusing to pick sides in Washington's new cold war narrative. They saw what had happened in
Iraq, Libya, and Syria and decided that aligning with American interests was no guarantee of stability or prosperity.
The world was fragmenting, and US power, though still immense, no longer carried
the same inevitability. The unipolar moment that Washington celebrated after the Cold War, the
moment when it seemed history itself had ended, turned out to be a brief
illusion. It lasted less than a decade before the cracks began to show.
Venezuela improbably and against all odds became one of those cracks, small at first, but widening year after year.
And here's the deeper truth. It took breathtaking arrogance to believe that the United States could simply starve a
nation into submission. The sanctions against Venezuela were not minor inconveniences. They were acts of
economic warfare on a catastrophic scale. Tens of billions in oil revenue
lost. A national economy collapsing faster than the Great Depression.
Hyperinflation tearing apart the currency. Hospitals without medicine. Markets without food. Factories without
parts. The suffering was not collateral damage. It was the point. The architects
of the sanctions knew exactly what would happen. They understood that ordinary Venezuelans would bear the brunt of the
pain, that children would go hungry, that diabetics would die without insulin, that hospitals would run out of
antibiotics. They saw all this coming and decided it was worth it because the suffering was
supposed to break the will of the nation. This is what Washington calls democracy promotion.
This is what humanitarian intervention looks like in practice. destroy the economy, induce mass misery, then blame
the government you're trying to overthrow for the destruction you caused. But once again, the plan failed.
The human cost was immense, but the government did not fall. The Venezuelan people adapted. They organized community
networks to distribute food and medicine. They started urban farms to reduce dependency on imports. They
learned to live with shortages, to cooperate, to resist. The government too adapted using
cryptocurrency to skirt financial blockades, restructuring oil production to sustain minimal exports, and
maintaining essential alliances with nations willing to defy US threats.
Washington underestimate the resilience of a people who had already endured decades of imperial interference.
It also underestimated how much the global balance had shifted. There were now alternatives and they were becoming
stronger every year. The empire's tools, sanctions, isolation, regime change were
no longer working as intended. And that realization was spreading fear through the corridors of American power. Because
if economic coercion no longer guarantees obedience, what does the empire really have left? This is the
question haunting Washington today. If sanctions no longer work, what leverage
remains? For decades, economic coercion has been the empire's most effective
weapon. Cleaner than war, quieter than invasion, but often just as deadly. When
a country disobeyed, the punishment was swift. Currency collapse, capital flight block trade, and international
isolation. It was domination through dollars. But Venezuela exposed the
weakness at the heart of that strategy. showed that when nations build alternative systems, when they link
their economies to partners outside the Western orbit, even the might of American finance begins to fade. The
military option, while always on the table in theory, has never been realistic. Invading Venezuela would be a
catastrophe. This isn't Iraq or Libya. It's a nation with difficult terrain, a
sizable loyal military, and millions of citizens who would resist any occupation. Latin America still bears
the scars of US interventions. Another one would ignite a firestorm of opposition across the hemisphere.
Washington knows this. So the threat of invasion remains just that, a threat
which leaves economic warfare as the primary tool of control. But when economic warfare fails to topple
governments, it ceases to be a deterrent and becomes a demonstration of declining
influence. The illusion of omnipotence, cracks a little more each time a sanctioned
nation survives. That's why Venezuela matters far beyond its borders.
It has beco me a test case, a laboratory for survival under siege.
Every country that has faced US pressure, Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea, now Russia, is watching closely.
They're studying how Caracus has managed to keep functioning under total economic blockade. They're adapting those lessons
to their own circumstances, and the results are unmistakable.
Venezuela's economy, while still fragile, has begun to stabilize. Hyperinflation has slowed. Oil
production though far below its past levels has started to recover. Uh small industries have revived, trade routes
have reopened and a sense of endurance has returned. The government has weathered the storm. The state remains
intact. That doesn't mean Venezuela is thriving. The suffering has been immense. Millions have left the country
in search of better lives. But the survival of the nation itself, its government, its sovereignty, its
defiance is a political earthquake. It proves that resistance is possible. For
Washington, this is a nightmare because the entire postworld war II order, the
system of global dominance built on the dollar, the threat of sanctions, and the promise of intervention depends on one
thing. The belief that saying no to the United States is suicidal. Venezuela has
shattered that belief. And when one nation breaks the spell of inevitability, others begin to follow.
The logic of fear starts to erode. Confidence grows among those who were once silent. The empire's greatest
weapon, the perception of invincibility, begins to fail. That's why the story of Venezuela is not just about one nation's
endurance. It's about the slow unraveling of a world order that believed it could dictate the fate of
every other nation on Earth. Washington can see it happening. The policy makers, the strategists, the
corporate lobbies, they all understand what's slipping away. The problem is that they don't know how to stop it. The
truth that few in Washington are willing to face is that the age of uncontested
domy nance, the so-called American century is ending before our eyes. The
machinery of control still operates. The rhetoric of supremacy still fills the airwaves. But the world beneath it has
changed. The empire's tools are dull, its threats less convincing, its moral authority evaporating. Venezuela is only
one chapter in this story, but it's a telling one. The sanctions that were supposed to isolate it have instead
connected it to a new web of partnerships. The pressure that was meant to crush it has instead hardened
its resolve and driven it deeper into alliances that Washington cannot easily penetrate.
We see the same pattern elsewhere. The war in Ukraine was meant to isolate Russia. Instead, it has accelerated a
global realignment. The sanctions imposed on Moscow, meant to collapse its economy, have strengthened its ties with
Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. The ruble didn't vanish. Russia didn't
implode. Instead, a new network of non-western trade and finance began to take shape, one that functions
increasingly outside the dollar system. China too has refused to bow to containment. The attempt to halt its
rise has failed spectacularly. It is now the primary trading partner for the majority of the world's nations.
More integrated into global production and innovation than ever. Its technological and industrial power has
reached a scale that no sanction can meaningfully suppress. Every attempt to restrain China has only
forced it to become more self-reliant and more ambitious. In the Middle East, the unthinkable has happened. Rivals
like Saudi Arabia and Iran have restored diplomatic relations through mediation by Beijing, not Washington. The old
order in which the US dictated the region's alliances is crumbling. Across Africa, governments are demanding better
terms, refusing to serve as pawns in Western geopolitical games. They're
leveraging competition between global powers to gain sovereignty and investment on their own terms. All of
ESE movements, every act of defiance, every refusal to obey, echo what began
in Venezuela because every successful act of resistance weakens the imperial system a little more. Each nation that
survives American pressure makes it easier for the next one to try. Every new trade agreement outside the dollar
weakens the dollar supremacy. Every new development bank outside the IMF erodess
western financial control. Every regional organization that excludes the
United States from bricks to sealac chips away at the automatic assumption of American leadership.
This is how empires decline. Not in a single collapse but in a thousand small
defeats. Each one too subtle to notice on its own. and yet together forming an unstoppable erosion. Venezuela against
every prediction became one of those defeats. And while the human cost has been staggering, millions displaced,
lives upended, communities torn apart, the broader geopolitical consequence is
undeniable, the world now knows that American power can be resisted
uh and survived. That knowledge is revolutionary.
It is reshaping how nations negotiate, how they plan, how they dream. The fear
is fading. The spell is breaking. Breaking of fear is the true beginning
of freedom. For decades, the foundation of American hegemony wasn't just its
military or its money. It was the belief that there was no alternative. Every
nation was told implicitly or explicitly that there were only two choices, obedience or isolation. That illusion
held the world hostage. But today that illusion is dying. What's emerging in
its place is not chaos. It's multipolarity. A world where power is distributed. Where influence is
negotiated rather than imposed. And where sovereignty begins to mean something real again.
Venezuela's defiance helped ignite this transformation. It wasn't alone, but it was symbolic. A small nation in
Washington's backyard that refused to surrender. When others saw it stand firm, it sent a quiet signal across the
global south. You can resist and still survive. That message spread faster than any
sanction could contain. Now we're watching that idea take institutional form.
BRICS is no longer just a talking point. It's evolving into a parallel order, one with its own banks, its own currency
initiatives, its own vision for global trade. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is expanding. The Eurasian
Economic Union, the African Continental Free Trade Area, and the Latin American
Integration Projects are all converging around a shared goal, freedom from
Western Dependency. This isn't anti-Americanism. It's anti-domination.
It's the natural evolution of a world tired of being ruled by a single narrative, a single currency, a single
moral authority that always seems to justify its own violence.
And the irony is that the very tools designed to preserve US supremacy, sanctions, regime change operations,
information warfare are now accelerating its decline. Every new target of
American coercion becomes a future member of this emerging alternative system. Every act of economic punishment
drives nations closer to China, Russia, or regional blocks willing to defy Washington's dictates. The empire's
strength once came from its ability to isolate. Now isolation is impossible. The world
has grown too connected, too self-aware, too technologically independent.
Nations are learning to trade in their own currencies, to build digital payment systems that bypass the dollar, to
invest in infrastructure that links them to one another instead of to their
former overseers. And perhaps most importantly, people, ordinary citizens,
are beginning to see through the language of empire. They understand that democracy promotion often means
destabilization. That humanitarian intervention often hides resource extraction. That
rules-based order really means our rules, your obedience. The myth of benevolent hegemony is collapsing under
the weight of its own hypocrisy. And as it collapses, something extraordinary is taking shape. Not a perfect world, but a
plural one where nations reclaim the right to chart their own destinies. The
balance of power is shifting not through war but through awakening, through the steady realization that empires are not
eternal. They endure only as long as people believe in their inevitability. That belief is gone. And from its ruins,
a new order is being born. One where no single nation holds the keys to the world, where power must be shared, and
where sovereignty begins to mean not subservience, but self-determination. The mythology of American exceptionalism
has always been the empire's most powerful weapon. The story that justified everything.
It told Americans they weren't conquerors but liberators. That their dominance was not domination
but destiny. It wrapped expansionism and moral language and made global control
sound like a humanitarian mission. But every myth eventually meets reality.
And the reality of the 21st century is unforgiving. The United States no longer
looks like the beacon of progress it once claimed to be. The wars that were supposed to spread democracy have left
behind chaos and ruins. The sanctions that were supposed to defend human rights have starved millions. The free
market that was supposed to lift all boats has deepened inequality both at home and abroad. And as the facade
crumbles, the world is beginning to see the empire not as exceptional, but as ordinary, driven by the same ambitions,
fears, and corruptions that plagued every empire before it. Venezuela's resistance helped expose that truth.
When Washington froze its assets, blocked its trade, and called it a dictatorship for refusing to obey, the
rest of the world took note. They saw how quickly the rhetoric of democracy turned into the machinery of coercion.
They watched the same playbook used in Iraq, Libya, and Syria unfold again. Only this time, the narrative didn't
hold. Becca used people everywhere are more connected, more informed, and less
easily deceived. Information doesn't flow in one direction anymore. Independent journalists, global south
media networks, and decentralized platforms have shattered the monopoly of Western storytelling. The empire can
still lie, but it can no longer lie alone. American exceptionalism depended on moral superiority, on the belief that
US power was uniquely righteous, but moral authority cannot coexist with hypocrisy.
You cannot claim to defend freedom while arming dictators. You cannot claim to promote peace while encircling the
planet with military bases. You cannot preach sovereignty while toppling governments that disagree with you. And
so the narrative is collapsing under its own contradictions. The language that once inspired freedom, democracy,
leadership now rings hollow. The rest of the world hears these words and sees
drones, sanctions, coups, and chaos. They see double standards, allies
forgiven for crimes that enemies are bombed for. They see a system that serves power, not principle. This
doesn't mean the United States is finished. It still possesses immense strength, military, economic, cultural,
but strength without credibility is brittle. Power without legitimacy eventually turns inward. And that's
exactly what we're witnessing. An empire losing the ability to justify itself,
both to others and to its own people. At home, the same arrogance that defined US
foreign policy now corrods its domestic core. Infrastructure decays, inequality
widens, trust erodess. The empire that once projected stability abroad now struggles to maintain it within its own
borders. The same tactics used on foreign nations, divide, destabilize, extract, are now turning inward.
This is the twilight of American exceptionalism. Not the end of America itself, but the end of the illusion that
it stands above history. The end of the belief that it can act without consequence. the end of the idea that
its power is permanent, benevolent, or ordained. What replaces it will define the next century. A humbler America
could coexist peacefully in a multi-polar world, a nation among nations rather than an empire above
them. But if it clings to the myth of exception, if it refuses to accept the limits of its own reach, it risks
collapsing under the weight of its own denial. The world is ready to move on. The question is, is America

[admin]

US supreme court issues emergency order blocking full Snap food aid payments. High court’s order comes after appeals court rejected Trump administration’s request to block November benefits
Associated Press and Guardian staff
Fri 7 Nov 2025 21.50 EST
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ourt-order

The supreme court has issued an emergency order temporarily blocking full Snap food aid payments.

The high court’s order came after the Trump administration asked a federal appeals court on Friday to block a judge’s order that it distribute November’s full monthly food stamp benefits amid a US federal government shutdown.

After that request to block was denied, the Trump administration turned to the supreme court in a further attempt to block the order to fully fund Snap food aid payments.

The application to stay reads: “If forced to transfer funds to Snap to make full November allotments, there is no means for the government to recoup those expenditures – which is quintessential irreparable harm. Once those payments are made, there is every indication that the States will promptly disburse them. And once disbursed, the government will be unable to recover any funds. Worse, these harms will only compound if the decision below stands.

“There is every reason to expect that if the shutdown lingers, the court below will not command the government to tap these funds again in December to support Snap – blowing a bigger hole in the budget for the child nutrition programs.”

The application – which was filed at about 7pm ET – also requested that the supreme court grant the “immediate administrative stay of the district court’s orders by 9.30pm” on Friday.

Shortly after 9.30pm, attorney general Pam Bondi shared a note on X saying that the supreme court “just granted our administrative stay in this case. Our attorneys will not stop fighting, day and night, to defend and advance President Trump’s agenda.”

US district judge John J McConnell Jr had given the Trump administration until Friday to make the payments through Snap, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, after the administration said last month that it would not pay benefits for November because of the shutdown.

On Friday, Patrick Penn, deputy undersecretary at the Department of Agriculture, wrote in a memo to states that the government “will complete the processes necessary” to fully fund Snap for now and the funds will be available on Friday.

But also on Friday, the Trump administration asked the appeals court to suspend any court orders requiring it to spend more money than is available in a contingency fund.

The court filing came even as Britt Cudaback, the spokesperson for Wisconsin’s governor, Tony Evers, said on Friday that some Snap recipients in the state already had received their full November payments overnight on Thursday.

“We’ve received confirmation that payments went through, including members reporting they can now see their balances,” she said.

The court wrangling prolonged weeks of uncertainty for the food program that serves about one in eight Americans, mostly with lower incomes.

Last week, in separate rulings, two judges ordered the government to pay at least part of the benefits using an emergency fund. It initially said it would cover half, but later said it would cover 65%.

[admin]

Trump Troop’s PERMANENTLY BLOCKED by Federal Judge
Legal AF
924K subscribers
Nov 8, 2025 The Intersection with Michael Popok

Judge Immergut, a Portland Federal Judge and Trump appointee, after a 3 day final trial, issued a PERMANENT INJUNCTION to once and for all block Trump's take over of the State National Guard on the Streets of Portland. Popok unpacks the 106 page decision and what evidence she heard that convinced her that the Founding Fathers and Framers would object to Trump's tyrannical power grab.



Transcript

In breaking news, we've got a new
permanent injunction, meaning a
permanent block after a federal trial
issued by a Trumpappointed judge in
Oregon, Judge Imrat, to permanently stop
Donald Trump from uh deploying the
National Guard on the streets of
Portland, Oregon, and taking over the
National Guard uh from mobilizing,
commandeering, and then deploying them
because the facts on the ground, the
truth on the ground is not support him
taking over the state militia, violating
constitutional principles, violating the
delegation under narrow principles of
the ability of Congress to call up an
army given to the president under
certain circumstances under 10 USC,
United States Code 12406.
She found none of those elements were
present to empower the president under
the facts that exist on the ground in
real life in Portland. support that
takeover. She's not declaring that he
can't ever try it again if the facts do
allow it. If there is a rebellion, an
organized armed resistance to federal
officers and law, she's not saying that.
She's saying that if there is facts on
the ground that support that rebellion
or support the inability of the federal
government to execute laws using the
regular forces, either federal officers
already on the ground or the federal
military, she'll revisit the issue. But
for now, under the record before her,
developed in three days of testimony,
he's blocked. And it's important. I
mean, this was a week, and I'll do a
separate hottake about this. This is a
week where Donald Trump lost eight
times, soon to probably be nine times in
federal courts from again with juries
ruling against him, magistrate judges,
federal judges, chief judges from Rhode
Island to Oregon, from sea to shining
sea.
But this one I think is very important
because there's so much going on with
Donald Trump Trump's attempted muscle
flex and undermining the brand of the
Democrats by going into Democrat states
and cities only. Not going into red
cities, not going into red states that
have high murder rates and violent crime
issues and meth issues.
um but going into blue states to try to
embarrass his political rivals and using
the militia and the takeover of the
militia which would make our founding
fathers and our framers as Judge Imrup
pointed out to spin in their graves
about what he's tried to do as an
overgrown president trying to use
effectively a standing army standing
army which is a road and a path to
tyranny let me read to you from Judge
Immut again a Trump appointee and she's
not to be trifled with I mean no federal
federal judges. I've been practicing
federal law in courts for 35 years. You
wear that robe sometimes. Sometimes we
joke as the lawyers on this side of the
bench uh members of the bar that judges
sometimes have black robe disease, but
uh you don't trifle with a federal
judge. And not this one. This judge is
is um seasoned is has the gravitas, has
the body of work to back it up. She'd
been the US attorney for Portland,
Oregon, working closely with law
enforcement. She'd been an assistant US
attorney in LA. She'd worked in Rhode
Island for the Department of Justice.
She's done it all. I think she was a
magistrate judge before she got
appointed to be a judge. So, she made
her findings of fact and conclusions of
law. Donald Trump tried to stamp Peter
into a decision. She issued about four
days ago, you might be thinking this is
a repeat hottake. It's not. She issued a
preliminary injunction to continue to
keep the troops in their barracks
because they're already in Oregon and he
already tried to send in other troops
from Texas and and California. and she
grounded them and the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals ultimately up uh kind
of in their own way procedurally upheld
her because they the Ninth Circuit with
a majority vote of 29 of the total of
the judges of the Ninth Circuit vacated
or threw out a three judge panel of the
Ninth Circuit that had ruled against
Judge Imrat's temporary restraining
orders. remember or let me tell you for
the first time. Administrative stay
lasts for hours or a day or two.
Temporary restraining order um it on
similar facts as the other injunctions
but last it has to do with time. It
lasts a shorter amount of time. It's a
temporary restraining order once the
judge decides that the party in front of
them is likely to prevail likely to
prevail on the merits of the case. will
it will be irreparably harmed if this
thing isn't stopped or blocked. Um it
has an inadequate remedy law. The
balance of equities tips in their favor.
Those are the factors. Then from there
they expire by their term by their order
after a certain amount of time. They can
be extended. But then you move into a
preliminary injunction which is an
injunction for the duration of the case
until trial and final order or judgment
or verdict of a jury. And that usually
happens after a several day hearing. So
she had an evidentiary hearing to to
rule finally at the end of the case on a
permanent injunction. She asked the
Trump administration to let her have a
few more days a week to draft her order.
It ended up being 106 pages and Trump
said no. The Department of Justice said
no. So she had to order a preliminary
injunction which she did about four days
ago
which they they forced her to do it. She
said, "I'm going to issue my order on
Friday by 5:00 East uh Pacific time."
And she did right on time. And here it
is. I posted in Legal AF Substack. Judge
Imrat. Let me read to you from the parts
that were meaningful to me. She says at
the very beginning in her introduction
on page two, after a three-day trial
that included the testimony of federal,
state, and local law enforcement
officials and hundreds of exhibits
describing protest activity outside the
Portland ICE building, I immigration and
customs enforcement. The evidence
demonstrates that these deployments, the
takeover commandeering of the of the
National Guard, which were objected to
by the governor of the state and not
requested by federal officials in charge
of the protection of the building. Stop
right there. Even the people running the
ICE building who are feds didn't request
the National Guard. I think that's a
very telling piece of evidence.
She said all of that rolling out and
trying to commandeer the Oregon National
Guard or send in other National Guard
exceeded the president's authority.
While violent protests did occur in
June, he didn't send the troops until
September. They quickly abated due to
the efforts of civil law enforcement
officers. And since the brief span of a
few days in June, the protest outside
the Portland ICE facility have been
predominantly peaceful. I'm going to
show you some B-roll here, like we like
to say, some video of the peaceful naked
bike protest. Chickens and um people in
chicken suits and in frog suits while
Christy Gnome was ex was looking at from
the top of the ice building down at the
12 people that were standing in silent
protest at the bottom.
Um, the judge says there was only
isolated and sporadic instances of
relatively low-level violence, largely
between protesters and
counterprotesters. That's not stopping
the feds from executing their
immigration law.
Uh, under the Constitution, Congress
Congress possesses the power to call up
the National Guard to execute the laws
of the Union, suppress insurrections,
and repel invasions. under article 1
section 8 clause 15 but Congress
delegated that power to the president
under certain circumstances under 10 USC
section 12406
but they still unless properly executed
they're always the state militia under
the command of the state government
governor the president's unlawful f
federalization of the national guard she
ruled this is a final order violates the
10th amendment which reserves to the
states any powers not given to the
federal government in the constitution.
It is our sovereignty, state sovereignty
protection.
She then goes on to talk about
the Supreme Court and some of the
founding fathers, she says on page four
of her order on the top, "This court
acknowledges that some citizens may
support these deployments as a helpful
military supplement to affectuate the
president's immigration agenda." Yeah.
and just a helpful military supplement
of an outofcontrol tyrannical president
to put a standing army on the streets of
America. But the found she's being
polite there. But the founders quote
embodied their profound fear and
distrust of military power in the
constitution and it its amendments which
has lived on through the decades uh
demonstrating a traditional and strong
resistance of Americans to any military
intrusion into civilian affairs.
Um,
she says as she's going through the
evidence, she said, first of all,
there's very little, if any, violence
against federal officers. There were a
couple of incidents. They were quickly
handled and dispatched by local law
enforcement and federal officers. They
didn't need the National Guard to fix
it. She said most of the issues outside
early on in June were protests versus
counterprotesters. It didn't stop the
ability of the president to execute
under the laws. The laws, there's only
two elements that there's only two
conditions that the that Trump has tried
to claim were present in order for him
to take over the National Guard in all
these states, a rebellion. And Judge
Imrat rejected rebellion. She said that
is a defined term from our history. It
has to be organized. It has to be armed.
and it has to be a resistance of a
certain level, a certain pitch of
violence.
None of that was present. She went
through pages and pages and pages of
evidence and testimony about how this
was not a rebellion. I don't even think
the Trump administration believes it was
a rebellion, although they may argue
something different to the United States
Supreme Court. But let's take rebellion
for a minute off the table. I mean, they
couldn't even agree during the immunity
oral arguments at the Supreme Court two
years ago about what an insurrection
was. They're not going to agree that a
bunch of people in chicken suits yelling
and screaming at ICE officers is a
rebellion. So now you're left with, can
the president execute federal law using
regular forces? Now the issue of regular
forces, you'd think after 250 years of
history would be defined. It isn't. And
so she does a nifty trick in her order,
Judge Immut. She says, I don't have to
resolve what are regular forces. The
Ninth Circuit has said regular forces
are federal forces. Like, can you
execute the laws using your own feds? If
you can, which she says they can, then
you never get to tap back up from the
National Guard of the state. You never
get to take over, cross the line,
violate state sovereignty, and take over
the National Guard. It's a big deal, a
heavy lift, and and you're not able to
do it under those circumstances. Now,
the Supreme Court, as she noted, is
currently struggling with what the term
regular forces mean. And and they've
asked for additional briefing because
they're about to take on some of the
National Guard cases through a Chicago
ruling
um that's up in front of them about
whether it was appropriate for Donald
Trump to take over the National Guard in
Chicago. Now, we'll get some guidance
from the Supreme Court about future
takeovers once they rule. But they are
also troubled by what are regular forces
and what do they mean? I mean, there's
two arguments from our history going
back to the late 1700s that regular
forces mean the armed forces, the the
army, you send in the army. And if after
sending in the army and maybe your
federal officers and they're still so
overwhelmed, there's like a siege. It's
like the Alamo, then you can call in the
National Guard, but only under those
circumstances. And those circumstances
obviously were not present. They were
not on the ground. These people were not
overwhelmed. Maybe it took them a little
bit longer to get some migrant that they
picked up without due process and shove
him into a van and drive him into the
ICE facility, but you know, that's not
that does not allow a president to call
up a standing army on domestic soil.
Uh, and she she's very focused in her
order about how the violence might have
been present in June, but by the time he
rolled it in in September,
it was long gone. Uh here's what they
said. This this is what she says on page
69 of her order.
Uh the limitations placed on a
president's ability with a delegated
duty to call up the National Guard
reflects the founders's understanding of
the scope of the calling forth power to
execute the laws of the Union which is
again in the constitution article 1
section 8 clause 15. At the Virginia
ratifying convention in 1788 of the
Constitution, a delegate thought the
word insurrection included every
opposition to the laws and asked whether
the militia clauses could omit the
phrase to execute the laws of the Union.
In response, James Madison clarified
that a riot did not come within the
legal def definition of insurrection.
there might be riots to oppose the
execution of the laws which the civil
power might not be sufficient to quell.
Alexander Hamilton similarly understood
the clause as allowing the federal
government to command the aid of the
militia in those emergencies which call
for the military arm in support of the
civil magistrate.
Uh and then she goes on and says on page
70 pulling again from the founding
fathers from uh the patriots of America
that helped at its founding she says
perhaps the most illuminating from the
Virginia ratifying convention is
Governor Edmund Randolph's response to
Patrick Henry warning of the apparent
wide breath of circumstances in which
the militia could be called forth to
execute the laws.
As Randolph stated,
it is supposed that the clause for
calling forth the militia to suppress
insurrection, repel invasions, and
execute the laws of the Union implies
that instead of using civil force in the
first instance, the militia are called
forth. So you don't he you just skip a
step and go right to the go right to the
militia. Ought not common common sense
to be the rule of interpreting this
constitution? Randolph asked, is there
an exclusion of the civil power? Does it
provide that the laws are to be enforced
by military coercion in all cases? No
sir. All that we are to infer is that
when the civil power is not sufficient,
the militia must be drawn out. So that
suggests that if you try your federal
forces, and there's a lot of for federal
security forces around ICE in in
combination with maybe the armed forces,
the military, and you still can't do it
with the feds, then you tap the National
Guard. but not before.
Um,
so this is a big ruling. It's the first
permanent injunction related to the
National Guard. The other ones coming
out of Chicago were temporary
restraining orders and or preliminary
injunctions.
And
it's going to now form this body of
context for the United States Supreme
Court as they rule in the next 30 days
or so about this use of the National
Guard by Donald Trump. And and what
we're worried about on this side of the
microphone and on this side of the
audience is that Donald Trump continues
to use this muscle flex
um in a tyrannical way to suppress
disscent and first amendment rights. We
won't allow it.
Tuesday, we sent a clear message that
Trump is on his his dying is in his
dying days, the waning days of the Trump
administration. We're making him as lame
duck as possible as soon as possible,
less than one year to the midterms. I'll
continue to follow it all right here on
Legal AF. Thanks for being here on Legal
AF Saturday. You could be doing a lot of
other things today and I'm glad you're
watching this video. We appreciate you.
Hit the free subscribe button. Come over
to Legal AF Substack. do the exact same
thing. And if you can swing becoming a
paid member, people say, "How can we
support Legal AF and keep it on the air
with all the contributors and the work
and the interviews, the newsmakers and
the lawyers and all of that, how do we
do that?" For $6.77
a month, we'll give you the content and
you give us the support and that helps
pay for the honest commentary and
journalism that we do here. So, until my
next report, I'm Michael Pop. Can't get
your fill of legal AF? Me neither.
That's why we formed the Legal AF
Substack. Every time we mention
something in a hot take, whether it's a
court filing or a oral argument, come
over to the Substack. You'll find the
court filing and the oral argument
there, including a daily roundup that I
do called, wait for it, Morning AF. What
else? All the other contributors from
Legal AF are there as well. We got some
new reporting. We got interviews. We got
ad free versions of the podcast and hot
takes. Where? Legal AF on Substack. Come
over now to free subscribe.
[Music]

[admin]

'The anti-Mamdani Zionist plot': explained by Simone Zimmerman and Katie Halper
Middle East Eye
Nov 6, 2025 MEE LIVE

Last week, a group calling itself The Jewish Majority published a “Rabbinic Call to Action” aimed at New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani in the last weeks of the campaign.

It said: “We will not accept a culture that treats Jewish self-determination as a negotiable ideal or Jewish inclusion as something to be “granted.” The safety and dignity of Jews in every city depend on rejecting that false choice.”

Is this true? Is the safety of Jewish New Yorkers now in jeopardy? We speak to Jewish American activist Simone Zimmerman and journalist Katie Halper.



Transcript

The Republicans are not the only group
that have been divided and beset by
fears over Mandani's rise. There has
certainly been a lot of talk among
Jewish New Yorkers about how his
pro-Gaza stances and how his past
activism could affect them in the city.
So, how will Mandani's policies affect
Jewish New Yorkers? Is this good or bad
news for them? Here to tell us about
that is Simone Zimmerman.
Many New Yorkers are celebrating Zoran
Mandani's win. But there is nervousness
among some communities, one in
particular, and not without cause. Last
week, a group calling itself the Jewish
majority published a rabbitic call to
action aimed at Zoran Mandani in the
last weeks of his campaign. It said, "We
will not accept a culture that treats
Jewish self-determination as a
negotiable ideal or Jewish inclusion as
something to be granted." It said the
safety and dignity of Jews in every city
depend on rejecting that false choice.
In other words, the safety and dignity
of Jews depends on Mamani's defeat.
Mamani was not defeated and so is the
safety of Jewish New Yorkers in
jeopardy. I am joined now by Jewish
American activist Simone Zimmerman, who
was canvasing for Mamdani before the
election. Simone, we'll come back to
that letter, but first, what can you
tell us about how Jewish New Yorkers
feel about their new mayor?
Well, thank you guys so much for having
me. And the first thing I want to say is
that the Jewish community is diverse,
just as every other community in the
city, ideologically, politically,
religiously. The Jewish communities in
New York that I am part of, we're
celebrating in the thousands across the
city. We've been canvasing and
organizing for the last year. uh to
elect Zuran Mandani because he is a part
of our movement and we see the vision
that he put forward of an affordable
affordable inclusive city as a vision
for a city that we want to live in and
that will be good for us as Jewish
people.
Some twothirds of Jewish voters backed
Mamani's main rival Andrew Cuomo, but
onethird voted for Mamani. How did he
win them over? I mean, as you say, this
is a group with immense political
diversity just like any other. But
perhaps the question then is what were
the key issues on which he managed to
win all of his voters over.
Look, Jewish New Yorkers want the same
thing that all New Yorkers want. We want
to live in a city that is affordable. We
want we want to live in a city that uh
welcomes and celebrates the diversity
and difference across the city. the the
the coalition that I'm a part of, the
Juice for Zuran coalition, which you
know included organizations like Juice
for Racial and Economic Justice and
Jewish Voice for Peace. We are acting in
a very long lineage of Jewish socialism
and progressivism in New York City. Many
of our ancestors were immigrants who
came to the city who have helped make it
the the city that it is today. Jewish
Jewish culture and Jewish politics are
so much of a fabric of the city and uh
you know I think the voices that you're
referring to are very much a part of one
very loud very well-resourced group of
our community that claims to speak on
our behalf but it's important for me to
say that it's not just that he won over
many of us. It's that many of us have
already been in coalition with him and
the other organizations that helped get
him elected for decades in this city.
This is this is a movement win that is
many decades in the making. But I, you
know, when you're constantly told that
this person is going to be dangerous for
someone from your background, and it
wasn't just coming from outspoken, you
know, Jewish leaders, it was coming from
a lot of politicians who were just
trying to undermine Mamani were saying,
you know, he's going to be dangerous for
Jews. Does that is that worrying for
people? I mean, what was that something
that Jewish voters had to really take
into consideration when casting their
ballots?
I mean, of course it is, but it's
important for me to say that there has
been millions of dollars in
misinformation invested in scaring
Jewish New Yorkers and misinforming them
about who Zoran Mamdani is and what he
stands for. I I have a friend who came
to visit a few weeks ago and she told me
she was talking to her relatives on the
Upper East Side and she became an expert
in Zoron's policies overnight because
she just had to fact check all the
things that they were saying to her and
none of them were true about him. I
mean, there has just been an absolute
barrage of misinformation that has been
um trying to smear and misrepresent what
Zoron stands for.
Do you think people see that? I mean, as
you just described your friend, you
know, who was fact-checking everything?
Has there been a learning here that a
lot of that messaging or a lot of that
weaponization of anti-semitism
h doesn't hold up when you, you know,
compare it with the facts? you know,
this sort of disalignment between
Mandani's real campaign and the campaign
as it was represented to certain Jewish
communities. Do you feel like maybe
there's a a wakeup call for some people
that could come from that?
Yeah, of course. I mean, first of all, I
think we should say they took it way too
far. Andrew Cuomo ran a racist,
Islamophobic zombie campaign. I mean, it
felt like he was barely even here in the
city, barely trying to win people over
and just doing work. The thing that he
ran on was people's deepest fears and
resentments, and he tried to stoke
racism and division. And I think a lot
of Jews saw through that and were
frankly really insulted by I was
personally very insulted by it. But I
think even more than that, when you're
talking about what this question of is
of safety, I I mean, I just want to like
take a step back for a second and look
outside of New York City. I mean, this
is a week in which in the last couple
weeks, we are seeing some of the
scariest forces of anti-semitism in the
MAGA movement entering into the
mainstream and gaining wider platform
and and visibility. Not to mention the
ongoing terror that the Trump
administration is sewing across the
country right now. And I think the idea
so many American Jews, well, first of
all, we should say a huge majority of
our community did not vote for this
administration, right? sees the the
anti-semitism in the MAGA movement as
the biggest threat to our safety in this
country. And we were insulted by the
idea that there was this corrupt
Democratic politician who by by all
looks seems to be was the favorite to
win of the Trump administration. And we
don't want to be a part of being used in
that way and those the way that they
tried to play against our fears and to
distract from the fact that there is
real rising anti-semitism in this
country and it is emanating directly
from the administration right now.
Now as is the case with you Simone
Palestinian rights is a key part of
Mamani's political identity. He's made
it clear that for him this runs really
deep. grow up as someone especially in
the third world you have a very
different understanding of the
Palestinian struggle. It is one that is
framed in terms of empathy and
solidarity. Specifically growing up in
South Africa post aarttheid
you know it felt as if one of the most
natural things to wear around my body
was a cathe.
Let's look again at that letter from the
Jewish majority or the self-titled
Jewish majority. It was signed by over a
thousand rabbis and it said that
Mamdani's win is a safety risk for Jews
because he challenges the idea of Jewish
self-determination.
What did you make when you when you saw
this Simone?
Well, I want to say two things about
that. The first is once again I think
it's abundantly clear that part of the
grassroots power behind this movement to
elect Iran was very much because people
saw him standing up fighting for
Palestinian freedom. And what that
showed people is that one he's
consistent on his principles and two
that he's not going to back down in the
face of fear and intimidation. And I
mean all the forces in this country that
we know are the the millions of dollars
and and political power that is invested
in making politicians afraid to take a
principal stance on on Palestinian
freedom in a moment in which there has
been a US backed genocide in Gaza. And
so I mean Zoron his his fight for
Palestinian freedom has been consistent
with the fight that we've seen his
entire time in political life. And
that's the first thing. And I think many
Jews who are horrified by what has
happened in Gaza are the very people who
have been in that movement fighting
alongside of him. So, you know, we're
seeing a sea change sea change in
American Jewish opinion on this issue.
It's important for me to say that Jews
were in the movement to elect him
because of those positions, not despite
them. Now, specifically to the rabbi
letter, I mean, I think this idea that
um they they use the the word inclusion.
I'm glad that you brought that up
because for me, as a as a Jewish New
Yorker, I see the growing presence of um
a Muslim progressive in office, the way
that he brought in so many communities
that have been overlooked and ignored
for too long. I mean, his campaign
really brought this this palpable sense
of joy and togetherness and celebration
of the difference that exists across the
city. That is what makes New York City
such a vibrant uh joyful powerful city
to live in. And for me, the growing
representation of those communities that
have been overlooked for so long is not
a threat to my safety and belonging in
this city. It's something that I want to
be part of that I I celebrate. And I I
think it's really a shame that there is
a certain group of people. And by the
way, that letter was signed by many
rabbis who do not actually live in New
York City. So, uh it's important for me
to say that that so many of those people
are representing this kind of um
an older generation, an outdated
generation that is desperate to enforce
a conformity, an ideological conformity
in our community that simply does not
exist. And in New York City, we saw
we've seen thousands and thousands of
Jews turn up, buy into this vision of an
affordable, inclusive city and and want
to celebrate alongside our Muslim and
South Asian neighbors who have been left
out of politics for too long and and
that vision of inclusivity is something
that we're we're part of and we're
helping build.
Was this election a referendum on
Zionism in New York or is that a
manipulation?
I mean, of course. I mean, the the
largest Jewish city in the world just
elected a Muslim anti-ionist mayor. This
is a a historic moment. And, you know,
once again, as I said, the campaign was
a a campaign about in affordability,
about inclusivity in the city. The media
and certain political forces tried their
hardest to make it a referendum on
Zionism. They asked Zuran question after
question after question. He stood firm
in his commitment to equality and
dignity for Palestinians and for all
people. And he despite the best attempts
of uh this political establishment to to
smear him and to scare people away from
him and to make the conversation about
Israel, it's clear that it didn't work.
And another thing that it maybe could be
seen as a referendum on, which you've
tal touched on, was racism in politics.
I mean again the war against racism in
politics that is one that you fight
Simone and the Islamophobia in the
campaign against Mandani was was really
really prevalent as was discussion about
anti-semitism and accusations of
anti-semitism. Do you see this moment as
a victory in the fight against racist
politics or is this a dark moment in
which these views have become so
normalized?
I mean look it's we're gonna see what
happens. I think that, you know, it's
been so meaningful to watch the way that
Zan spoke so clearly against
Islamophobia. You know, so many people,
as he said, they so many communities in
this city expect indignity and the the
the
campaign just really played on the on
the the scariest kinds and most
disgusting kinds of racism to to smear
Zuran and misrepresent him and scare
people away from voting from him. And I
think the rebuke um to those racist
policies is is powerful and is palpable.
And I hope that we're going to see many
more people uh see in this vision of of
togetherness and solidarity that the
campaign has put forward and are going
to want to join it and be a part of it.
And I think, you know, to me the almost
the most important thing that he said on
election night was turn up the volume,
right? I mean, this is turn up the
volume, President Trump. This is a a
campaign that is is at its core about
standing up to this fascist
authoritarian movement in this country
that is trying to seow terror and
division across our communities. And New
York City just elected somebody who's
going to fight back against that. And
I'm so proud to be part of this movement
of thousands of Jews who want to stand
alongside him to to fight back and to
make New York City a beacon against
racism, against white nationalism, and a
a beacon of togetherness and belonging.
Thank you, Simone. Mandani's mayoral
campaign has energized voters at a time
when the Democratic Party brand feels
lost. So, could he offer a way forward?
Here now to speak to me about Mandani
and the future of the Democratic Party
is American political commentator KT
Halper. Now, Mandani's left-wing
economic policies and activist
background have divided the Democratic
Party, many of whom have failed to offer
him strong support when asked.
Do you endorse his candidacy?
I support the Democrat in the in the
race. Sure. But let me just say this.
Um,
he's not the only star.
Do you see Mom Donnie as the future of
the Democratic Party?
No. I think the future of the Democratic
Party is going to fall as far as we're
concerned relative to the House
Democratic Caucus.
Did you vote for Mandani or Co?
Look, I voted and I look forward to
working with the next mayor to help New
York City. Donnie, are you going to
support him?
I I I have learned a long time ago. Let
New York politics be New York politics.
We got enough challenges in Jersey.
So, what's holding you back from
endorsing him right now?
Well, we don't really know each other.
So, Katie, we've had on the screen there
a pretty embarrassing assortment of
responses from the Democratic leadership
when asked about support from Amdani.
Why are they so reluctant to endorse
their party's mayoral candidate in New
York's elections?
Well, it's not that they're reluctant
to, it's that they are loathed to. I
mean, Zoron Mandani represents
everything that these milkch centrist
Democrats do not represent. And they
don't like his policies. They don't like
his uh message, but they just don't like
his program either. whether it's uh
making the city affordable or uh saying
that you know Palestinians are human
beings that and there's a genocide in
Gaza. These are things that Democrats
refuse to say. And you know it's not
it's immoral for Democrats to to refuse
to say these things. But it's also
electorally stupid I would say and
that's why there's such little
enthusiasm for the Democrats. And yet,
as we've seen, Mandani came to a
stunning victory. We've seen him really
energizing turnout among voters in New
York, including the young, including the
less politically engaged. What do you
think the lesson is that the Democrats
are taking from his victory? If they so
dislike his style of politics, surely
they do see something to be learned from
this at a time where, you know,
according to the latest poll, 28% of
voters only say they have positive views
of the party.
Yeah, I mean I think that you should
never underestimate the uh Democratic
party's ability to not uh receive the
important takeaways or not act on
actionable intelligence. Uh they have a
kind of pathological I think uh fear of
taking on corruption or the system in
any real meaningful way. And that's
because in many ways in many areas
they're beholden to the same donors that
Republicans are beholden to. I think a
lot of people make the mistake they
assume that Democrats are kind of inept
or just cowards and they are to some
extent that but they also uh choose to
not uh fight the fight. They choose to
uh you know it's very performative right
they don't actually want to change
certain things. I mean they they care
about social issues which are important
not enough to you know like codify it
like you know Obama and Biden didn't
codify uh Roie Wade when they were
president but especially when it comes
to economic issues when it comes to
corporate power and when it comes to
foreign policy there really is very
little difference now of course Zoran
Mamani um as mayor won't have a strong
uh public policy reach but I think that
what is so threatening about him is that
he shows is the real way to respond to
Trump. And he shows a moral uh framework
and he shows a total uh unapologetic p
position on this. And he in fact said at
his during his his speech, one of the
most moving lines was saying that he
apologizes for none of it. Apologizes
not for being Muslim, not for being a
democratic socialist. That's something
else that the Democrats fear. And it is
embarrassing. It's humiliating. And you
know, there was an article in the New
York Times and it actually said that one
of the reasons that um Chuck Schumer
was, as you said, like reluctant to um
endorse is that he sees himself as the
guardian of Israel. And so if you see
yourself as the guardian of Israel, then
you're not going to want to uh endorse
someone who is not afraid of taking on
Israel. Uh and you know, and and its
genocidal policy towards Gaza. Clearly
there's a lot of different policy
priorities in the Democratic party as
you mentioned very divided on Israel
Gaza where the Democratic leadership
seems to be out of touch with its base
very divided again on corporate money
and economic inequality. Do you see
Mandani's win as the Democrats look
ahead to the 2026 midterms? Do you see
Mani's win as a vindication of the
Bernie Sanders AOC wing of the party?
Um, do you think that it's increased
their power and their leverage looking
ahead uh to to midterms in terms of the
direction and the tone that the party
takes or do you do you remain of the
opinion that you know what the the
reluctance is too strong?
I mean, I I I think we'll have to see,
but I do think it's encouraging. I think
it's it's not just encouraging in what
it tells us that Democrats should do and
could do, but it's also encouraging in
that it shows what doesn't work from uh
the opposition. I mean, you know, Cuomo
ran a very Islamophobic, very dog
whistling campaign. He laughed at a at a
Fox News interviewer during a radio
interview when the Fox News interviewer
said that, you know, Zora Mammi would be
cheering for another 9/11. And this
politics of bigotry, um, these politics
of bigotry don't work. When you're
offering, and this is a really important
takeaway, when you're offering material
benefits, you know, I think that when
there's a vacuum, when people aren't
offering things, that's when you get the
demagoguery, uh, that can really take
hold. I think that a large reason that
that Trump won both times is because
people felt like the system wasn't
working for them. So the more that
people's needs are met, the harder it is
to appeal to uh their, you know, the
harder it is to to demagogue and use
racism and bigotry uh effectively.
Yeah, that was that was definitely not a
winning tactic. What you did mention
interesting me though was that part of
Mandani's appeal was this more
confrontational stance towards Trump was
the willing to push back against the
Trump administration. There also seems
to be appetite from the Republican side
for confronting Mamani. There's a lot of
anger towards Mamani. Uh we've seen
Trump send National Guard troops into
blue states uh whose leaders he has
disagreements with. We've seen threats
to deport Mandani for more intense ICE
raids. Do you see a brewing
confrontation between Mandani's New York
and the Trump administration given
already the government's overreach in
several blue states and given this kind
of appetite among the base for someone
to stand up or push back against what
they see as an incredibly um overreached
government.
Yeah, I mean Zoran's going to have to be
very smart and strategic about this and
and I'm sure he has a lot of plans on
how to deal with this, but you know, uh
opposition from Trump can also help
politicians. We saw this with um LA
Mayor uh Karen Bass whose uh numbers
went up after Trump went after her and
after she kind of fought back. So, we
shouldn't also dismiss the power of
having Trump go after you. And you know,
I think that Zoron is has a kind of AOC
like ability to joust uh that we don't
see from many Democrats. They're very
good at social media. They're very good
at messaging. They're very charismatic
and charming. And I think that, you
know, Trump does not do well against
people like that. People who aren't
afraid to really fight back.
Yeah, it's a very interesting point that
he may find embarrassing. He may
actually overreach and fail and then
stop. Yeah, I think like like Cuomo's
attacks, it could have the reverse
effect and the exact opposite um of what
he would want by going after Mandani. Um
you've you've given us a lot of
interesting comments to think about.
Katie, thank you so much for speaking to
Middle East Eye today.
One last thing I would just like to say
is that when you have people like
Jonathan Greenblat at the ADL who's
putting out who's putting together a Mom
Donnie monitor, uh you know, these
people fearmonger about anti-semitism. I
know you spoke to Simone Zimmerman uh
about the issue of of the Jewish vote,
but I really have to say I can't
emphasize enough how much people like uh
Jonathan Greenblat and the ADL and Apac
are creating anti-semitism. It's not
Zora Mandani. I mean, I just interviewed
someone who actually ran for office and
Zora Mani was his uh campaign manager.
And this person, Ross Barkin, is now is
a journalist. He's Jewish. He says that
uh uh mom donn doesn't have an
anti-semitic bone in his body. And I'm
sure of that. But it's really
interesting that the people who are
actually trivializing real anti-semitism
and fermenting anti-semitism by claiming
that all Jews stand in solidarity and
are represented by a state that's
literally live streaming a genocide.
Those are the people we have to worry
about. Those are the people, if you care
about Jewish safety, who we have to
worry about. Those are the people that
I, as a Jew, am afraid of. not afraid of
as in uh I I give them any respect, but
I'm but uh what they do is scary. What
Zora Mammi does is not scary. What Zora
Mandani does is good for all New
Yorkers, including Jewish New Yorkers
like myself.
Yeah, there definitely you're not the
only Jewish voice that's been frustrated
by that dissonance as you mentioned.
Katie, thank you so much for your strong
words today and thank you so much for
making the time to speak to ME Live.

[admin]

Jewish Journalist EXPOSES Israel’s DARK SECRET History
Double Down News
Feb 20, 2025

Katie Halper is host of The Katie Halper Show



Transcript

There's literally nothing that Israel won't do in the name of Vengeance
and in the name of continuing Zionism.
For some people the takeaway is:
as long as they're not literally putting people in ovens
as long as they're not doing exactly what the Nazis did
that somehow that's okay, it's actually not okay.
Never Again doesn't mean:
Never Again in the exact same way that the Nazis did it,
if that's your take away from the Holocaust
you really need to look at yourself and do some soul searching.
I'm Jewish I lost members of my family during the Holocaust
and the truth is Israel does not represent me Israel does not make me safer
in fact it puts me and all Jews in greater danger.
Because as Israel commits these crimes against humanity
and live streams them and in some cases gleefully
live streams them we've seen soldiers doing this.
Israel doing that and saying it's in the name of Jews that will create anti-Semitism.
The idea that Israel represents all Jews is in itself an anti-semitic idea
the dual loyalty trope says that all Jews are monolith
and we're all loyal to Israel and we can't be trusted
to be loyal to other governments regardless of where we live.
That is really what Israel is leaning into and you have anti-semites
and then the government of Israel APAC and the ADL
all making the same argument which I think really shows you
the dangers and the inherent anti-Semitism of Zionism.
People like to claim that anti-zionism is anti-semitic
well it's actually not given that you literally have more
Christian Zionist in the world then you have Jewish Zionists.
This particular Christian form of Zionism wants Jews to go back to Israel
so we can provoke the end times, Armageddon.
All Jews except a very lucky 400 who accept Christ as their lord
and saviour burn for all of eternity so these are the Allies.
All these cancel culture warriors who talk about right-wingers being cancelled
are very silent interestingly enough when it comes to critics of Israel
who are probably the most canceled people of all.
If you're a Palestinian critic of Israel you're very, very, very canceled
if you're a Jewish critic of Israel you're less canceled but you're still canceled
you're just canceled as a self-loathing Jew
as opposed to an anti-semite which is a significant difference.
I mean I was fired by a network for saying that Israel is an apartheid state
so my being Jewish didn't really protect me.
And of course there's a huge bias in the way that corporate media reports on Israel Palestine
they're very clear when Russia does something Russia bombs Russia strikes Russia kills when it's
Israel it's often Palestinians killed in attack Palestinians dead after bombing we even know that
networks and Outlets instruct their writers and reporters not to use certain words like genocide
not even to use the word Palestine in fact the reporting by the New York Times on the alleged
Mass rape used by Hamas was so bad that they had to cancel a podcast that they were going to do
about it because there was so little to back it up now on the other hand you have countless stories
and allegations of Israelis raping Palestinians that got totally ignored it's really fascinating
that we hear time and time again about the 40 beheaded Israeli babies even though there was
no evidence of that and we do have evidence of actually beheaded babies children with their heads
blown off I mean we saw a child literally shredded various representatives of the Israeli government
are never asked about that they're never asked to condemn Israel's violence they're never asked to
condemn Israel's terrorist ISM there was a doctor who was tortured to death if you don't already
feel disturbed by the images of Palestinians or the stories of Palestinians the story of hin RAB
who was left in a car to die when she was begging for help and Israeli soldiers shot up the car and
shot up the ambulance trying to rescue this girl if that doesn't haunt you I would really
urge you to imagine this happening to a Jewish child during the Holocaust I think that Jews
should understand this if anything more than other people because of our history of being targeted of
being otherized of being compared to Vermin of attempted extermination of genocide and ethnic
cleansing and of the world looking the other way that is something that we have to remember that
happened to us we can't let that happen to other people that's not Justice that's not how we honor
those killed in the Holocaust everything that Israel tells you about its founding about its
history and about its role today is a lie some people think oh Israel was founded for Holocaust
Survivors and then it got greedy and took over too much land and and ruined its founding Mission
which was to be a safe haven for juice the truth is it was founded on ethnic cleansing it was not
a Utopia I think it's really eye openening to look at the actual language of early zionists because
they were calling their Banks Colonial trusts they were talking about how natives always resist
colonists in other words it's not just critics of Zionism who describe Zionism as Colonial
it was designs themselves Israeli Society really had a lot of disdain for Holocaust Survivors so
they did something very disgusting they both weaponized the Holocaust to justify their
extermination of Palestinians and they mistreated Holocaust survivors in fact they even refer to
them as sapon which means soap in Hebrew and that was because there was a myth that Nazis turned
Jewish bodies into soap it's not true but that was a myth and the important thing is that people
thought that was true and they thought it would be appropriate to call Survivors by that name Israel
wanted to create a new Jew that was armed that was working the land they were ashamed of the
Jews who were killed they thought that they went to their Slaughter like sheep they were ashamed
of Jews who were religious Jews who were Scholars Jews who were also Cosmopolitan they really did
ironically internalize a lot of anti-Semitism there were Zionist bombings in the Middle East
that were used to scare people into IM migrating out of Iraq out of Morocco and into Israel That's
how little they cared about Jewish people they bombed synagogues in order to get people to leave
the Middle East and go to Israel where they would be mistreated which is what happened to mrai Jews
some were basically put into camps they rejected Yiddish which was spoken by Eastern European
and diasporic Jews and they also rejected Arabic which was spoken by mrai Jews of the Middle East
Yiddish is an amazing language and it's dying out and the reason it's dying out is because
Israel chose to create modern Hebrew which no one spoke and they had a lot of disdain for a
lot of Jewish culture so Israel has always been a racist project in many ways against Palestinians
but even against Jews themselves and it's been an anti-semitic project as well not only is Judaism
obviously much older than Zionism but there was Christian Zionism from the very beginning and
that was fueled by anti-Semitism and the desire to get Jews out of Europe Lord Balor of the Bal
Declaration was a major anti-semite Zionism actually requires anti-Semitism to justify
its existence so for zionists they don't want to defeat anti-Semitism they want to use it
to strengthen the state of Israel it's also true to remember that this is not a conflict
about religion or culture Jews and Christians and Muslims lived in peace in Harmony in many
areas of the Middle East for centuries this is about power this is about land
this goes back to resources this goes back to the West wanting to have a foothold in the
Middle East this is not about religion Jewish anti-zionism has existed since Zionism a lot
of Jews opposed Zionism because they I would say rightly predicted it would create anti-Semitism
there is a very rich radical history of Jewish internationalism during the Spanish Civil War
which many people see as the dry run for World War II among all the international
Brigade so all the volunteers who left their countries to fight in a war against fascism the
most common language spoken was Yiddish which speaks to this tradition if we look at so many
struggles like the civil rights movement in the United States there were lots of Jews involved
in that Jewish people were over represented in that movement if you look at South Africa some
of the most active anti-apartheid activists were Jewish that's the tradition that I'm proud to be
part of not a tradition which weaponizes trauma tragedy and the Holocaust to kill more people
Israel is unsustainable there's no coming back from this something new needs to be created Jews
can live side by side with Muslims and Christians in Palestine just as they have for centuries if
coexistence is so impossible and if anti-Semitism is so impossible to fight against how is it that
Jews live in Germany today Germany was where anti-Semitism turned into the Holocaust cost
and yet somehow Jews are able to live in Germany in safety but we're supposed to believe that they
can't live in Palestine in safety Palestine is not the country that created Adolf Hitler Palestine is
not the country that created the Holocaust the biggest threat to Jewish safety is not
a free Palestine it's Zionism it's essential to challenge the lies and propaganda of mainstream
media you won't see videos like these in the mainstream media which is why it's so important
to support the work of double news on patreon and if I do say so myself the ktie Halper show