SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
arms embargo
'Genocide Is a Red Line': Thousands Encircle UK Parliament to Demand Sanctions on Israel
"U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer admitted this week that the situation in Gaza is 'getting worse by the day' but has yet to match these words with concrete actions."
Jun 04, 2025
Thousands of people formed a "Red Line for Palestine" encircling the U.K. Parliament in Westminster on Wednesday to demand an arms embargo and sanctions on Israel for its ongoing genocidal violence against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
The protesters are also calling for the reinstatement of U.K. aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the government's support for International Criminal Court investigations, and an immediate and permanent cease-fire in Gaza, according to a statement from organizers.
The red line protest during Parliament's "question time" was organized by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Friends of Al-Aqsa, Muslim Association of Britain, Palestinian Forum in Britain, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and Stop the War Coalition.
"The U.S.-backed aid distribution in Gaza has shut down operations today, citing 'security risks,'" organizers noted. "This follows widespread criticism over its ties to Israel and alleged downplaying of civilian casualties. Meanwhile, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer admitted this week that the situation in Gaza is 'getting worse by the day' but has yet to match these words with concrete actions."
While people in the streets took aim at Starmer and U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy, who are both part of the Labour Party, some members of Parliament joined the protest.
Scottish MP Brian Leishman, a member of Labour's Socialist Campaign Group, said on social media that he was "proud to stand with fellow MPs and the thousands of people that joined the Red Line for Palestine protest outside Parliament today calling for an end to genocide and for countries to stop arming Israel."
MP Colum Eastwood, former leader of Northern Ireland's Social Democratic and Labour Party, similarly said that he was "proud" to join the protest, while MP Zack Polansky, a candidate to lead the Green Party, said he was "proud to stand with so many fellow Jewish people against the genocide."
Party MP Ellie Chowns described her experience participating in the demonstration as "incredibly moving and powerful," while Independent MP Shockat Adam declared: "Starving children is a red line. Genocide is a red line. When humanity is on the line, silence cannot be the response."
Independent MP Adnan Hussain said he was "honored to have joined" the action and shared footage in which he appeared with MP Jeremy Corbyn, a fellow Independent who used to be Labour's leader. In the Sky News clip, Corbyn talked about the bill he's introducing to demand an independent public inquiry into the U.K.'s "complicity with active genocide" in Gaza.
"Many of us remain disgusted by the continued supply of components for the F-35 fighter jet program," Corbyn toldThe New Arab. "I am shocked the government openly admits to making 'exceptions' to its partial suspension. Does this breach its legal obligations to prevent genocide? One thing is clear: This government still supplies weapons to a state whose leader is wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity."
The Hague-based tribunal in November issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and a Hamas leader who has since been declared dead. Israel also faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice over its annihilation of Gaza.
Polling shows Israel's destruction of Gaza is unpopular with the British public. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign not only was an organizer of Wednesday's protest but also commissioned a poll from Opinium Research and released the results on Wednesday. The survey, conducted from May 30 to June 2, found that 57% of Brits believe the U.K. should impose a full arms embargo.
The survey also found that 54% support sanctioning Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, 53% think Israel should be expelled from the U.N., and 50% support boycotting Israeli products in supermarkets. Middle East Eyereported that "the new poll comes after a similar survey showed public support for Israel in European countries had fallen to its lowest recorded level."
The polling also comes as the official casualty counts in Gaza—which experts warn are likely significant underestimates—climbed to 54,607 Palestinians killed and 125,341 wounded, with most of the enclave's more than 2 million struggling to access food, water, shelter, and healthcare in the face of Israel's bombings and blockade of humanitarian aid.
U.K. organizers plan to follow Wednesday's red line action with a National March for Palestine on Saturday, June 21.
"Israel's attacks on Gaza and the West Bank are intensifying. Their starvation policy continues," says the march's webpage. "The U.K. government has at last accepted that Israel's actions are unconscionable. Now they must act—words are not enough."
Keep ReadingShow Less
2028 Will Be Our Last, Best Hope to Propel a Real Leftist to the Top of the Ticket
As the mainstream Democrats sink in popularity and their base demands change, It’s critical that the left unites, well ahead of schedule, behind one, single candidate.
Apr 11, 2025
Imagine, if you will, the United States on January 1, 2028. President Donald Trump and his gang of MAGA goons have been drawing from the well of right-wing nativism for the past three years, generating spectacle after spectacle without managing to improve material circumstances for any but the wealthiest Americans. That well has now run dry, and the American public is getting restless. The United States has repeatedly skirted the edge of an economic recession; inflation remains high and unemployment is ticking up. The malaise of stagflation pervades every aspect of American life. Eggs and milk prices remain high, the stock market hasn’t really rallied again since the GOP pushed through its latest cut on taxes for the wealthy, and the big ticket items—homes, vehicles, education—are all more expensive than when Trump first took office, for the second time.
Amidst the chaos, Democrats have kicked their campaigning into high gear, with primary season nearly upon them. This is a primary without an heir apparent, and every Democrat within arm’s reach of a well-funded PAC has thrown their hat into the ring. At the top of the list are familiar names like Gavin Newsom, full of “I feel your pain” empathy for the right and spite for the left. He’s spent the second Trump administration honing his performance of antipathy for progressive social issues and rubbing elbows with the right-wing glitterati. Now he’s ready to convert on his “moderate” bona fides. There’s also Pete Buttigieg, here to remind us that no planes crashed on his watch as Transportation Secretary. Amy Klobuchar is back too although no one, including herself, can articulate exactly why.
Since the resurgence of the New New Left in the last decade, there has never been a wider gulf between the appeal of left-wing politicians and distaste for the Democratic Party establishment.
Despite the typical pomp that attends any party primary season, this campaign looks different than those in recent memory. For the first time in 12 years, more than a decade, Democrats do not have Donald Trump to run against. Whoever the Republican primary process churns out will surely promise to continue whatever erosion of democracy and civil rights Trump has accomplished in his second term. But that nominee is unlikely to carry the same boogeyman-like narrative weight that Trump has wielded to captivate the media for years. Democrats, then, will face a disconcerting prospect: They must run with a positive, projective vision for the country.
What Do the Democrats Believe?
Over the last few election cycles, the Democratic Party has struggled to present a cohesive vision of what it stands for in the 21st century. This is partly due to Donald Trump; the party has, in some sense, overdeveloped its anti-Trump messaging while neglecting the rest of its platform, like a tennis player with an oversized racket arm. Democrats have been saved from having to more carefully cultivate policy messaging because, for the last three cycles, they have simply run as the opposition to Donald Trump. This strategy has a 33% success rate.
The platform problems go much deeper than this, though. The party’s multi-decade pivot away from working class voters toward suburban, college-educated ones has failed to grow a winning coalition for the Democrats. It has, though, paralyzed the party on policy questions relating to income inequality and redistribution of wealth, arguably the most pressing of our present moment. The party cannot serve the interests of wealthy and upper-middle income suburbanites and the working class, simultaneously. Instead of striving to resolve this tension, the party has grasped at social issues in an attempt to trail the prevailing popular opinion of the moment. Where the party was “woke” and all in on ameliorating issues of racial injustice in 2020, just a few years later, some of the most prominent Democrats have joined right-wing Republicans in attacking trans people and migrants.
All this vacillation has run the party aground. Recent polling reveals that the party has reached its lowest point in popularity in at least the last three decades. Constituents do not trust congressional Democrats to stand up to Donald Trump and the GOP. We are only a few months into Donald Trump’s second term, and the Democratic Party already appears to be out of ideas. Leadership is at pains to point out how hamstrung they are by their minority positions in the House and Senate, but they have so far shrunk from any opportunity to use leverage they have against the Trump administration.
The last few months have made two things about the Democratic Party and its supporters abundantly clear: First, there is a real appetite among the party’s constituents to take a radically new tack in combatting Trumpism and, second, there is no inclination among party leadership to do so.
2028 Will Be the Left’s Best Opportunity
Against this backdrop, left electeds and candidates are once again garnering attention and enthusiasm. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have drawn crowds of tens of thousands for their “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, an astounding turnout in an off-election year for two politicians already firmly entrenched in their respective seats. Elsewhere, Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist running for mayor of New York City, has surged to take second place in recent polling, trailing only the disgraced, but universally known, Andrew Cuomo. Mamdani’s fundraising has been so robust that he recently implored would-be donors to canvass for him instead, becoming likely the only U.S. candidate for office ever to ask people to stop sending money.
Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are the most well-known representatives of the left within the sphere of electoral politics. That they are driving massive turnout to their rallies amidst Democrats’ cratering popularity is a testament not just to the durability of their individual fandoms but to the appeal of left policy as well. (It’s also worth recalling that Sanders has long enjoyed some of the highest favorability ratings of any living U.S. politician.) Since the resurgence of the New New Left in the last decade, there has never been a wider gulf between the appeal of left-wing politicians and distaste for the Democratic Party establishment. This is why it’s critical for the left to seize on this imbalance well ahead of 2028.
A Path to Winning the Nomination in 2028
Since its resurgence in 2016, the left has now had the opportunity to observe the primary process (or lack thereof) in three presidential cycles. We should no longer harbor any illusions about how stridently the corporatist wing of the party will oppose a left candidate who appears poised to grab the Democratic nomination. Therefore, it’s critical that the left unites, well ahead of schedule, behind one, single candidate.
Established practice recommends that candidates wait until at least after the dust from the midterm elections has settled. However, the risks to a left candidate declaring before this point are minimal—if Republicans further cement their hold on Congress, it’s proof of the ineptitude of the current party leadership; if Democrats make advances, that’s evidence that the electorate (still) desires change. It’s true that a declaration of intent so far out from the primary contest would be a radical departure from the established modus operandi. But what would a left candidate actually lose in making their intentions known so early? For an established name it would give that person runway to flesh out their platform and expand on their existing base of supporters; for an up-and-comer, it would allow enough time for that person to introduce themselves to the American public and drive up their name recognition. In the era of total digital saturation, media could be had easily—and cheaply—via an infinite number of social media platforms, podcasts, YouTube channels, and so on.
Despite the fierce headwinds a left candidate is sure to face from the party leaders, the left does have one significant advantage: we already have an established political program. Whereas the Kamala Harris campaign was characterized by its almost total lack of prescriptive policy, a left candidate has a tested-and-true platform to run on. The basic tenets of this platform were established by the Sanders presidential campaigns in 2016 and 2020 and have been elaborated on through a series of federal, state, and local campaigns over the ensuing years. They have also been informed by the social movement struggles of the last decade, beginning especially with the Black Lives Matter uprisings after George Floyd’s murder and continuing through the ongoing Cease-Fire Now protests over U.S. complicity in the genocide in Gaza.
While individual candidates may riff on this platform a bit, there are some established, bedrock policies that should form the basis of any left campaign. These include support for single-payer, universal healthcare; acknowledgment that climate change is a real, existential threat; and efforts to massively expand union membership, including installing a radically pro-worker National Labor Relations Board. Also critical will be an immigration approach that ends mass deportations, a policy that is quickly coming to define the second Trump administration. In the realm of foreign policy, a left candidate for president would commit to ending arms sales to Israel and putting the U.S.’ diplomatic weight behind an immediate end to any military action against the Palestinian people. The left flank of the party should be prepared to line up behind the candidate who best represents this platform in 2028.
The Prospects
So, where will we find a perfect tribune of the left? Well, we won’t. The key is simply to find a candidate with enough mass appeal to corral the various left constituencies who will need to back the primary campaign. There are a few places to look for such a person:
The Traditional Route
The most obvious place to go looking for this candidate is among already-established career politicians. The advantages to this approach are obvious: These are people who already know how to run campaigns, have large pools of current and former staffers from whom they could build a campaign team, and have long-running connections with members of the political fundraising ecosystem. The startup costs for a member of this group would be substantially less significant than for an outsider.
The names in contention here are well-known among left politicos. Above the title is, of course, Ocasio-Cortez, who has dominated the progressive Democrat sphere since her shock win over Joe Crowley in 2018. AOC, if she entered the race, would be a formidable frontrunner. Recent surveys have shown that a plurality of Americans already believe her to be the de facto leader of the party, ahead of even Kamala Harris. She has also transformed into one of the party’s strongest fundraisers, a critical component of any successful campaign for president. And, she would be just 38 as the primary season kicked off in 2028, and 39 if she were elected, making her easily the youngest person ever elected to the presidency. Comparatively young candidates have easily capitalized on their youth to brand themselves as change candidates in the past, which is likely to be an especially compelling narrative as the then-81 year old Trump presides over his waning days in office.
The left best serves corporatist Democrats when we descend into internecine squabbles and leave the door open for multiple entrants to claim the “progressive” mantle.
AOC has her detractors as well, of course. Her occasionally uneasy relationship with parts of the left has sometimes destabilized her relationship with what would otherwise be her core constituency. As with Sanders in 2016 and 2020, though, it’s likely that a real attempt by Ocasio-Cortez to seize the Democratic nomination would rally many on the left as the prospect of installing a veteran of left-progressivism in the White House would prove too enticing to pass up.
Less well-known nationally in this group, but perhaps more serious about running in 2028, is Ro Khanna, representative from California. Khanna has built many of his progressive bona fides on being the Big Tech-whisperer of the left, someone who can harness the energy of Silicon Valley for good, not evil. (Khanna represents the district that includes much of Silicon Valley; it is the nation’s wealthiest Congressional district.) As such, he has been a strong advocate for digital privacy rights, an issue that is sure to have increasing salience amidst the destruction of personal privacy which the so-called “Department” of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is currently instituting.
But, Khanna has also taken stances that are more controversial among leftists. In the weeks before Trump’s inauguration, Khanna wrote favorably about DOGE, giving fuel to the idea that he is too close to Silicon Valley and its technocrats. He also raised leftists’ ire over his ties to Hindu nationalists and for lobbying for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is a member with the far-right BJP, to address Congress in 2023.
A problem for both Ocasio-Cortez and Khanna is that, if they were to move directly from the House of Representatives to the presidency, they would be the first to do so since James Garfield, in 1880. This isn’t to say that it’s impossible for any candidate to make this jump, just that, over the last century and a half, more presidents have come straight from the ranks of television show hosts than they have from the U.S. House of Representatives.
Labor and Its Allies
A middle ground between recruiting a candidate through the political establishment and a more radical departure from the norm could be to turn to organized labor. Democrats have long counted union members among their most reliable constituencies (although there is some evidence that that association is weakening). Approval for labor unions is also at a high point since the mid-1960s, and labor leaders are becoming more prominent members of the political commentariat, if not quite yet household names.
Most visible among this group is probably Shawn Fain, the president of the United Auto Workers (UAW) since 2023. Fain was one of Trump’s most vocal critics during the presidential campaign, but has substantially moderated his approach toward Trump in the months since the election and has even spoken approvingly of Trump’s tariff policy.
While his occasionally conciliatory attitude toward the Trump administration may rankle some on the left, Fain’s unorthodox approach to the administration may work in his favor. He could use his unique politics to avoid being cleanly labeled as either a Republican or Democrat, and lead with his “pro-worker” brand instead.
Sara Nelson would be another strong contender from the world of labor. Nelson, who has been president of the Association of Flight Attendants since 2014, has been among the most visible and militant labor leaders of the last 10 years. She rose to prominence while advocating for members of her union during the 2019 government shutdown in Trump’s first term, and none other than Bernie Sanders lobbied Joe Biden to name Nelson labor secretary in his administration.
Nelson’s path to achieving widespread name recognition would be much steeper than Fain’s. While Fain is head of one of the most well-known U.S. labor unions with hundreds of thousands of members spread across multiple industries, Nelson heads a much smaller association. And, despite her status as a darling of left organizers, she is still broadly unknown to the wider electorate and, of all the aforementioned candidates, would have to spend the most time driving up her name recognition.
Any candidate who came from organized labor would need to also reckon with whatever labor activity is spinning up as 2028 approaches. Fain and the UAW are gearing up for a potentially massive labor action on May 1, 2028. While the left is sure to support a labor action of this size and scope, presiding over a large-scale strike and the possible months of subsequent negotiations could significantly complicate a labor-aligned candidate’s ability to simultaneously run a presidential campaign.
The Trumpian Tack
Finally, of course, a candidate could come from entirely outside of the political sphere. Since Donald Trump rode his golden escalator into infamy, many entertainers, commentators, and public personalities have toyed with the idea of running for the land’s highest office. The field here, at least for leftists, is a bit thin.
The comedian and host of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart, may be the likeliest pick in an unlikely scenario. Stewart has been propositioned as recently as the last presidential cycle. Although he quickly put that possibility to rest, 2028 will be a different game entirely. In 2024, Stewart was seen as a hail Mary option as Democrats anguished over their unease with keeping former President Joe Biden at the top of the ticket. In 2028, he may be a frontrunner in a wide open primary. Stewart would bring sky-high name recognition and a preexisting base of loyal fans with whom he’s nurtured a connection since the George W. Bush administration. He would also bring the media savvy and knack for comedic timing that Trump himself leveraged to paint his competitors in the 2016 Republican primary as hopeless dullards.
Drafting Stewart into this role is unlikely, and probably best viewed as a fallback, unless he expressed enthusiasm for the job. Assuming he’s not interested, the picture quickly becomes bleak. While the left has a vibrant and expansive ecosystem of podcasters, streamers, content creators, and commentators, growing any individual micro-fandom into a base of supporters large enough to win the Democratic nomination would be a Herculean task, to put it mildly.
A Coalition of the Willing
Finding the right candidate will only be half the battle. Critical, too, will be assembling a coalition of left leaders, organizations, and activists who will form the base of support for that candidate. Conversations among potential members of this group should begin quickly, and aim toward developing a consensus list of preferred candidates. Gaining broad buy-in for this strategy will be essential to getting any effort like this off the ground.
So, who would be part of this group? To be vague and a bit cowardly, I’d say that any person or group who supports the above-described platform should be part of this coalition. More specifically though, this coalition would have to draw together grassroots activists; significant parts of organized labor; and left-leaning, party-adjacent groups who lobby the party on matters of strategy and policy. These different groups would have to set aside interpersonal differences and agree to support whomever the coalition is eventually able to recruit to run, regardless of their personal affinity for, or proximity to, this person. This is a tall order, but members wanting to be part of this network should keep in mind lessons from the past: The left best serves corporatist Democrats when we descend into internecine squabbles and leave the door open for multiple entrants to claim the “progressive” mantle. If we want this effort to be successful, we must be resolute and unambiguous in our promotion of a single person.
We Are Coming to Save Us
The last few months have made it crystal clear that neither our institutions nor the grandees of the old Democratic establishment will save us from encroaching authoritarianism. Neither will appeals to restoring an old, vanished order or promises that nothing, fundamentally, would change with the Democrats in charge.
However, the Democratic Party cannot afford to drift, rudderless, through this Trump administration. It must present a strong counterpoint to the policies of this White House, and soon. One of the surest ways of doing that would be to appoint a new class of leaders who are more prepared to take on the rising fascist tide—a class of leaders who understand how grave, and late, the hour is for our democracy. If the corporatist class of the party will not make this pivot, leftists must do it for them. And, for our part, nothing could be a more concrete statement of the left’s intent for the next four years than to appoint a progressive champion well ahead of schedule.
Keep ReadingShow Less
What Do We Hope to Achieve by Filing Suit Against US Lawmakers Over Gaza Genocide?
Organizing together under the name Taxpayers Against Genocide, constituents served notice that no amount of rhetoric could make funding of genocide anything other than repugnant.
Jan 02, 2025
On the last day of 2024, the deputy general counsel for the House of Representatives formally accepted delivery of a civil summons for two congressmembers from Northern California. More than 600 constituents of Jared Huffman and Mike Thompson have signed on as plaintiffs in a class action accusing them of helping to arm the Israeli military in violation of “international and federal law that prohibits complicity in genocide.”
Whatever the outcome of the lawsuit, it conveys widespread anger and anguish about the ongoing civilian carnage in Gaza that taxpayers have continued to bankroll.
By a wide margin, most Americans favor an arms embargo on Israel while the Gaza war persists. But Huffman and Thompson voted to approve $26.38 billion in military aid for Israel last April, long after the nonstop horrors for civilians in Gaza were evident.
Back in February -- two months before passage of the enormous military aid package -- both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International found that, in the words of the lawsuit, “the Israeli government was systematically starving the people of Gaza through cutting off aid, water, and electricity, by bombing and military occupation, all underwritten by the provision of U.S. military aid and weapons.”
When the known death toll passed 40,000 last summer, the UN’s high commissioner for human rights said: “Most of the dead are women and children. This unimaginable situation is overwhelmingly due to recurring failures by the Israeli Defense Forces to comply with the rules of war.” He described as “deeply shocking” the “scale of the Israeli military’s destruction of homes, hospitals, schools and places of worship.”
No one should put any trust in the court system to stop the U.S. government from using tax dollars for war. But suing congressmembers who are complicit in genocide is a good step.
On Dec. 4, Amnesty International released a 296-page report concluding that Israel has been committing genocide “brazenly, continuously and with total impunity” -- with the “specific intent to destroy Palestinians,” engaging in “prohibited acts under the Genocide Convention.”
Two weeks later, on the same day the lawsuit was filed in federal district court in San Francisco, Human Rights Watch released new findings that “Israeli authorities are responsible for the crime against humanity of extermination and for acts of genocide.”
Responding to the lawsuit, a spokesperson for Thompson said that “achieving peace and securing the safety of civilians won’t be accomplished by filing a lawsuit.” But for well over a year, to no avail, the plaintiffs and many other constituents have been urging him and Huffman to help protect civilians by ending their support for the U.S. pipeline of weapons and ammunition to Israel.
Enabled by that pipeline, the slaughter has continued in Gaza while the appropriators on Capitol Hill work in a kind of bubble. Letters, emails, phone calls, office visits, protests and more have not pierced that bubble. The lawsuit is an effort to break through the routine of indifference.
Like many other congressional Democrats, Huffman and Thompson have prided themselves on standing up against the contempt for facts that Donald Trump and his cohorts flaunt. Yet refusal to acknowledge the facts of civilian decimation in Gaza, with a direct U.S. role, is an extreme form of denial.
“Over the last 14 months I have watched elected officials remain completely unresponsive despite the public’s demands to end the genocide,” said Laurel Krause, a Mendocino County resident who is one of the lawsuit plaintiffs.
Another plaintiff, Leslie Angeline, a Marin County resident who ended a 31-day hunger strike when the lawsuit was filed, said: “I wake each morning worrying about the genocide that is happening in Gaza, knowing that if it wasn’t for my government’s partnership with the Israeli government, this couldn’t continue.”
Such passionate outlooks are a far cry from the words offered by members of Congress who routinely appear to take pride in seeming calm as they discuss government policies. But if their own children’s lives were at stake rather than the lives of Palestinian children in Gaza, they would hardly be so calm. A huge empathy gap is glaring.
In the words of plaintiff Judy Talaugon, a Native American activist in Sonoma County, “Palestinian children are all our children, deserving of our advocacy and support. And their liberation is the catalyst for systemic change for the betterment of us all.”
As a plaintiff, I certainly don’t expect the courts to halt the U.S. policies that have been enabling the horrors in Gaza to go on. But our lawsuit makes a clear case for the moral revulsion that so many Americans feel about the culpability of the U.S. government.
To hardboiled political pros, the heartfelt goal of putting a stop to the arming of the Israeli military for genocide is apt to seem quixotic and dreamy. But it’s easy for politicians to underestimate feelings of moral outrage. As James Baldwin wrote, “Though we do not wholly believe it yet, the interior life is a real life, and the intangible dreams of people have a tangible effect on the world.”
Organizing together under the name Taxpayers Against Genocide, constituents served notice that no amount of rhetoric could make funding of genocide anything other than repugnant. Jared Huffman and Mike Thompson are the first members of Congress to face such a lawsuit. They won’t be the last.
In recent days, people from many parts of the United States have contacted Taxpayers Against Genocide (via classactionagainstgenocide@proton.me) to see the full lawsuit and learn about how they can file one against their own member of Congress.
No one should put any trust in the court system to stop the U.S. government from using tax dollars for war. But suing congressmembers who are complicit in genocide is a good step for exposing -- and organizing against -- the power of the warfare state.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular