As the spring of 2019 continues, there still remains over 40 percent of the population that still can't grasp the reality of what Trump and the Republican party have done and continue to do to further divide this nation. When the United States cries out for unity they fall on the deaf ears of both political parties. Today, they continue to only deepen the divide. There is more truth to it now that both the Democratic and Republican parties are entrenched with Wall Street and all those corporate donors. The high stakes of campaign contributions fuel the divisions that exist in America today.
When unity is called for both parties are negligent. They continue to fail the American public. Instead, their eyes and hands are glued shut and tied to Wall Street. The power of wealth has such a tight grip on our political process it is strangling the lifeblood out of the United States.
Is history about to repeat? The mistakes of the past are about to strike again. In 2016, when the voice of the people were cast aside for the anointed candidate paved the way for four years of America's descent into mediocrity. By all indications, 2020 will be a repeat of 2016. The voice of the people is rising again rallying behind the peoples' candidate. Yet, the DNC has sponsored not unity but has brought about a circus. That old saying "too many cooks spoil the broth" well, we can use that analogy to describe what the DNC is doing today. With over 20 candidates vying for that most coveted nomination only spells disaster for our nation. Instead of unity, the divides will only get wider.
When will we ever learn? Maybe soon then again maybe not. If 2020 isn't a repeat of 2016 it can only happen if the voice of the people rises above the clouds of deception, deceit, and lies that are purposely perpetrated on the American public by the DNC, the mainstream media, Wall Street, and all those Mega Corporate Donors.
Right now the media is laying the groundwork to purposely engineer one candidate over all others. It is the media who are brought and paid for by corporate elites and for years have gone out of there way to anoint a particular candidate for only one reason. That candidate is tied directly to corporate interests. It is the corporate elites that control the major news outlets and the media. They want a candidate they can control instead of the peoples choice they know they can't control.
The very sad fact of reality today is that the status-quo hasn't worked for decades for the majority of Americans. And, when one candidate rises to the occasion and outlines an agenda that will totally disrupt the status-quo the media will again purposely mount a rigorous campaign to either discredit him or in so many other instances promote that one candidate as their favorite son. Today, there are still too many that are so gullible to actually believe all the hype the media is pumping out on their favorite son. And, that is a very sad commentary for our times. When will we ever learn!
About the Creator
Dr. Williams
A PhD in Economics. Author of National Economic Reform's Ten Articles of Confederation.
Keep reading
More stories from Dr. Williams and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Remember When
We all know the signs of growing old. That old tried and true phrase "I remember when" conjures up memories of a distant past. A past that was filled with a harmonious union of fellowship, camaraderie, and yes, that new medium of television. As Archie Bunker kept singing, "Those were the days, when men were men and girls were girls." I guess each generation has their own way of expressing the "good old days." Like my father before, I too have said countless times about the "good old days." When I was young so many of my hopes and dreams laid ahead. But as the years went by I always seemed to hit a road block or two, a few detours popped up now and again, and of course there were always those wrong turns that kept me and I bet many more from achieving what we originally set out to do.
By Dr. Williams7 years ago in The Swamp
Why Black History Matters in America?
The United States of America is celebrating their 250th anniversary in 2026. I'm proud to be an American and as someone who was born here, I wouldn't imagine myself living anywhere else. This is a country where opportunities are possible. Where anyone can be successful in anything they desire to do. Equality, community, and togetherness are the backbones of what America is and should be about. However, we have an administration who wants to erase and disregard those who have made positive, meaningful impacts in our country, specifically Black figures, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, and Maya Angelou. President Trump and his administration have been constantly complaining and fighting against what they call the "Woke agenda". They use this excuse as a distraction from other issues they refuse to address, such as the high cost of living, climate change, and inflation. That equality is dividing America, when in reality, it's bringing us together. Being woke is not tied to a specific political party. No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, you can still care about other people and their plights. Compassion and empathy for others isn't tied to a political party, either. We were taught as children to treat others the way we want to be treated and not judge others because they're different from us. Caring about others isn't a personal attack on your beliefs. It doesn't make you any less of a person. People who are easily offended over African American figures, past or present, or anything related to it, are grasping at straws. Current and future generations need to know who people like Harriet Tubman and Shirley Chisholm were, especially in the classroom. Black History is part of American History. It should be recognized, not hidden or forgotten. Besides, you can't shield children from everything, just because your feelings are easily hurt.
By Mark Wesley Pritchard 6 days ago in The Swamp
Mamdani Chooses a Liberal Jewish Leader to Run Antisemitism Office
New York State Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani has appointed a prominent liberal Jewish leader to head a newly created Office to Combat Antisemitism, a move that has drawn both praise and criticism from across the political spectrum. The decision comes amid heightened tensions over how public officials should address rising antisemitism while also navigating deeply polarized debates about Israel, Palestine, and free expression. Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist representing Queens, announced that the office will be led by Rabbi Daniel Weissman, a longtime civil rights advocate and former director of a Jewish social justice organization known for promoting interfaith dialogue and progressive values. Mamdani described the appointment as an effort to ensure the office is guided by someone “deeply rooted in Jewish life, committed to human rights, and capable of building trust across communities.” The creation of the antisemitism office follows months of pressure from Jewish organizations and state lawmakers who have called for a stronger institutional response to rising incidents of hate crimes, harassment, and threats targeting Jewish New Yorkers. According to state data, reports of antisemitic incidents have increased sharply over the past two years, driven in part by global events and political polarization. A Strategic and Symbolic Appointment Supporters of Mamdani’s decision say choosing a liberal Jewish leader reflects an attempt to bridge divides within the Jewish community itself, which is far from monolithic in its views on Israel and U.S. foreign policy. Rabbi Weissman has been outspoken against antisemitism while also advocating for Palestinian rights and criticizing certain Israeli government policies—positions that resonate with progressive activists but anger more conservative pro-Israel groups. “This appointment sends a message that fighting antisemitism does not require silencing debate or abandoning commitments to justice,” Weissman said in a statement. “It means protecting Jewish communities while also standing firmly against all forms of bigotry.” Mamdani emphasized that the office would focus on education, data collection, and partnerships with schools, faith groups, and law enforcement agencies. Its mission, he said, is to reduce antisemitism through prevention and understanding rather than through punitive measures alone. “The goal is safety, not censorship,” Mamdani said. “We must confront antisemitism directly while preserving free speech and democratic values.” Critics Question the Choice Not everyone has welcomed the appointment. Several mainstream Jewish advocacy groups expressed concern that Weissman’s political views could undermine the credibility of the office. Some argued that selecting a figure who has publicly criticized Israel risks alienating large segments of the Jewish population who see such criticism as intertwined with rising antisemitism. “This office must be led by someone who understands how anti-Zionism often becomes antisemitism,” said one spokesperson for a pro-Israel organization. “We worry this appointment blurs that line instead of clarifying it.” Republican lawmakers were more blunt in their criticism, accusing Mamdani of politicizing an issue that should remain nonpartisan. One state senator called the decision “performative” and claimed it would fail to reassure Jewish families concerned about their safety. Mamdani rejected those claims, arguing that Weissman’s background in civil rights and community organizing makes him uniquely qualified for the role. “We are not outsourcing this work to ideology,” Mamdani said. “We are entrusting it to someone who has spent decades confronting hate in all its forms.” A Complex Political Landscape The appointment comes at a time when antisemitism has become a flashpoint in national politics. Universities, city governments, and public institutions have struggled to balance concerns about Jewish safety with protections for political expression related to the Israel-Gaza conflict. Several states have passed laws defining antisemitism in ways critics say could limit criticism of Israeli policy. Mamdani has previously opposed such measures, warning that conflating antisemitism with political speech risks weakening civil liberties. His critics argue that this stance makes his leadership on the issue suspect, while supporters say it reflects a principled commitment to constitutional rights. Political analysts say the choice of a liberal Jewish leader reflects Mamdani’s broader strategy of aligning antisemitism prevention with social justice movements rather than treating it as a solely security-based problem. “This is an attempt to redefine how government fights antisemitism,” said a professor of political science at a New York university. “Instead of focusing only on policing and surveillance, Mamdani is framing it as a community and education issue.” What the Office Will Do The new Office to Combat Antisemitism will coordinate with state agencies to track incidents, develop school curricula on Jewish history and the Holocaust, and provide grants to local organizations promoting interfaith dialogue. Weissman has said one of his first priorities will be to convene listening sessions with Jewish communities across New York, including Orthodox, secular, and immigrant populations. “We need to hear directly from people who feel unsafe,” he said. “And we need to work with Muslim, Black, and immigrant communities who also face hate. Antisemitism doesn’t exist in isolation.” The office is expected to release its first public report within six months, outlining trends in antisemitic incidents and recommending policy responses. A Test for Progressive Politics For Mamdani, the appointment is both a policy move and a political gamble. Progressive leaders have often struggled to articulate a unified stance on antisemitism that satisfies both Jewish communities and activist coalitions. The success or failure of Weissman’s leadership may shape how other cities and states approach similar initiatives. “This is a test case,” said one Jewish community organizer. “Can you fight antisemitism without turning it into a tool for political suppression? Or without ignoring Jewish fears? That’s the balance they’re trying to strike.” As the office begins its work, scrutiny is likely to intensify. Whether Mamdani’s choice will calm tensions or deepen divisions remains uncertain. What is clear is that the debate over how to confront antisemitism—who should lead that effort, and what it should look like—has become inseparable from broader struggles over identity, politics, and free speech in America.
By Fiaz Ahmed Brohi3 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.