A GOP lawmaker said he would consider supporting the impeachment of President Donald Trump if he launched a U.S. invasion of Greenland, calling the idea “utter buffoonery,” according to a report. Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska said invading an ally would be catastrophic and a total mistake. Trump has been impeached twice previously and acquitted both times. Bacon is also the sole Republican co-sponsor of a House bill seeking to prevent military action against NATO countries and territories, including Greenland.
President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would allow him to put the US military on American streets, unless demonstrations against federal immigration operations in Minneapolis come to an end.
In a Truth Social post, Trump demanded that Minnesota elected officials “stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], who are only trying to do their job.”
If this doesn’t happen, the president said, he would invoke the Insurrection Act and “quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place” in the state.
“The Insurrection Act was always the plan, and Minneapolis is the test case,” said Melanie D’Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health. “They sent ICE in to terrorize and attack Black and brown communities to provoke a response that would justify deploying the military domestically in Blue cities. This has never been about immigration.”
“Invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy military forces against the American people is the exact opposite of what Minneapolis — and the country — needs right now.” —Lisa Gilbert, Public Citizen
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) made a similar warning last week, amid protests that erupted after the killing of Renee Nicole Good by a federal agent.
“What we are seeing right now,” said Omar, “not only from the surge of 2,000 federal agents—now we have another 1,000 apparently coming in—it is essentially trying to create this kind of environment where people feel intimidated, threatened, and terrorized. And I think the ultimate goal of [Homeland Security Security Secretary] Kristi Noem and President Trump is to agitate people enough where they are able to invoke the Insurrection Act to declare martial law.”
“There is,” she continued, “no other justifiable way to describe what is taking place in Minneapolis at this moment. There is no justifiable reason why this number of agents is here in our state.”
The Insurrection Act has not been used since 1992, when President George HW Bush invoked it at the request of then-California Gov. Pete Wilson to quell riots that had broken out in Los Angeles after a jury acquitted police officers who were caught on camera beating Rodney King.
“Invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy military forces against the American people is the exact opposite of what Minneapolis — and the country — needs right now,” said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen in a statement Thursday morning.
“The violence in Minneapolis is being perpetrated by ICE. The solution is to end the ICE surge, not to further militarize the city, ” added Gilbert. “Deploying military forces against the city and its citizens would be a doubling down on the threat Americans are facing from their own government. Trump should abandon this idea immediately and stop threatening to use the military against the American people.”
Mass protests have erupted throughout Minneapolis since ICE agent Jonathan Ross fatally shot local resident Good, whom the Trump administration posthumously smeared as a “domestic terrorist.”
Protests against ICE presence in the city intensified on Wednesday night after a federal agent shot a man in the leg during what the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) called a “targeted traffic stop.”
The Trump administration last week began surging thousands of ICE agents into Minneapolis, resulting in mass school closures and the disruption of daily life for the city’s residents.
The editorial board of the Minnesota Star Tribune on Thursday described the city as being “under siege” by the federal government.
“Battalions of armed federal agents are moving through neighborhoods, transit hubs, malls and parking lots and staging near churches, mosques and schools,” the editorial explains. “Strangers with guns have metastasized in spaces where daily life should be routine and safe. It feels like a military occupation.”
The editors then declared that “what we are witnessing is the storming of the state by the federal government,” insisting that “the occupation of Minnesota by ICE cannot stand.”
A local Minneapolis resident who was out protesting against the ICE presence on Wednesday night toldStatus Coup News that he felt like the entire city was under assault.
https://twitter.com/i/status/2011648909748093077
“This is nuts!” he said. “What the fuck is going on, dude, this is insane… You know what really pisses me off is the fact that they detain people, cuff them, and then still beat the shit out of them! They tell you it’s immigrants, it’s only immigrants? It’s fucking anybody! I have friends who got detained and all they were doing was driving home from work!”
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Masked federal agents are terrorizing our communities. They’re teargassing babies, kidnapping our neighbors, shooting clergy in the face with chemical projectiles, and killing innocent people.
But right now we have an opportunity to rein in ICE at the federal level.
ICE and Border Patrol are part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which is currently funded only through January 30. The new funding bill that’s currently being written is our opportunity to put significant restrictions on ICE and ensure it doesn’t get a single penny more to enable its brutality.
This is a winnable fight, if we can convince Congressional Democrats to hold firm. So we need to act fast, and we need to be loud.
Congressional Call-in DayToday, we’re joining the ACLU, MoveOn, and Public Citizen in driving as many calls as we can to Capitol Hill. We want congressional phonelines ringing off the hook with constituents demanding the DHS funding bill include restrictions on ICE and Border Patrol. Ready to take action?
We firmly believe that stripping the entire broken and abusive Department of Homeland “Security” down to the studs is the moderate position at this point, and that when we regain power, we need to do that as soon as possible.
But we can’t wait until the next election to do something about ICE’s lawlessness. So we’ve worked with allies and experts to come up with meaningful restrictions that we can place on ICE in the upcoming appropriations bill.
Right now we’re demanding that every Member of Congress (but particularly Democrats, who should be leading this fight):
❌ Reject increased funding for ICE or Border Patrol: The budgets for ICE and Border Patrol have already skyrocketed. Every Member of Congress should refuse to give another penny to these agencies as they tear apart our communities.
WASHINGTON—Saying that despite recent events, it would do everything in its power to continue obscuring the truth, The Washington Post published an editorial Thursday defending the FBI’s recent raid on its reporter. “As journalists, we stand united behind the U.S. government’s decision to investigate our colleague Hannah Natanson, search her home, and seize several of her electronic devices,” read the piece, which was signed by the famed newspaper’s editorial board and outlined the many ways in which Natanson deserved to be punished for doing her job conducting investigative reporting into the Trump administration. “The Washington Post has a long history of groundbreaking journalism, and we invite FBI director Kash Patel to raid, arrest, or jail anyone involved with such efforts. In the United States, federal agents are born with certain unalienable rights. We cannot in good conscience allow our reporters to infringe upon that freedom.” At press time, the famed newspaper’s readership had reportedly skyrocketed after the editorial board called on President Donald Trump to publicly execute its entire staff.
Sanders’ likening of ICE to a “domestic army” comes as more footage out of Minneapolis shows federal immigration agents violently assaulting protesters and legal observers.
The president’s “law and order” claims, said the watchdog group Public Citizen, “lose all credibility when cast against the lawlessness Trump allows for the pursuit of corporate profits.”
German Conservative Revolutionary who briefly joined the Nazis before he broke with them in 1934.
Rauschning joined the Nazi Party in 1932 and became the head of the parlement of Danzig in 1933.
In 1934 he left the Nazi party membership and defected to the United States where he denounced Nazism.
Rauschning is chiefly known for his book Conversations with Hitler in which he claimed to have many meetings and conversations with Hitler. His book is considered to be a fraud by historians.
After the war he became a staunch critic of the president of the federal republic of Germany Konrad Adenauer
This may seem extreme, but the guy posting this was within his rights. These are not police. They cannot come into your house/home. Think of them as bounty hunters. Or… Think of them as idiots. That works.
As the US president moves from bombing one country to another, liberal-washing of Trump continues apace.
by Adam Johnson January 14, 2026 (therealnews.com)
US President Donald Trump speaks to the press upon returning to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on January 13, 2026. Photo by Mandel NGAN / AFP via Getty Images
Get fearless, uncompromising truth in your inbox. Subscribe to The Real News.Sign up
Almost every major outlet has taken Trump’s alleged motivation for potentially bombing Iran of defending Iranian demonstrators at face value:
Wall Street Journal (1/11/26): “…a sign the president is considering reprimanding the regime for its crackdown on demonstrators as he has repeatedly threatened.”
New York Times (1/10/26): “Mr. Trump has not made a final decision [to bomb Iran], but the officials said he was seriously considering authorizing a strike in response to the Iranian regime’s efforts to suppress demonstrations set off by widespread economic grievances.’
New York Times (1/13/26): “…the Trump administration is simultaneously considering a range of measures, includingpossible military strikes, to try to prevent further killings of protesters.”
CNN (1/11/26): “President Donald Trump is weighing a series of potential military options in Iran following deadly protests in the country, two US officials told CNN, as he considers following through on his recent threats to strike the Iranian regime should it use lethal force against civilians.”
Washington Post (1/11/26): “The Trump administration is considering military options in response to the crackdown…”
Washington Post (1/13/26): “Trump’s escalating rhetoric and the soaring death toll from inside Iran come as the White House said this week that his administration was weighing diplomatic options while considering potential responses [to the shooting of protestors], including military strikes.
This was the same week Trump withdrew the US from 66 international organizations, many focusing on human rights and global development, continued to openly extort Venezuela for its oil resources, reaffirmed his desire to take over Greenland by force, dismissed new elections in Venezuela as a condition for anything, and launched a propaganda campaign against an activist his regime had just killed in broad daylight. Yet, Trump is said to be—or is heavily implied to be—motivated by defending free speech rights and democracy in Iran by the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, CNN, and Washington Post.
None of the above articles registered an ounce of skepticism about the White House’s stated motive, all either presenting the human rights concern as genuine or heavily implying it was.
So what else could be motivating Trump other than “defending demonstrators”? There are many options, of course—most far more consistent with the reality of Trump rather than a sudden Grinch-like transition from craven imperialist to bleeding-heart liberal. Could it perhaps be a desire to see a pro-US dictator take over the US’s longtime “enemy”? Could it be an attempt to decapitate an Iranian regime thwarting US hegemony in the Middle East? Could it be to eliminate, once and for all, the primary opponent of Israel? Could it be to raise tensions and drag Iran into a costly and deadly civil war? None of these motives are considered, much less examined, in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, NBC News, Washington Post, or CNN’s coverage of his announcement—which didn’t seem at all perplexed by a president who has never once expressed even nominal sympathy for Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Speech suddenly turning into Ken Roth.
Nor do any of these reports mention the key fact that no demonstrators, outside of fringe monarchists, are asking the US to launch airstrikes on Iran. Such an outside escalation is the militant, irresponsible fantasy of Lindsey Graham and Benjamin Netanhayu—not the activists in the street on whose behalf such a strike would ostensibly be waged. But just as they did with his oil tanker hijackings and attack on Venezuela and abduction of their leader 11 days ago, US media reflexively liberal-washes every act of aggression Trump undertakes, or threatens to undertake, when its aims are consistent with Washington foreign policy consensus.
This is despite Trump almost never bothering to run through the motions of displaying liberal or human rights motivations. When in his past, prior to 12 days ago when his threats to bomb Iran were accompanied by concern for “peaceful protestors,” has Trump ever expressed concern about protecting political dissent? According to his former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, at the height of George Floyd protests in 2020, then-President Trump asked Esper if he could order the military to shoot demonstrators “Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?” Trump has praised physical attacks on reporters, praised extrajudicial killings of protestors, threatened to shoot “looters” without trial, and on Tuesday promised a ‘DAY OF RECKONING & RETRIBUTION” for anti-ICE protestors in Minnesota. Don’t any of the Pentagon and White House reporters mindlessly echoing Trump’s supposed concern for dissidents in Iran find this a bit unserious and pretextual? Will they include any critical examination of his motives at all?
None is to be found. Despite it being an obvious pretext to push the US into a full-blown regime change war against Iran, the idea that Trump seeks to “reprimand the regime for its crackdown on demonstrators” is being taken at face value by adults who not only should know better, but certainly do. We know from events in just the past few weeks that pretexts are dropped just as easily as they appear. Last week, just before their arraignment of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump Department of Justice not only dropped its claim that Maduro was the head of the ‘Cartel de los Soles,’ but that the cartel existed at all. A central element justifying their military buildup on Venezuela, Exhibit A in the pretext to attack, bomb, and kidnap the head of another country, once it faced minimal outside scrutiny, was abandoned, put into a memory hole, and everyone just moved on.
Trump and the pro-war forces in his administration are clearly using Iranian suppression of demonstrations as a pretext for long-existing regime change designs. They are not simply responding in earnest to a humanitarian crisis unfolding to their surprise and dismay. A dynamic made all the more obvious by the fact that Trump has not once mentioned freedom and human rights as a motive for any potential action until a few days ago.
Why does having a sober and realistic assessment of Trump’s motivations matter? Because, in addition to the inherent propaganda value feigned concern for human rights carries, accurately assessing motives allows us to better predict outcomes. Had our media focused more on oil extraction and the goals of isolating Cuba and China, rather than trumped up “drug charges” on Venezuela, they could have better prepared the public for what we’ve seen this week: a mob-like shakedown operation complete with a backdoor meeting with US oil firms in Trump’s best effort to exploit Venezuela’s resources, worries about Venezuelan “fentanyl” now suddenly gone. No doubt in the event of a US-led bombing campaign of Iran Trump’s supposed concern for “demonstrators” and “people of Iran” will, likewise, vanish like smoke in the wind as the US pivots to sowing chaos and sectarian divisions rather than seeking to usher in organic democracy in Iran.
But for now this pretext is doing yeoman’s work: giving a thin justification for yet another military attack on yet another country. Unable to manufacture “drug cartel” pretenses, or a fresh anti-terror framework, or the threat of an attack on the US by an undermanned and scrambling Iranian government, the forces of war within the White House decided to act like the president cares about human rights and free speech. The president, clearly with reluctance, agreed to play along. The question is: Why is the whole of the US press doing so as well?
FBI Director Kash Patel, who has said he will “come after people in the media,” conducts a news conference at the Department of Justice on December 4, 2025.
(Photo by Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
“This is a tremendous escalation in the administration’s intrusions into the independence of the press,” said one First Amendment advocate.
A press freedom group on Wednesday accused the Trump administration of a “disturbing escalation” in its “war on the First Amendment” after the FBI executed a search warrant at the home of a Washington Postjournalist who has extensively covered President Donald Trump’s attempts to gut the federal workforce.
FBI agents reportedly conducted a search early Wednesday morning at the Virginia home of Hannah Natanson as part of an investigation into a federal contractor who is accused of illegally retaining classified documents.
“If true, this would be a serious violation of press freedom,” said the Freedom of the Press Foundation in a social media post.
The Post reported that the agents seized Natanson’s cellphone, Garmin watch, a personal laptop, and a laptop issued by the newspaper.
The warrant stated that the FBI was investigating Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a system administrator with top secret security clearance who has been accused of taking classified intelligence reports to his home in Maryland. The documents were found in his lunch box and basement, an FBI affidavit said.
Politico senior legal affairs reporter Kyle Cheney noted that the criminal complaint regarding Perez-Lugones’ case does not mention allegations that he gave any classified documents to a reporter.
“The FBI’s search and seizure of a journalist’s personal and professional devices appears to be a serious violation of press freedom and underscores why we need to enact greater federal protections for both journalists and their sources,” said Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters Without Borders North America. “Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed the seizure is linked to an investigation into a federal contractor who is alleged to have leaked classified information. It’s worth reiterating, though we shouldn’t have to, that journalists have a constitutionally protected right to publish government secrets. We call for the FBI to immediately return Hannah Natanson’s devices.”
Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, told the New York Timesthat the FBI search at Natanson’s home was “intensely concerning” and could chill “legitimate journalistic activity.”
“There are important limits on the government’s authority to carry out searches that implicate First Amendment activity,” Jaffer said.
As the Committee to Protect Journalists notes in a guide to reporters’ legal rights, the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 established high standards for searches and seizures of journalists’ materials that are “reasonably believed to be related to media intended for dissemination to the public—including ‘work product materials’ (e.g., notes or voice memos containing mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, etc. of the person who prepared such materials) and ‘documentary materials’ (e.g., video tapes, audio tapes, photographs, and anything else physically documenting an event).”
“These materials generally cannot be searched or seized unless they are reasonably believed to relate to a crime committed by the person possessing the materials,” reads the guide. “They may, however, be held for custodial storage incident to an arrest of the journalist possessing the materials, so long as the material is not searched and is returned to the arrestee intact.”
Last year, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) ended a Biden-era policy that limited its ability to search or subpoena a reporter’s data as part of investigations into leaks.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said the DOJ “will not tolerate unauthorized disclosures that undermine President Trump’s policies, victimize government agencies, and cause harm to the American people.”
Before becoming FBI director, Kash Patel said in 2023 that should Trump return to the White House, his administration would “come after people in the media” in efforts to target the president’s enemies.
The Post reported Wednesday that “while it is not unusual for FBI agents to conduct leak investigations around reporters who publish sensitive government information, it is highly unusual and aggressive for law enforcement to conduct a search on a reporter’s home.”
Natanson has spent much of Trump’s second term thus far covering his efforts to fire federal employees, tens of thousands of whom have been dismissed as the president seeks to ensure the entire government workforce is pushing forward his right-wing agenda.
She wrote an essay last month for the Post in which she described being inundated with messages over the past year from more than 1,000 federal employees who wanted to tell her “how President Donald Trump was rewriting their workplace policies, firing their colleagues, or transforming their agency’s missions.” She has written about the toll the mass firings have had on workers’ mental health.
Bruce D. Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said in a statement that “physical searches of reporters’ devices, homes, and belongings are some of the most invasive investigative steps law enforcement can take.”
“There are specific federal laws and policies at the Department of Justice that are meant to limit searches to the most extreme cases because they endanger confidential sources far beyond just one investigation and impair public interest reporting in general,” said Brown. “While we won’t know the government’s arguments about overcoming these very steep hurdles until the affidavit is made public, this is a tremendous escalation in the administration’s intrusions into the independence of the press.”
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A man gestures at US Border Patrol agents as they detain an unidentified man of Somali descent in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 8, 2026.
(Photo by Octavio Jones/AFP via Getty Images)
“The First Amendment unequivocally protects the right to observe, monitor, and take pictures and video of government officials conducting their duties in public.”
“We join together as nonprofit civil rights and free expression advocates to condemn the Trump administration’s statements that it is illegal to record videos of ICE agents. These claims are incorrect as a matter of law, directly contrary to our First Amendment values, and deeply troubling for democratic governance,” NCAC said in a statement.
“The ability to hold the government accountable is at the very core of our democracy. To preserve that ability, the First Amendment unequivocally protects the right to observe, monitor, and take pictures and video of government officials conducting their duties in public. This explicitly includes law enforcement officers engaged in their public duties,” the coalition continued, citing decisions from all federal appellate courts that have addressed the issue.
In a Wednesday appearance on KQED‘s podcast Close All Tabs, CJ Ciaramella, a criminal justice reporter at Reason, similarly highlighted that while the US Supreme Court “actually hasn’t put out a ruling saying there’s an unambiguous First Amendment right to film the police,” the circuit courts “that have considered the issue have pretty much said there is a First Amendment right to record the police and observe the police, and they’ve all decided that pretty unambiguously.”
“And this ranges from, you know, the 9th Circuit, which is traditionally a pretty liberal leaning court, to the 5th Circuit, which has a reputation as a more conservative circuit court,” Ciaramella explained. “The 5th Circuit looked at it and said, you know, based on the First Amendment tradition, the Supreme Court precedents, this seems pretty unambiguous to us.”
“So it’s not a completely like black and white issue, but it’s also not… a thorny or divisive First Amendment question. Every court that’s looked at it has said, yeah, based on our long First Amendment traditions. And in America, you have a right to record the police,” he added. “Now, Minnesota is in one of the circuits that hasn’t yet ruled on this.”
The NCAC statement comes amid a flurry of videos of violent and otherwise problematic ICE actions, especially in Minneapolis, where Trump has sent thousands of troops and ICE officer Johnathan Ross fatally shot Renee Nicole Good in the head last week. Ross was recording on his phone, and amid mounting calls for his arrest and prosecution, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has put out a “propaganda” video defending the actions of ICE agents.
Journalists and other critics of Good’s killing have debunked DHS claims in part by pointing to bystanders’ footage from the scene.
While the NCAC statement doesn’t point to any specific incidents with agents, it does sound the alarm about Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s suggestion last July that videotaping ICE operations is “violence” and anyone “doxing” agents will be prosecuted.
After playing a clip of Noem’s remarks on Close All Tabs, host Morgan Sung said: “Notice the use of the word doxing here. That’s the act of posting private information about someone to target and harass them, usually like their home address or personal phone number. The Trump administration has equated identifying and publicly naming ICE agents to doxing.”
NCAC argued that “statements such as Secretary Noem’s misinform the public about their First Amendment rights and chill constitutionally protected speech. As a policy matter, threats to punish those who monitor law enforcement increase the likelihood that people will be intimidated out of exercising their constitutional rights and lead to precisely the outcome such oversight is intended to prevent—law enforcement agents who act with impunity as transparency is demonized by political leaders.”
Like ICE, agents with Customs and Border Protection, another DHS agency, have been sent to various cities and recorded behaving violently in recent months, often while donning masks. After Ross killed Good, Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino—who is currently in Minnesota—sent a “legal refresher” to agents in the field stating that taking photos and recordings is protected activity under the First Amendment.
The coalition said that “regardless of one’s views on immigration policy, the increased budget and enforcement operations of ICE were a core campaign issue in the presidential election, and are a widespread topic of conversation and concern.”
“Recordings of law enforcement directly inform the public, shape policy discussions, and even serve as the catalyst for large-scale political movements across the political spectrum. They have helped to expose horrific and illegal acts by the government,” NCAC pointed out. “At the same time, they also protect law enforcement officers. If an officer is acting within the bounds of the law, a recording will help prove as much.”
“We stand behind the public’s well-established right to record public officials, law enforcement, and ICE agents engaged in their public duties. We jointly condemn this administration’s refusal to recognize the First Amendment right to record officers in public. And we call on this administration to recognize that constitutional rights are a feature, not a bug, of democratic governance,” the coalition concluded. “For our constitutional rights to be real, our public officials must uphold them—as they have sworn to do.”
The groups that signed on to the statement are the ACLU, Center for Democracy & Technology, Center for Protest Law & Litigation at the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, Defending Rights & Dissent, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Government Information Watch, Knight First Amendment Institute, National Coalition Against Censorship, People for the American Way, Public Citizen, Tully Center for Free Speech, and Woodhull Freedom Foundation.
Joining them as individuals are writer and historian Pat McNees, and three experts from Yale Law School: David A. Schulz, Stacy Livingston, and Tobin Raju.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
We protest Heritage Foundation EVERY MONDAY (Join us!!!!) By admin | September 2, 2025 | Uncategorized Cliff Cash Comedy Premiered Jul 26, 2025 Every Monday at The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Ave. Washington D.C. 4pm protest 6pm pizza Every Friday at Fox News D.C. 400 N. Capitol St. Washington D.C. 4pm protest 6pm pizza We are... Continue reading →
Milk Club Trans Caucus Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 28 Time: 5-7 PM Location and Zoom Link: Meeting info available to members of the Milk Club Trans Caucus. Please reach out to trans@milkclub.org if you would like to join the Milk Club Trans Caucus.
San Francisco Young Democrats meet with SFDems Chair Nancy Tung Wednesday, April 29th | 2pm Location: SC T-160 (third floor of Student Center) Register The San Francisco Young Democrats at SF State are teaming up with SFDems to make sure their voices are heard. Want to get more plugged into San Francisco... Continue reading →
One Million Rising: Strategic Non-Cooperation to Fight Authoritarianism Virtual Event · Hosted by No Kings Time Wednesdays 8 – 9:30pm EDT Location Virtual event Join from anywhere About this event Across the country, authoritarian forces are getting bolder and more dangerous. Trump and his allies are not hiding their agenda: mass deportations,... Continue reading →
THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 2023 AT 2 AM – 4 AM PDT How to create trust in a group? Details Event by Extinction Rebellion Empathy Circles online EMPATHY CAFE Duration: 2 hr Public · Anyone on or off Facebook How to create trust in a group? This is the question that arose in our... Continue reading →
