Tag: Grassrootsdempolitics

Posted on

USAID Funding Cuts Already Proving Lethal

Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link

A recent segment on MSNBC’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell sparked intense debate by suggesting that the Trump-era Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—until recently led by Elon Musk before the agency was disbanded this month—has triggered devastating humanitarian consequences through its rapid cuts to USAID programs. The report cited estimates—hotly disputed by DOGE supporters and independent analysts alike—that hundreds of thousands of Africans, many of them children, could die or may already have died as a result of withdrawing funding from health and nutrition programs that had long relied on U.S. support. Whether these figures represent confirmed deaths, worst-case projections, or something in between has become central to the wider political and moral argument.

Critics of DOGE argue that even the lowest plausible estimates of harm would constitute a profound moral failure by the United States. They contend that the speed and scope of the cuts all but guaranteed instability in regions where U.S.-backed programs had become essential to basic survival. From this viewpoint, fixating on the precision of the numbers risks missing the larger point: that preventable suffering—even at a fraction of the projections mentioned on air—would still be catastrophic and vastly outweigh any budgetary savings DOGE hoped to achieve.

Supporters of the cuts offer a very different narrative. They argue that the United States cannot indefinitely shoulder the burden of funding core public-health systems across developing nations while grappling with its own severe fiscal challenges. They also question the reliability of the projections referenced in cable-news segments, noting that models built on incomplete data often produce dramatic but speculative results. To them, MSNBC’s framing is an example of worst-case scenarios being treated as established fact, while years of inefficiency, redundancy, and poor oversight within USAID’s global operations go unaddressed. Critics respond that this fiscal-responsibility argument is undermined by the Trump administration’s willingness to approve major financial packages elsewhere—such as the recent $40-billion bailout for Argentina—which suggests that affordability may be less a constraint than political preference.

Overlaying all of this is an uncomfortable personal dimension involving Elon Musk himself. Born and raised in South Africa during the apartheid era, Musk’s early life and the advantages associated with that system have long been scrutinized in discussions of race, privilege, and inequality. For many Africans, the symbolism of an African-born billionaire—one whose family benefited from a racially stratified society—having overseen cuts that disproportionately harmed the continent is hard to ignore. Even though DOGE is now dissolved and Musk no longer holds that position, the optics remain deeply fraught, and skepticism among African observers is understandable.

Despite these tensions, nearly everyone agrees on one central point: USAID has indeed faced problems with waste, inefficiency, and poorly evaluated programming. But acknowledging these flaws does not require dismantling the lifesaving work that competent aid can deliver. With thoughtful reforms, stronger accountability, and better targeting of resources, the United States could address the system’s shortcomings without abandoning vulnerable populations who depend on these services. The real challenge lies in balancing fiscal discipline with global humanitarian leadership—while keeping the human consequences, not just the spreadsheets, at the center of the conversation.

Posted on

The Steve Bannon–Jeffrey Epstein Connection: What the Newly Released Emails Reveal

Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link

A recent segment on the 11/19/25 edition of MSNBC’s The Beat with Ari Melber examined a newly surfaced trove of emails that—according to the program’s reporting—suggest Steve Bannon’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was far deeper and more strategic than Bannon has publicly acknowledged. As Melber emphasized, the emails do not indicate that Bannon participated in Epstein’s criminal activities. But they do appear to show that Bannon was fully aware of Epstein’s widely reported misconduct and still worked behind the scenes to help rehabilitate Epstein’s public reputation. If accurate, the correspondence paints a picture of a political strategist engaging with a disgraced financier in ways that raise more questions than answers.

Why Bannon would want to rehabilitate Epstein remains unclear. Bannon’s brief tenure in the first Trump administration fuels speculation: was he attempting to minimize or contextualize Trump’s long-documented association with Epstein? Was he pursuing financial or strategic support from Epstein, who still wielded substantial wealth and elite connections? Or was Bannon trying to leverage Epstein’s deep ties to global power brokers for his own political aims? While none of this is conclusively established, the emails suggest Bannon saw a degree of utility in Epstein that extended well beyond casual acquaintance.

The timeline of Bannon’s public statements only complicates matters further. When the Epstein files controversy re-emerged earlier this year during Trump’s second term, Bannon became one of the loudest figures demanding the release of every Epstein document. He framed Epstein as central to the so-called “Deep State,” arguing that the files were the key to exposing elite corruption and dismantling entrenched power networks. Yet throughout this campaign for transparency, Bannon never disclosed that he had any prior personal or professional interactions with Epstein—let alone that he had reportedly discussed rehabilitating Epstein’s image. That omission now casts his rhetoric in a new light and raises questions about whether his public crusade was also an effort to get ahead of information that might implicate or embarrass him.

The dynamic becomes even more intriguing when considering Bannon’s public clash with Elon Musk over the handling and release of Epstein-related material. What initially looked like another loud, intra-movement skirmish now takes on new weight. If Bannon had undisclosed ties to Epstein, his aggressive posture toward Musk could be interpreted as an attempt to steer the narrative or deflect scrutiny.

If these emails are authentic, they suggest a pattern of engagement with Epstein that conflicts with Bannon’s public posture and demands a fuller explanation. The public deserves to know why Bannon was attempting to reshape Epstein’s image, what he hoped to gain from the relationship, why he hid these interactions while urging transparency from others, and how this impacts the credibility of his broader claims about the Epstein files. Until Steve Bannon provides a transparent and comprehensive accounting of his relationship with Epstein—its scope, its motives, and its implications—there is little reason to take his proclamations at face value. The questions raised by these revelations are serious, and they are not going away.

Posted on

Homeland Security’s $220 Million Ad Controversy: An Objective Look at the Noem Connections

Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link

A series of recent investigative reports, first published by ProPublica and later picked up by major outlets including MSNBC, has drawn substantial attention to a large Department of Homeland Security (DHS) advertising campaign and its connections to Secretary Kristi Noem’s political circle. Although the DHS has defended its decisions and denies any improper influence, the scope of the contract, the speed at which funds were awarded, and the involvement of individuals tied to Noem have generated intense public scrutiny. What follows is a fact-based, balanced overview of what is known, what is contested, and why the episode continues to raise questions.

The controversy began with DHS’s launch of a national and international ad campaign intended to deter illegal immigration. According to ProPublica, the campaign totals approximately $220 million and includes television, digital, radio, and social-media placements. DHS has stated that the campaign is aimed at discouraging unauthorized crossings by emphasizing tougher enforcement policies and consequences. One of the signature ads features Secretary Noem at Mount Rushmore delivering a tough-on-immigration message that DHS characterizes as a public service announcement rather than a political communication. DHS has consistently argued that the campaign is justified by pressing national security needs and that it reflects policy objectives rather than partisan motives.

The financial and procedural details surrounding this campaign, however, prompted wider concerns. DHS invoked a “national emergency” at the border to bypass the traditional competitive bidding process, fast-tracking the ad contracts. While legal, this mechanism is typically used for time-sensitive, high-risk situations rather than large-scale media campaigns. Critics argue that employing emergency powers for a communications initiative undermines normal procurement safeguards designed to prevent favoritism and ensure transparency. DHS counters that career procurement officials oversaw the process and that all actions complied with federal law.

The most scrutinized element of the spending is the decision to direct $143 million of the campaign funds to a newly formed Delaware company called Safe America Media. The firm was incorporated only days before receiving the contract, an unusually rapid timeline for a high-value federal agreement. Public contracting databases provide little information about how Safe America Media has allocated its funds or whom it subcontracted. This lack of documentation has fueled questions about the nature of the company, who ultimately benefited from the funds, and why the government selected an entity with virtually no track record.

Those questions intensified when investigators identified personal and professional connections between DHS leadership and political consultants aligned with Noem. Safe America Media’s listed address is linked to Republican operative Michael McElwain, and reporting has highlighted the involvement of the Strategy Group, a Republican consulting firm that played a large role in Noem’s South Dakota gubernatorial campaigns. The firm is led by Benjamin Yoho, who is married to Tricia McLaughlin, DHS’s Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. That office, which McLaughlin leads, is the same DHS division responsible for funding the ad campaign. This nexus of relationships has raised concerns from ethics experts and watchdog groups, who argue that—even if no laws were broken—the appearance of a conflict of interest is substantial.

Critics, including former federal contracting officials, contend that the overlap between Noem’s political network and the firms connected to the DHS campaign creates significant risk of improper influence. They argue that the lack of publicly available subcontractor information prevents the public from knowing whether politically connected firms benefited from taxpayer funds. Some experts have described the arrangement as highly irregular, and organizations have called for oversight investigations by congressional committees or the DHS Inspector General. Others have pointed out that the political tone of some of the ads, particularly those referencing Trump-era border policies, may blur the line between public service messaging and partisan promotion, although DHS maintains the messaging is policy-driven.

Defenders of Noem and DHS present a different picture. They note that DHS officials, not political appointees, handled the contracting and that emergency procurement authority exists precisely to allow rapid responses to urgent national issues. McLaughlin has publicly stated that she fully recused herself from decisions related to these contracts, emphasizing that professional ethics protocols were followed. Supporters also argue that the intent of the campaign is clear: to deter migration through communication, a tool that has been used by multiple administrations. They also point out that no concrete evidence has surfaced proving that any funds were intentionally steered to Noem’s allies for political purposes.

Despite those defenses, the situation remains complicated. The unusual contracting timeline, the lack of transparency surrounding subcontractors, and the close personal ties between DHS leadership and outside political consultants make the story difficult to dismiss. Even if every action taken was technically compliant with procurement rules, the optics invite skepticism. In matters of public spending—especially on such a large scale—appearance alone can erode public trust, particularly when political figures and their associates are involved. At a minimum, the episode underscores the importance of transparent procurement processes, clear public reporting on subcontractors, and robust safeguards to prevent even the perception of conflicts of interest.

Ultimately, the controversy exposes a broader tension at the intersection of government communication, national security policy, and political influence. DHS insists the campaign is essential to its mission and was executed properly. Critics argue that the process lacked the transparency and arm’s-length separation needed to ensure public confidence. As calls for additional oversight continue, the resolution of this issue may set important precedents for how federal agencies handle large-scale communications campaigns—especially when those campaigns intersect with the political networks of their leaders.

Posted on

VP Vance Pushes Back On The Gerald Ford Comparison

Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link

On the 11/12/25 edition of The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, host Lawrence O’Donnell made a striking observation: current Vice President J.D. Vance’s near-silence on the swirling Jeffrey Epstein files scandal mirrors the posture then-Vice President Gerald Ford assumed as Richard Nixon’s presidency was collapsing under the weight of Watergate. O’Donnell pointed out that Ford, sensing the sinking of Nixon’s Presidency, deliberately kept his head down—he knew the ghosts of Nixon would dog his tenure if he didn’t distance himself.

By the same logic, O’Donnell argued, Vance appears to be doing exactly that: he knows the Epstein files may blow up and run Donald Trump out of office, and thus is doing everything he can to not get sucked into the scandal, to avoid becoming the next Ford.

As expected, social media erupted following O’Donnell’s segment. I posted a clip of the show, and to my surprise the reaction came from none other than the Vice President himself. That’s how provocative the comparison proved.

In his response, Vance strongly objected to O’Donnell’s suggestion that he was intentionally silent about the Epstein scandal. Vance pointed out that he had addressed the issue in prior TV appearances—citing his interview on Hannity scheduled for 11/13/25, which coincided with the date I posted the segment.

Interestingly, in that very 11/13/25 show O’Donnell claimed Vance had in fact ignored the Epstein issue entirely—and reaffirmed: “He’s still Gerald Ford.”

Now that the “Gerald Ford” comparison has caught Vance’s attention—and by implication, the President’s—it will be fascinating to watch how it plays out going forward.

Posted on

Rep. Khanna Accuses Trump of Protecting the “Epstein Class”

Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link

Appearing on MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes, Congressman Ro Khanna (D-CA) leveled a blistering charge at President Donald Trump — accusing him of protecting what he called the “Epstein class” rather than standing up for working Americans struggling to make ends meet. The phrase quickly caught fire online, and it’s now taking on new weight amid fresh controversy in Washington and inside the federal prison system.

Khanna’s remarks came as pressure mounts on House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) over his continued delay in swearing in Congresswoman-elect Adelita Grijalva of Arizona. Grijalva, a progressive Democrat, has been open about her plan to become the decisive 218th vote to compel the Trump administration to release the long-withheld Epstein files. Johnson’s refusal to seat her — even after certification of her election — has drawn criticism from both Democrats and watchdog groups who see the move as an attempt to block her role in advancing the Epstein disclosure measure.

After weeks of backlash, Johnson has now committed to swearing Grijalva in on Wednesday, November 12, 2025, when the House reconvenes to deliberate on a Senate measure to reopen the government. The timing has only intensified speculation that the Speaker’s delay was politically motivated.

Meanwhile, another development has reignited public scrutiny over how the powerful continue to benefit from special treatment. Ghislaine Maxwell — Epstein’s longtime associate who is serving a 20-year sentence for her role in his sex-trafficking network — was quietly transferred from a Florida federal facility to a much softer minimum-security prison camp in Bryan, Texas. The transfer raised immediate red flags, as such privileges are rarely extended to those convicted of serious sex crimes.

Reports from inside the Texas prison suggest Maxwell is enjoying unusually favorable treatment, including lenient oversight and staff attention that other inmates say border on favoritism. Members of Congress are now demanding a formal investigation into possible corruption or political interference in the Bureau of Prisons’ decision-making.

For Khanna and others calling for transparency, the timing couldn’t be more damning. A president who campaigned on exposing Epstein’s network has yet to release the files; his allies in Congress have stalled the one member most eager to force disclosure; and the central figure in Epstein’s trafficking ring appears to be enjoying preferential treatment behind bars.

Until those Epstein files are made public — as Trump once promised — the perception that his administration is shielding the powerful rather than serving the people will only deepen. As Khanna put it, Trump looks less like the champion of the “forgotten man,” and more like the guardian of the “Epstein Class.”

Posted on

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace Brands Trump Team the “Marie Antoinette Administration”

Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link

On a recent episode of Deadline: White House, MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace didn’t hold back in her criticism of former President Donald Trump’s administration. She called it the “Marie Antoinette Administration” — a cutting comparison to the infamous French queen remembered for her decadence, detachment, and the apocryphal phrase, “Let them eat cake.”

Marie Antoinette became a symbol of a ruling class oblivious to the suffering of ordinary people — a monarch who partied in Versailles while her citizens starved outside the palace gates. Wallace’s jab draws on that same image, suggesting the Trump administration has been indulging in luxury and self-congratulation while Americans face economic hardship.

The comparison lands especially hard when you look at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Palm Beach estate turned private club — his modern-day Versailles. While millions of Americans struggle to put food on the table amid a grinding government shutdown that has halted SNAP payments, reports continue to surface of glittering soirées, Champagne toasts, and high-society dinners taking place under Mar-a-Lago’s gilded chandeliers. Even some of Trump’s own allies have privately admitted the optics are terrible: the image of Washington elites sipping cocktails on the oceanfront while federal workers and low-income families line up at food banks is a PR nightmare.

Adding insult to injury, a federal judge recently ordered the administration to tap the USDA’s contingency funds to keep SNAP benefits flowing. Instead of complying, the administration chose to fight the order in court — literally arguing for the right to let poor Americans go hungry. It’s a move that only deepens the “Marie Antoinette” parallel: power waging legal battles over crumbs while the public goes without bread.

As the shutdown drags on, the economic pain is becoming unbearable for working families. Most analysts expect the government to reopen soon, likely before the Thanksgiving holidays, if only to stem the political fallout. But even after the lights come back on, the damage — both human and reputational — will linger.

The “Marie Antoinette Administration” label may stick as one of Trump’s most unflattering legacies. It’s a sharp irony for a president who rose to power promising to champion the “forgotten man” — rural, blue-collar Americans who felt abandoned by Washington. The image of Mar-a-Lago’s ballrooms glittering while those same Americans tighten their belts is one that no amount of political spin can erase.

In the end, Wallace’s analogy hits its mark. For many watching from the outside, the Trump administration doesn’t just look out of touch — it looks like it’s dancing while the country burns.

Posted on

Sen Rand Paul Promises Vigorous Oversight Of DHS

$upport via CashApp👇

In his opening remarks at the Senate confirmation hearings for incoming DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, GOP Senator Rand Paul, Chairman of the Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee, laid out brilliantly, the case as to why the behemoth that is DHS, begs for some serious oversight.

Senator Paul characterized DHS as a very powerful agency that was created after the 9/11 attacks to secure the homeland, but has since veered from its intended course, and into attacks against Americans simply exercising their free speech rights.

Sen Paul: “Think about it, an agency [DHS] commanding over $110 billion annually, can’t account for its own activities. This is not just bureaucratic incompetence, it’s emblematic of a deeper issue. An agency unsure of its own boundaries and commitments.”

He went on to add that DHS is increasingly focusing on people’s social media posts, and even placing people on terrorism watchlists based on such posts—a total travesty.

Bottom line folks, the criticisms Senator Paul levels at DHS are well founded and longstanding. The only question now is whether he’ll follow through, and use his position as Senate Homeland Security Chair, to provide the much-needed oversight DHS cries for.

Sadly, if the past is anything to go by, Sen Paul’s oversight promises might devolve into his just using his lofty committee chair perch to score political points by digging into, idk, Hunter Biden files. Let’s hope that doesn’t end up being the case, but I’ll readily admit, I would not be surprised.

Posted on

Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo:”Texas Is Being Run From Maralago”

$upport via Cash App

Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo appeared on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show (09/24/2021), where she blasted elected Republicans in Texas for giving in to former President Trump’s baseless demands for an audit into the state’s 2020 election results. The decision by the Texas Secretary of State’s office to conduct an audit into the election results of Collin, Dallas, Harris and Tarrant counties, came literally a few hours after Trump’s demand, which led a visibly upset Judge Hidalgo to tell host Maddow that Texas was “being run from Maralago.”

Judge Hidalgo told Maddow:“We have to remember we had incredibly successful elections here in Harris County in 2020. We had innovations that led to record turnouts from both parties, the highest in 30 years, I mean it was beautiful, and since then, no evidence has come out that would in any way cause the need for this kind of audit. All we’ve seen is [former]President Trump exhorting the state, or [Governor]Abbott, to have this audit…The reality of it is Texas is being run from Maralago, and that is dangerous, and it’s not appropriate…it’s extremely concerning.”

Judge Hidalgo added that time had come for politicians in Washington to get off the sidelines, and actively join the fight against voter suppression in the states, telling host Maddow, “We need the federal government to act, I mean, this has gone too far… This should be another call to action. We’ve got the writing on the wall. We’ve got to get off our chairs and get moving on all this.”

Bottom line folks, as Judge Hidalgo correctly pointed out, time has come for some decisive action to be taken against these naked efforts by Republicans at the state level, to restrict the voting rights of minorities. Democrats in Washington cannot just sit on the sidelines, and watch their counterparts in Republican-led states like Texas, go to war against GOP’s efforts to restrict minority voting rights. Simply put, time has come for Democrats in Washington to finally do away with the filibuster, and institute a national voting standard geared towards making it easier for people to vote, as opposed to GOP’s scheme of limiting access to the ballot box. As Judge Hidalgo correctly put it, congressional Democrats need to “get off their chairs and get moving” on a comprehensive federal voting rights law.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More

Posted on

NYT’s Maggie Haberman Ensnared In Feud Over Trump Inaugural Funds

$upport via Cash App

Melania Trump with Stephanie Winston Wolkoff

In case you missed it, the Trump inaugural saga has taken a new, and very interesting twist lately, with now Twitter-active Stephanie Winston Wolkoff taking a direct shot at Maggie Haberman and Ken Vogel of the New York Times(NYT), as being part of the plot to throw her under the bus.

You’ll remember that after the bombshell revelation that a staggering $40 million of Trump’s inaugural funds had mysteriously disappeared, there was an effort by Trump’s allies to pin the blame on then First Lady Melania Trump’s Senior Advisor Stephanie Winston Wolkoff. Stephanie Wolkoff talked about this effort to throw her under the bus at an appearance on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow show on September 1, 2020.

In the interview, a visibly upset Stephanie Wolkoff told host Maddow, that then First Lady Melania Trump basically told her she had to be the fall person for the Trump inaugural scandal. Wolkoff specifically said, “Melania and the [Trump]White House had accused me of criminal activity, then publicly shamed and fired me, and made me their scapegoat. At that moment in time, that’s when I pressed record. She was no longer my friend, and she was willing to let them take me down, and she told me herself, that this is the way it has to be. She was advised by the attorneys at the White House that there was no other choice because there was a possible investigation into the presidential inauguration committee….At first I really did think maybe she would come to my aid? Maybe she would tell the truth? She turned her back, she did. She folded like a deck of cards., and I’m shocked she did it.”

This 05/23/2021 tweet however, shows that Stephanie Wolkoff is not only going after Trump and his allies in her effort to set the record straight regarding Trump’s inaugural, she’s also calling out NYT’s Maggie Haberman and Ken Vogel, as being part of the plot to destroy her. This, if proven, could turn out to be a huge scandal unto itself, given the fact that many liberals still blame the New York Times for Trump’s ascension to the White House. Specifically, many liberals believe NYT’s excessive coverage of the “email scandal”, weakened Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the final stretch of the 2016 campaign.

There’s no other way any reasonable person can interpret Stephanie Wolkoff’s tweet other than NYT’s Haberman and Vogel were doing Trump’s bidding when they wrote the referenced piece. This is especially so considering Wolkoff’s invocation of “SETUP. COVERUP. TAKEDOWN” in her tweet. For the record, accusations of “access journalism” against then White House reporter for the New York Times, Maggie Haberman, persisted throughout Trump’s presidency. Stephanie Wolkoff is not the first person drawing that inference.

Bottom line folks, Yours Truly is not accusing Maggie Haberman or Ken Vogel of any wrongdoing. By all accounts, these are serious journalists, who exhibit a high level of professionalism(my personal opinion). What Yours Truly is simply pointing out, is what any reasonable person presented with Stephanie Wolkoff’s recent tweet would conclude, and that is, Haberman and Vogel were in on the plot by Trump’s allies to throw her under the bus. It would be in everybody’s interest, especially Wolkoff who suffered greatly as a result of the Trump inaugural saga, if Haberman, Vogel or even the New York Times management, addressed this issue.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More

Posted on

Kushner Nixed National Testing Strategy Because he Thought Covid-19 Would Only Ravage Dem States

$upport via Cash App

A troubling Vanity Fair report says that at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner cobbled together a team which actually managed to come up with a decent national testing strategy for covid-19. Shockingly however, instead of the plan being rapidly deployed nationwide to curb the spread of the deadly virus, Kushner and some White House political operatives decided it would be politically advantageous for Trump, if they shelved the testing plan because the virus at that time was only ravaging blue/Democratic states like New York.

As unbelievable as this sounds, Kushner and the White House operatives believed it would be politically advantageous for Trump if they let people die in blue/Democratic states because they could turn around and blame Democratic Governors for incompetence in the run up to the November elections. The author of the Vanity Fair piece, Katherine Eban, told CNN’s Erin Burnett;“There was a shared feeling which turned out to be spectacularly wrong, that the virus was receding, it was going to be under control, and at the time it was just the blue states where the virus was surging. So the idea was, why go through all the effort to surge up a national plan? It wasn’t going to have political resonance, and if there was a political response that was needed, the blue state Governors could just be blamed..”

You’ll remember a recent Washington Post piece which said Trump, who had previously downplayed the seriousness of covid-19, even calling it a hoax at one point, changed his attitude towards the deadly virus only after senior White House officials presented him with data and maps showing that the virus is beginning to ravage “our people”–Trump’s base of rural White voters in Republican states. This means Trump’s bungled covid-19 response, which has led to more than 150,000 deaths so far and counting, is not only the result of a callous political decision by his son-in -law Kushner, but also the administration’s deep seated racism towards communities of color who Trump considers not “our people”, and who data has consistently shown to disproportionately bear the brunt of covid-19, both in infection rates and deaths. A sad state of affairs indeed.

Bottom line folks, as it currently stands, the coronavirus pandemic is arguably one of the biggest crisis ever to befall the United States, especially if you consider the fact that it has claimed more than 150,000 lives in the U.S. in less than six months, led to levels of unemployment most of us have never witnessed in our lifetimes, dealt a severe blow to the U.S. economy leaving economic giants such as the airline industry teetering on the brink of collapse, changed the manner and format of our beloved professional sports leagues, just to mention but a few. Reasonable people will agree that given the seriousness of covid-19, the American public is totally justified in expecting that the Trump administration, without regard to partisan politics or race, will spare no resources, and do everything in it’s power to fight the deadly coronavirus pandemic. Sadly, the Vanity Fair piece saying Kushner shelved a covid-19 national testing strategy for political reasons, and the Washington Post piece saying Trump has not been serious about the pandemic because it’s not ravaging “our people”, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that partisan politics and racism are guiding Trump administration’s covid-19 response. All Americans of good conscience must loudly rebuke this immoral and callous disregard for people’s lives. We owe that to the families of the 150,000-plus people who have needlessly succumbed to covid-19.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More