NEW YORK—Sitting in the multinational corporation’s boardroom, Chase executives reportedly spent most of Friday afternoon nostalgically recalling the financial company’s hip-hop roots, reminiscing about being young bankers who helped create the vibrant music, cultural, and investment scene in the South Bronx.
“Chase came from the streets, and we were part of this real underground banking movement that was thriving in hip-hop culture,” said Chase Consumer and Community Banking chairman Todd “Bizzy B” Maclin of the FDIC-insured institution’s early days in the late 1970s, before it became a household name. “Back in the day, our financial crew was down with Afrika Bambaataa, Morten Arntzen, the Cold Crush Brothers, Winthrop W. Aldrich—all the hip-hop pioneers.”
“We were pushing the boundaries of providing lending services and experimenting with a lot of funky-ass fund transfers,” Maclin added. “Everybody in the Bronx knew that Chase had the freshest deposits, the freshest withdrawals, and the freshest adjustable-rate mortgages.”
Maclin, who explained that the five pillars of hip-hop include DJing, rapping, graffiti art, breakdancing, and banking, spoke reverently about Chase’s origins at “old-school block parties.” While describing the lively culture that thrived from 1977 to 1983, before hip-hop banking had gone mainstream, Maclin told reporters that a diverse crowd of b-boys, fledgling financiers, and local residents attended the huge blowouts to listen to music, dance, and refinance debt at lower APRs.
Speaking wistfully about one particular “wild bash” in 1978, Maclin smiled as he recalled how a packed dance floor erupted into a frenzy when a 19-year-old Chase teller “grabbed the mic” and started holding forth on loan modification provisions while DJ Jazzy Jay spun stripped-down electro-funk breaks.
“Everyone was out there doing their thing, whether it was boogieing, performing transactions, investing their money, or opening checking accounts,” said Maclin, recalling the hours sitting on stoops with friends and developing dope ways to increase dividends. “I still remember giving out my first loan at a house party to Grandmaster Flash.”
“You can still see early hip-hop’s influence on some of Chase’s more recent CDs,” Maclin added.
Maclin reportedly expressed a feeling of longing for an earlier time when hip-hop was in its infancy, Chase was just starting out, and financial executives were “banking from the heart.” Maclin admitted that Chase had lost touch with its hip-hop roots over the years, claiming that the bank, with more than 5,100 branches and 16,100 ATMs in the U.S., became “totally corporate” and sold out.
Chase president Jamie Dimon told reporters that the formative years of hip-hop were a period when the bank was “really tearing shit up.” According to Dimon, Chase was heavily influenced by ancient tribal money lending and often sampled the policies of innovative German banks from Dusseldorf.
“That whole period was a renaissance, and I still have vivid memories of coming home late from bank parties where we’d have Kool Herc spinning in the lobby,” Dimon said. “Then I’d spend all night digging through this massive collection of financial records and doing some revolutionary underwriting.”
“There was a lot of energy in the community and everybody was there, like Bank of America, First Federal, Grand Wizzard Theodore, Crash Crew, Bank One Corp., and the Fly Five,” added Dimon. “PNC and Washington Mutual were always hanging around, too, before they ended up going off to the West Coast.”
While Dimon confirmed that Chase played an integral role in hip-hop’s “anything goes, party atmosphere,” the executive said that banking was the only way out of “the hood” for many young financial professionals.
“It was a tough place, and the cops wouldn’t even go there, but banking provided hope for a lot of our clerks and loan officers who came from violent street gangs,” Dimon said. “Nobody thought a financial institution could come from the ghetto. And banking in Manhattan didn’t even happen until they found out we were making money doing it in the Bronx.”
Afrika Bambaataa, who is widely regarded as the grandfather of hip-hop culture, was sentimental while discussing Chase’s role in the evolution of hip-hop, admiring how the bank developed talent and created unconventional amortized loans and groundbreaking transaction fees that forever transformed the financial and artistic movement.
“Chase would always come straight with it,” Bambaataa said. “Didn’t matter if they were issuing traditional IRAs or a home equity line of credit.”
“A lot of hip-hop trailblazers came out of the Chase crew,” added Bambaataa. “Duke Bootee, Willard C. Butcher, Melle Mel—all started out at Chase. They always had the best graffiti artists designing their deposit slips. And I’ll never forget watching Morten Arntzen rapidly cutting back and forth between two present value ordinary annuity tables.”
Reached for further comment, Chase executives admitted they were still embarrassed by the financial institution’s ill-conceived 1986 collaboration with Aerosmith.
As US lawmakers and the international community registered President Donald Trump’s threat to commit genocide in Iran on Tuesday, rights advocates demanded action from Trump’s Cabinet, congressional leaders, and the country’s European allies to take action—while US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez issued a reminder that the president can be stopped by a lack of action as well, if those in the US military chain of command refuse to carry out his orders.
Trump’s threat to wipe out Iran’s civilization of 93 million people “merits removal from office,” said Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). “To every individual in the president’s chain of command: You have a duty to refuse illegal orders. That includes carrying out this threat.”
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) also addressed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose chairman, Dan Caine, has been joining Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in briefings recently as Hegseth has made bellicose threats against Iran and portrayed the unprovoked US-Israeli assault as a holy war.
“Obviously eradicating a whole civilization constitutes a war crime. You must disobey that order,” said the congressman. “If you commit war crimes, the next administration will prosecute you.”
Erik Sperling, executive director of think tank Just Foreign Policy, called on Senate and House Democrats, including those on committees that oversee the armed services and foreign relations, to make Lieu’s threat “absolutely clear.”
“We can still stop this,” said Just Foreign Policy on social media.
Journalist Ryan Grim of Drop Site News added that federal laws prohibiting war crimes “will apply in January 2029,” after Trump is out of office.
Since Trump took office for his second term in January 2025, Democratic lawmakers have previously issued reminders to the US military that the UCMJ prohibits service members from carrying out illegal orders, with six House members and senators releasing a video in November—as the Pentagon was continuing its bombings of boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean and threatening to attack Venezuela—to remind them, “You must refuse illegal orders.”
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) was among the lawmakers who participated in the video. On Tuesday the former CIA analyst addressed service members across the military once again, warning that “targeting civilians en masse would be a clear violation of the law of armed conflict as laid out in the Geneva Conventions, as well as the Pentagon’s Law of War Manual.”
“If [service members] are today or have been asked to do things that violate the law and their training, it puts them in very real legal jeopardy. I know that our service members up and down the chain of command know their duty and the law to refuse illegal orders,” said Slotkin. “It’s moments like these that are why we made the video to service members last year. And I hope and believe our troops—especially those in command—will have the moral clarity to push back if they are given clearly illegal orders.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
US Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) attends a press conference with an American delegation, consisting of senators and members of the House of Representatives, in Copenhagen, Denmark, on January 17, 2026.
(Photo by Ida Marie Odgaard / Ritzau Scanpix / AFP via Getty Images)
“Inaction from House Democratic leadership is complicity,” said an organizer for the National Iranian American Council.
Democratic leadership in Congress has been quick to condemn President Donald Trump after his genocidal threat to wipe out Iranian civilization on Tuesday. But critics are wondering why they didn’t take stronger action when they had the opportunity weeks ago.
Trump pledged Tuesday morning that “a whole civilization will die tonight” if Iran refuses to open the Strait of Hormuz—a threat to carry out widespread destruction and mass slaughter across a nation of more than 90 million people.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) referred to the president as “an extremely sick person” and said “each Republican who refuses to join us in voting against this wanton war of choice owns every consequence of whatever the hell this is.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) joined in, agreeing that “Congress must immediately end this reckless war of choice in Iran before Donald Trump plunges us into World War III” and that “it’s time for every single Republican to put patriotic duty over party and stop the madness.”
Journalist Adam Johnson, however, noted that Democrats had a chance to “stop the madness” weeks ago, when it seemed they may have had the votes to pass a war powers resolution in the House at the end of March that would have limited Trump’s ability to further strike Iran. But instead, said Johnson, “ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) delayed the House War Powers vote until mid-April.”
At the time, Meeks contended that Democrats did not have enough votes to ensure the measure would pass and that he’d bring it to the floor only if it could be guaranteed that Democrats would win.
However, news reports indicated that at least three Republicans—Reps. Thomas Massie (Ky.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), and Nancy Mace (SC) were all likely on board to pass the resolution, as were most or all of the four Democrats who voted against the one that fell just short in February.
Meanwhile, some Democrats whose absences were cited to justify delaying the vote reportedly returned to town in time for one to be held.
Even if there were indeed not enough votes, it was unclear why Meeks believed additional votes would be there over two weeks later.
House Democratic leaders went on recess after refusing to hold a vote to have Congress go on record about Trump's impending escalation.
In the days since Democrats balked at bringing the resolution to the floor, Trump has moved thousands more US troops to the Middle East, and his threats against Iran have grown markedly more extreme.
Over Easter weekend, he threatened on Truth Social to launch attacks against civilian infrastructure, including power plants and bridges, actions that Amnesty International said could amount to war crimes and “would unleash catastrophic harm on millions.” Asked about his comments during the White House Easter celebration, Trump said that if Iran does not open the strait by Tuesday, he is “considering blowing everything up.”
He has also reportedly mulled committing ground troops to several operations to occupy parts of Iranian territory in hopes of securing the strait or to carry out a mission to seize Iran’s enriched uranium, both of which experts have warned would likely prove catastrophic and put American troops in danger.
In a statement issued Tuesday, Meeks joined the chorus of Democrats condemning Trump’s comments, saying that “threatening to destroy Iranian power plants and bridges is not a strategy, it is a war crime.”
However, his statement did not mention any plans to re-launch a war powers resolution once Congress returns to session.
Meeks’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment about whether he plans to bring the resolution back to the floor next week or whether he regretted not pushing harder to bring the vote before the recess.
Erik Sperling, the executive director of Just Foreign Policy, described Trump’s actions as a predictable result of Meeks and other House Democratic leaders “refusing to hold a vote to have Congress go on record about Trump’s impending escalation.”
“They knew escalation would entail genocidal war crimes and/or ground troops,” he said, “and still let the House stay silent.”
Iran has remained steadfast that it will not negotiate a ceasefire unless the US agrees to completely end hostilities, lift sanctions, and compensate Iran for the war’s damage.
A former Iranian diplomat briefed on negotiations between Iran and Omani mediators told The New York Times that the plan called on the US Congress to formally end the war and that any compensation would have to be guaranteed by the legislative branch.
According to a CNN poll released last week, disapproval of Trump’s war in Iran has risen over the past month, with 66% of Americans saying they somewhat or strongly oppose it and just 34% in approval.
Independent journalist Aída Chávez, who has covered previous attempts by Democrats to drag out war powers votes, said that the party “could position themselves as the ones ending this historically unpopular war.”
“They could force war powers vote after war powers vote,” she said. “They’re choosing not to.”
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) is planning a press conference with around two dozen other groups outside Jeffries’ office in New York on Thursday to protest what it called “a dangerous act of political negligence” by House Democrats, “that continues to leave the illegal US-Israel war on Iran unchecked.”
“Inaction from House Democratic leadership is complicity,” said Etan Mabourakh, NIAC Action’s organizing manager. “Our Iranian American community will not let Democrats repeat previous mistakes out of political fear… we demand leaders with the courage to act boldly and take votes in the House to stop this war now.”
A war powers resolution will not be enough. Yes. We need to assert congressional authority and stop this illegal war in Iran. But, Trump is clearly an unstable warmonger at odds with the will of the people. Removal is the top priority. No more war criminal in the White House. pic.twitter.com/SmxlRXJ3lb
But as Trump’s threats grow more “unhinged,” some in Congress are saying merely reining in his war powers is no longer enough and many Democrats have called for him to be impeached or removed by his Cabinet via the 25th Amendment.
“Yes. We need to assert congressional authority and stop this illegal war in Iran, said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). ”But, Trump is clearly an unstable warmonger at odds with the will of the people. Removal is the top priority.“
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
US Rep. Rashida Tlaib on Tuesday urged President Donald Trump’s Cabinet to immediately invoke the 25th Amendment and remove him from office following his genocidal threat to wipe out the “whole civilization” of Iran.
“After bombing a school and massacring young girls, the war criminal in the White House is threatening genocide,” Tlaib (D-Mich.) wrote on social media. “It’s time to invoke the 25th Amendment. This maniac should be removed from office.”
Some of Tlaib’s colleagues echoed her demand. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) wrote that “Trump is too unhinged, dangerous, and deranged to have the nuclear codes.”
“25th Amendment RIGHT NOW,” Pocan added.
Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) said in response to Trump’s openly genocidal Truth Social post Trump “just threatened to slaughter 100 million people.”
“It’s clear he’s unfit to be president, the 25th Amendment must be invoked,” wrote Thanedar. “If Vance, Rubio, and the others continue to be spineless cowards, Congress must do everything possible to stop Trump and this war.”
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who led the push in the US House for a war powers resolution to stop Trump’s illegal assault on Iran, told Common Dreams that he also thought the president should be removed.
“When an American president threatens the extinction of a civilization,” said Khanna, “we should be looking to invoke the 25th and remove him if Congress is to have value and independence.”
The 25th Amendment gives the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet—or a majority of a body established by Congress—to declare the president “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” and remove him from the position, elevating the vice president to serve as acting president.
Given the composition of Trump’s Cabinet—which is filled with sycophants who lavish the president with praise at every opportunity—any 25th Amendment push would likely be doomed to fail.
But Trump’s Cabinet has nevertheless faced growing calls to use the tool since the president’s Easter-morning outburst warning Iranian leaders to “open the Fuckin’ Strait [of Hormuz], you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell.”
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, warned the president’s Cabinet officials on Tuesday that “if you take any part in assisting this, you too will be guilty of the crime of genocide.”
“Use the 25th Amendment now to lawfully remove Trump from office,” Williams urged. “Congress: This is an impeachable offense. Come back to DC now ready to impeach and convict Trump.”
The National Iranian American Council said in a statement that the president’s “insane, genocidal” threat to wipe out the “whole civilization” of Iran must be “wholeheartedly condemned.”
“Military leaders are not bound to follow unlawful orders, including but not limited to the destruction of civilian targets and making good on this outrageous threat,” the group added. “We call on President Trump to recant this abominable threat against 92 million Iranians. If he does not, both Congress and his Cabinet must be prepared to remove him from office via lawful means.”
This story has been updated with comment from Rep. Ro Khanna.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
111 Taylor Street Apartments in San Francisco on Friday, April 3, 2026. Craig Lee/The Examiner
Advocates are pushing to have the interior of Compton’s Cafeteria on Taylor Street included in its historical landmark status.
Compton’s Cafeteria is the site of a watershed 1966 riot that many consider to be the beginning of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement, as it occurred three years before a famous riot at the Stonewall Inn in New York.
The site was a common hangout for the neighborhood’s LGBTQ+ residents, particularly transgender women. After dealing with repeated harassment from local police at the cafeteria, a riot broke out between the customers and the police in August 1966.
The site at 101-121 Taylor Street is already on the California and the National Register of Historic Places. In 2022, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors designated the intersection of the two streets at the building, and the exterior walls of the building, as a historical landmark. But advocates have said that because the riot began inside, that space should be included in the landmark designation as well.
Without such protections, proponents of the change argue the site’s interior could be vulnerable to demolition that leaves only the exterior walls untouched. Including the interior would be a step towards better protecting and preserving the entire building, they say.
The battle over the interior’s historical recognition is playing out as activists hope to push out the for-profit prison company that currently uses it as transitional housing for formerly incarcerated people.
The San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission voted last Wednesday against recommending the inclusion of the interior in the site’s landmark status without further investigation into what the building’s interior currently looks like. One commissioner, however, noted that the decision did not “preclude further evaluation of interior features as part of a separate amendment process.”
A plaque marks the Compton’s Cafeteria Riot by transgender people against police in August 1966 at the former site of the diner at Turk and Taylor streets. Craig Lee/The Examiner
The proposal voted on by the board was submitted by the Compton’s x Coalition, a community organization dedicated to preserving the site “free from carceral control and corporate profiteering.” Chandra LaBorde, an activist with the group, told The Examiner that they would amend the proposal to include this language.
The amendment would also expand the timeline of historical significance, as defined in the landmark designation, from only the year 1966 to a full decade between the mid-1960s and the mid-1970s.
The building is now operated as a reentry house, commonly referred to as a halfway house, by the for-profit prison company GEO Group.
A spokesperson for GEO Group, David Blackwell, said during the commission hearing that while GEO supports the building’s landmark status, it disagrees with the inclusion of the interior because it would hinder its ability to operate. There aren’t any physical characteristics in the interior to support the amendment, he said.
“This property has undergone so many changes since 1966; the ground floor is completely unrecognizable,” Blackwell said. “There is no vestige of a cafeteria here. It’s just, it’s just nonsense to say that there is.”
Blackwell alleged that this move is just another strategy by activists to push GEO out of the site.
“They want to essentially drive our client out of business,” he said.
111 Taylor Street Apartments in San Francisco on Friday, April 3, 2026. Craig Lee/The Examiner
In the weeks since an initial January hearing on the matter, Compton’s x Coalition commissioned a legal analysis and a review from an architectural historian of their proposal.
The June election in District 4 has already seen one group collect nearly $300,000 to protect a moderate majority — and a second race in the district will follow just …
Gonzo numbers seen in the first three months of the year, but the lion’s share of the money flowed to a handful of firms
The group challenged the San Francisco Planning Department staff’s use of a city code that only includes interiors in landmark statuses for privately owned buildings when those areas have significant architectural value.
The legal analysis, prepared by the office of local environmental attorney Thomas Lippe, argued that the historical significance of the interior building has not been lost.
“Queer sites don’t always necessarily maintain architectural integrity,” LaBorde said in an interview with The Examiner. “But they need to be recognized for their social history.”
Shayne Watson, an architecture historian and author, told the commission at the hearing that city law “doesn’t adequately evaluate civil rights sites.”
“Yes, there may have been alterations, but they’re secondary,” Watson said of the site.
Susan Stryker is a documentarian and historian whose 2005 film, “Screaming Queens: The Riot at Compton’s Cafeteria,” is credited by some for bringing the story back into the public narrative. Stryker said that it’s become clear how important the building is as she’s worked on documenting its history over the decades.
“There is so much integrity to that location that I feel, if the purpose of historical landmarking is to preserve things of historical significance, that there is something that needs to be preserved there,” Stryker said. “Besides the mere shell of the building.”
Dan Sider, a Planning Department spokesperson, told The Examiner in a statement that the proposal put forward by the community has been “compelling.” But landmark designations tend to focus on exterior building features, Sider said. Exceptions can be made for buildings with interior areas that have historically been open to the public and have extremely high architectural value, such as the Castro Theater.
“Based on what’s been presented so far, we’re not yet comfortable additionally recommending landmarking the interior of the building,” he said, noting that “identifying the specific, character-defining features of any city landmark is a critical piece of the review process.”
Wednesday’s hearing was one of several opportunities the public will have to comment on the proposal, Sider noted.
Supervisor Bilal Mahmood called for an investigation and held a hearing last year after one of the reentry house’s residents died. He confirmed to The Examiner on Tuesday, however, that the decision to make the interior of the building a landmark is a separate matter.
Mahmood, whose district includes the site, supports expanding the building’s landmark status.
“This is one of those appropriate next steps to ensure the community and their history is being recognized,” Mahmood said.
Mahmood said his office is continuing to work with the community on how they want to best protect the building.
For LaBorde, although the Historic Preservation Commission’s vote was disappointing, it won’t hamper the continued efforts to preserve the building.
How a 1970s Proposal to ‘Export Products, Not People’ North of the Border Got Rejected
by Irvin Ibargüen April 6, 2026 (ZocaloPublicSquare.org)
In the 1970s, Mexico came up with a plan to stop the migration crisis. Historian Irvin Ibargüen writes the country’s failed attempt to build a “wall of progress” with the United States. Pictured: U.S. President Jimmy Carter meeting with Mexican President Jose López Portillo in 1977. Credit: AP Photo
We often assume that the history of Mexican migration to the United States is a simple story of a “sending state” eager to export its unemployed and a “receiving state” struggling to hold back the tide. But 1970s history reveals a different, more tragic reality: a moment when Mexico proposed a bilateral economic solution to keep its people at home, only to be met with American indifference and a retreat into unilateral policing.
The migration Mexico tried to address in the 1970s was largely of American making. During World War II, the United States came to Mexico requesting farm and railroad workers. Mexico agreed, but with conditions: guaranteed wages, housing, and protections against discrimination. The resulting Bracero Program brought millions of Mexicans to the U.S. as guest workers beginning in 1942. When the war ended and Mexico wanted to wind it down, the U.S. repeatedly insisted on extensions; American growers had become dependent on the labor.
By the early 1960s, domestic American opposition to the Bracero Program was mounting. Labor organizers argued the program undercut American farmworkers. And a series of tragedies—most notoriously the 1963 Chualar crash, which killed 32 braceros traveling in an unsafe converted truck—exposed how disposable these workers were to American employers.
Congress ended the Bracero Program in 1964 unilaterally, with little consultation with Mexico and nary a transition plan. Predictably, the migratory pipelines Washington built kept flowing—now simply reclassified as “illegal.”
Mexico and Mexicans were left to contend with a migration system the U.S. had built and abandoned. Without legal status, Mexican workers had no formal standing, reliable recourse, or pronounced political voice. That invisibility invited abuse from all sides: bosses who knew workers couldn’t complain and immigration officers who faced little accountability.
Meanwhile, Mexico’s northern border cities absorbed tens of thousands of deportees each year, straining under what officials called an “excess labor” problem. Idle workers pooled, as the region contended not just with deportees, but migrants unable to make a clean exit to the U.S.
As these crises grew, the Mexican state proposed a new doctrine: “Export products, not people” to the United States. Mexico was asking the United States to become a partner in managing a migration that American policy had set in motion. The economic logic was straightforward. If the United States lowered tariffs on Mexican products, Americans would buy more Mexican goods. Mexican factories and farms would need more workers to meet the newfound demand, creating jobs that would keep potential migrants home.
In 1972, President Luis Echeverría and President Richard Nixon met for a summit centered on Echeverría’s concerns about the deportation and mistreatment of Mexican nationals in the United States. The two presidents agreed only that each country would establish its own commission to study the labor problem and propose solutions separately.
The Mexican body—the Comisión Intersecretarial—brought together the secretaries of the interior, labor, public education, agrarian matters and colonization, and finance, along with the attorney general, each chosen for the distinct angle their ministry brought to the problem of out-migration. It sampled the records of 10,000 deportees to pinpoint the “critical areas” hemorrhaging people. It zeroed in on specific municipalities in Zacatecas, Michoacán, and Jalisco.
In 1976, before he left office, Echeverría proposed the body’s findings to President Gerald Ford: lower tariffs specifically on goods from these high-migration towns to boost their industries and stem the flow at its source. But Ford dismissed this micro-targeted relief effort, preferring to deter migration through punitive measures.
With no solutions in place to address the migration problem, Echeverría’s successor, President José López Portillo, inherited an escalating crisis. Northern Mexico cities were increasingly strained by the presence of deportees and would-be migrants. Reports reaching Mexico City eventually confirmed Mexicans’ worst fears about migrant abuse. In Arizona, wealthy ranchers tortured three migrants. In Louisiana, a police chief kept workers locked in “tiger cages.” The Border Patrol assassinated border crossers.
López Portillo’s opening moves were the same stopgaps Mexico had cycled through for years: demanding “just and humane” treatment from U.S. authorities and ramping up police operations against human traffickers along the border. These measures addressed the violence migrants suffered without touching the economic conditions that drove them north in the first place.
López Portillo decided to scale up his ask. He lobbied the U.S. for broad tariff reductions to stimulate the entire Mexican economy. In 1977, with a new U.S. president in Jimmy Carter, the two countries signed a modest agreement reducing duties on select Mexican fruits, vegetables, and artisanal products, falling short of Mexico’s vision of comprehensive tariff relief.
López Portillo was optimistic Carter would prove a better partner than Nixon and Ford in managing the migration, given his stated commitment to human rights. So he prodded for more. He sought total exemption from the 10 percent surcharges typically imposed on all U.S. imports. The Mexican ambassador predicted this would create 600,000 jobs within two years, “raising the standard of living and preventing the exodus.” Mexican officials spoke of building a “wall of progress” against migration.
The U.S. rebuffed the broader ask, floating instead a one-time cash infusion of $2 billion to help Mexico create jobs. The proposal never made it through Congress. And in any case, what López Portillo wanted was not a check but a long-term tariff reduction policy that would steadily catalyze Mexican industry, year after year, until staying home made more sense than leaving.
Then, in the late 1970s, Mexico discovered massive oil reserves. López Portillo finally had leverage: the United States, still reeling from the 1973 OPEC crisis, wanted a stable supplier next door. So, López Portillo proposed a package deal—guaranteed oil exports in exchange for tariff relief.
There was a genuine debate within the Carter administration. The State Department and the National Security Council backed the arrangement, arguing that Iranian instability and rising oil prices made a special relationship with Mexico strategically sound. The U.S. would be exchanging tariff and migration concessions to obtain a reliable oil supplier next door. Treasury and Energy overruled them.
Energy Secretary James Schlesinger argued that the United States faced no critical short-term oil shortage, adding that Alaska’s potential domestic production was a better long-term bet than dependency on Mexican reserves. Meanwhile, Treasury officials, negotiating a multilateral trade agreement in Geneva, argued that a unilateral concession to Mexico would undermine American leverage at the table, and invite identical demands from other Latin American governments. Ultimately, Carter refused the package deal.
Mexico, facing mounting debt and currency devaluation, sold the oil to the U.S. anyway. López Portillo decided it was too risky to “pit oil against braceros.” The U.S. got energy security. Mexico obtained payment, but no structural solution to migration.
Mexico’s vision of cooperation crashed against U.S. unwillingness to prioritize migration as an international economic phenomenon. The U.S. instead defaulted to treating migration as an internal security, legal, and cultural problem to be solved punitively: expanding the Border Patrol, building fences, and launching raids that treated Mexican migrants as fugitives rather than jobseekers.
Today, we are living in the wreckage of that failed bilateralism.
Three B-2 Spirit stealth bombers prepare for departure during Exercise Bamboo Eagle at Nellis Air Force Base, NV, February 10, 2025. These types of bombers were used by the US to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in June 2025. Photo credit: US Air Force (PD)
If Republicans are too cowardly to assert their power to declare war, or to even acknowledge that this is what the conflict with Iran is, they should at least take away Donald Trump’s ability to launch a first-strike nuclear attack without congressional approval.
What happens when you give a desperate president with severe mental disorders the codes to America’s nuclear weapons, surround him with sycophants, purge some of the Pentagon’s senior leaders, and get involved in a war with no clear exit strategy in which the enemy has found a way to inflict real pain on US consumers? To be honest, we’d rather not find out.
And, yet, here we are.
Regrettably, all of the above is happening already, and there is precious little anybody can do about it. Or, to be exact, the people who could do something about it – congressional Republicans and members of the cabinet – won’t.
Obviously, they are never going to take the most drastic measures available to them, i.e., impeachment and removal in Congress or invoking the 25th Amendment in the cabinet. And we don’t blame them. You’d have to be as insane as Trump (and not care about your own personal safety or that of your loved ones) to initiate those steps.
Instead, they simply seem to be hoping that the unhinged madman who F-bombed Iran on Easter Sunday, keeps threatening to direct the US military to commit war crimes, changes daily the objectives that he claims to either have already achieved or hopes to achieve (and sometimes both), and is clearly feeling the strain from the economic chaos that he has created, will not do anything too rash and crazy.
We have some bad news for them: Rash and crazy is all you are going to get from Trump.
Fortunately, there are some tools available to congressional Republicans that will allow them to protect civilians in Iran, US allies in the region, the global economy, the wallets of Americans, and, although we increasingly doubt it, perhaps even the GOP’s Senate majority from the president.
And, best of all, those options are right there in the Constitution!!!
First and foremost, Congress could (and should) simply reassert its power to declare war. While Trump, as well as former Fox News morning show host, war crime enthusiast, and current Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, sometimes remember to call the conflict a “special military operation” or some other such term, it is pretty clear that this is a war.
It’s time for GOP lawmakers, who played along with this charade early on, to act like it.
While they are at it, they can also reclaim the power of the purse.
However, since it is likely that simply following the Constitution is a bridge too far for the spineless Republican bootlickers in Congress, there is one thing they should be doing right now: curbing Trump’s authority to launch unprovoked nuclear strikes in an illegal war.
Specifically, we are talking about passing the “Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2025,” which is a sensible piece of legislation that should get the required veto-proof majority in the House and the Senate.
Here is what it would do:
No Federal funds may be obligated or expended to conduct a first-use nuclear strike unless such strike is conducted pursuant to a war declared by Congress that expressly authorizes such strike.
Well, that seems like a no-brainer that nobody should find any fault with. While we would love to get the nuclear codes out of Trump’s hands entirely, passing this legislation would at least restrict their use in a narrow case – like when he urgently wants to end a crisis of his own making by taking the kind of irrational action that would open up an even bigger can of worms than picking an unnecessary fight with an enemy who can shut down one of the world’s most important waterways.
There must be enough sensible Republicans left in Congress to understand that this would not only be a terrible decision but also that there is a non-zero chance that the president would resort to this step as a way to pressure Iran to open up the Strait of Hormuz, or, as he calls it, “the fuckin’ Strait.”
While it might sound inconceivable that even somebody as crazy as Trump would resort to use of nuclear weapons, we wouldn’t hold our breath. There has been too much talk of destroying all of Iran and bombing the country back to the Stone Age “where it belongs” for us to simply dismiss this possibility.
Democrats should make it a priority to attach this bill to any legislation Congress considers when it returns from recess.
We just hope it won’t be too late.
Klaus Marre Klaus Marre, a former congressional reporter, is a senior editor for US politics at WhoWhatWhy. He writes regularly here, and you can also follow him on Bluesky and Substack.
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD, AP Political Writer Updated April 6, 2026 (SFGate.com)
FILE – Steve Hilton speaks during the California gubernatorial candidate debate, Feb. 3, 2026, in San Francisco.Laure Andrillon/AP
LOS ANGELES (AP) — President Donald Trump has endorsed Republican Steve Hilton for California governor, reordering a crowded, wide-open race to lead the nation’s most populous state.
Trump posted late Sunday on his social media platform Truth Social that he has known Hilton for years and called the conservative commentator “a truly fine man” who could turn around a state beset with notoriously high taxes. California, Trump wrote, “has gone to hell.”
“With Federal help, and a Great Governor, like Steve Hilton, California can be better than ever before!” Trump added.
The endorsement — coming about a month before mail ballots go to voters in advance of the June 2 primary — will help Hilton coalesce conservative support in a race with no clear leader. However, Trump is widely unpopular in heavily Democratic California outside his conservative base and Trump’s backing would become a liability if Hilton faces a Democrat in the November election.
With a large field, Democrats have been fearful that a quirk in the state’s unusual “top two” primary system could allow only two Republicans to reach the November general election ballot — Hilton and GOP rival Chad Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff. Trump’s decision — a strong signal to undecided conservative voters — will make that outcome less likely by helping Hilton lure additional support.
Democratic consultant Paul Mitchell called Trump’s decision “the safe bet” for Republicans. Rather than cling to a long shot hope that both Republicans reach the November ballot — or risk that both Hilton and Bianco fall short — Trump’s blessing should consolidate support behind Hilton and allow him to emerge from a large primary field and reach November.
“Having a Republican on the top of the ticket is essential” to drive turnout in critical down-ballot races, with control of the U.S. House in play,” Mitchell added. In an unpredictable, wide-open race, the smart play for the GOP is to “get one Republican on the ballot.”
There are more than 50 candidates on the ballot — including eight established Democrats and along with Hilton and Bianco, the two leading Republicans. An all-GOP general election is possible in California, which puts all candidates on one primary ballot and only the top two vote-getters advance to November, regardless of party.
Polling in early February by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found the field had broken into two distinct groups, with Bianco, Hilton and three Democrats — U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, former Rep. Katie Porter and billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer — in close competition, with other candidates trailing.
In a statement, Hilton, who hosted a Fox News show for six years and worked as an adviser to former British prime minister David Cameron, thanked Trump for his support and promised to grow jobs and bring down the state’s punishing cost of living. “Together we can turn things around,” Hilton said.
Republicans have not won a statewide election in California in two decades. Registered Democratic voters outnumber Republicans in the state by nearly 2-to-1.
Bianco — Hilton’s chief GOP rival — said in a video posted on X that “This race is about the future of California, not any one endorsement.” He also posted a photo of Hilton hugging outgoing Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom at a 2016 charity event.
“I have repeatedly said that a Fox News host courting a president’s endorsement will never win in California,” Bianco said in the video.
“The Israelis attacked Iran… This whole series of events wouldn’t have taken place if the Israelis would not have attacked. There was no imminent threat.”
Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, testifies during the House Homeland Security Committee hearing titled “Worldwide Threats to the Homeland,” in the Cannon building on Wednesday, December 11, 2025. Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images.
This story originally appeared in Professor Glenn Diesen’s Substack on April 2, 2026. This shortened, edited version is shared here with permission.
Joe Kent is the former US Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, who resigned in March 2026 due to the war against Iran.
“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran,” Kent wrote in his letter of resignation to President Donald Trump. “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”
I recently spoke with Kent about the mistake of attacking Iran and the intrusive influence of Israel over US foreign policy.
[Editor’s Note: The following transcript has been lightly edited for length and readability from the original full conversation, available here]
Joe Kent: As I said in my resignation letter, I believe that Iran posed no imminent threat to us; Iran was not on the cusp of attacking us. Since President Trump came back into office—and people with basic access to the internet can verify this—we watched the Iranians observe a very calculated escalation ladder.
They stopped their proxies from attacking us as they were attacking us under the Biden administration. When Trump came back into office, they sat at the negotiating table with us up until the 12-Day War and Operation Midnight Hammer. Now, mind you, during the 12-Day War, they didn’t attack us at all. Once we attacked them and hit their nuclear sites, they responded by firing an equal amount of missiles as we dropped bombs at a very empty quadrant on a base in Qatar. And then they immediately got back to the negotiating table with us.
The only imminent threat, as Secretary Rubio said, was from the Israelis.
The Israelis attacked Iran. And we knew that, during this iteration of the war, the Iranians would understand that this was an existential threat to their regime, that the goal would be regime change, and so they responded by retaliating against us. But, again, this whole series of events wouldn’t have taken place if the Israelis would not have attacked. There was no imminent threat.
I am also just against us getting involved in yet another regime-change war in the Middle East. I’m not a fan of the regime in Iran. I understand they are a terrorist threat, especially from my portfolio and my perspective as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center. However, using a regime-change tactic that failed in Iraq, failed in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya—that, to me, was just a recipe for disaster. But it was exactly what the Israelis wanted.
And so, watching the Israelis really force the hand of my government was something I was not going to be a part of. I have a lot of personal reasons, too. My background of fighting in our wars in Iraq and Syria and Yemen and other places—I really did not want to see any more young Americans lose their lives in a needless war in the Middle East. And I just personally could not be a part of that any longer.
Glenn Diesen: It’s often pointed out that the Israeli and US interests, while they overlap, are also not exactly the same. Indeed, over time, at least over the past few years, we see that their interests appear to diverge more and more. Why is it that Israel has such a great influence over the decision-making in Washington now?
Joe Kent: Honestly, I think it’s a combination of things. The Israelis are very effective at what they do. They’re a small country, and so they use a very sophisticated, layered approach to influencing the American government. Obviously, their grip on Congress, I think, is well documented. They have very active political action committees that use Americans who support Israel to provide a bunch of money to different political candidates, and that gets them a certain degree of access.
We also have a very close relationship with the Israelis in terms of intelligence sharing, because the Middle East is a very challenging place to operate, and the Israelis are a very competent intelligence service. But because we rely on them for so much of our intelligence, I personally believe that we’ve gotten a little bit too close with them. Because of us not understanding a lot of what’s going on in the Middle East, we will take what they say, basically, as the only opinion worth counting in terms of intelligence collection.
But if you’ve worked in the region for quite a while, like I have, you do realize that the Israelis use their intelligence to influence us as well as to inform us. And they are usually pushing for a very different objective.
In this administration, for example, the Israelis did a very effective job of eliminating the potential for a negotiation between President Trump and the Iranians. Now, President Trump had always said that his policy was, “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.” The Iranians in their own way agreed with that. The former Supreme Leader, before he was killed, had a fatwa or religious decree that prevented Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. So Iran basically agreed: “We don’t want a nuclear weapon.”
GET FEARLESS, AD-FREE, UNCOMPROMISING REAL NEWS IN YOUR INBOXSign up
Now, Iran wanted the ability to enrich uranium. They wanted the ability to produce a nuclear weapon, should they choose. So they basically didn’t want to go the route of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and say, “Hey, we give up everything,” which meant they would then be vulnerable to a regime-change war. And they didn’t want to go the route of Saddam Hussein and say, “Hey, we’re going to develop one,” or pretend that they may have had one. So their approach was pretty pragmatic.
The Israelis recognized this as a threat to their goal of regime change. Because what they saw was, “Hey, Trump’s going to get to the negotiating table with these guys. He’s going to get a deal because President Trump prides himself on being a dealmaker.” So what they sought to do was use their multi-layered influence network to move the red line from “no nuclear weapon” to “no enrichment.”
No American official in this administration said “no enrichment.” In the previous administration, Secretary Mike Pompeo had said that Iran can’t enrich, but he was really the only one who said that. When we came back in, in January of 2025, the Israelis used their official engagements, and then they also used their folks in the media—pro-Israel sympathizers in the media and in the think-tank sphere—to say, over and over again, “American policy is no enrichment,” or, “enrichment equals a bomb.”
And they did this through repetition. They would put it on the news the same night they’d be in the White House lobbying for these different things, or they’d be over at one of the intelligence agencies lobbying for these different things. And so, they were able to influence US policy and basically convince President Trump that his new policy was “no enrichment.”
And now we found ourselves in this quagmire where we bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities, we take away their ability to enrich, but then the Israelis come right back—like you heard Mark Levin do on TV the other night—and say, “Well, there’s still some uranium there and we have to go in. It’s not enough to bomb it. We have to go physically get it, which means we have to put boots on the ground. We have to control the ground again.” It gets us stuck in this quagmire.
That, right there, is really what I call the “pro-Israel echo chamber.” It’s an ecosystem that they’ve developed throughout multiple levels of our government.
Glenn Diesen: My impression from Iran was that, if it was all an issue of having more transparency around the civilian nuclear program (ie., that they wouldn’t develop a weapon), that a deal could be made, and that their frustration often came from linking the nuclear issue to the issue of supporting regional allies or having certain limitations on ballistic missiles or drones. Do you see these efforts by Israel to link the nuclear issue to a lot of other issues as, essentially, an effort to make it impossible to get a deal, for the purpose of pushing war?
Joe Kent: Yes, the Israelis were very good at moving the red line. When President Trump scoped the negotiations very narrowly to “no nuclear weapons,” and then even in the uranium-enrichment sphere, there was some play before and even after the 12-Day War. Steve Witkoff is a very good negotiator as well. And he and the Iranians were in very real talks about what level of enrichment would be allowed and how it would be monitored—the typical back-and-forth that takes place in any healthy negotiations.
Then the Israelis would come in and say, “Oh, but, actually, it’s not the enrichment, it’s not the nukes, it’s the ballistic missiles. Don’t you realize these ballistic missiles can reach your bases?” Well, most of our bases were on Iran’s borders. That was kind of a no-brainer. And then they would say, “Well, it’s not those ballistic missiles, it’s their medium- and long-range ballistic missiles.” And then, “It’s their proxies, their support for the regional actors.”
I spent a lot of my career actually fighting Iranian proxies. But Iran showed that they could get those proxies under control, and they did that when Trump came back into office. They didn’t respect the Biden administration. They had attacked our troops in Iraq and Syria around 200 times since October 7th. But then, when Trump came back into office—because, in the first Trump administration, he had killed Qasem Soleimani—they said, “Okay, this is not someone to play with. Let’s get the proxies under control.” And they showed that they were able to do that.
So, again, we were in a healthy trade space for negotiation. And this idea that you hear frequently from American officials that Iran is just these psychopathic jihadis, like they’re members of ISIS or something, that we can’t negotiate with—I just don’t think any data supports that whatsoever. They showed that they would observe the escalatory ladder.
Look, I’m not a fan of the regime in Iran. I’m not a fan of the IRGC. I wish that the Iranian people would get rid of them. Unfortunately, we’ve set that goal back. I mean, there were protesters that were on the streets in January, protesting against the economic conditions in Iran. And I think that actually has more of a chance of getting rid of that regime than anything an external actor is going to do.
But, instead, we came in, and by trying to remove the regime forcefully, I think we only strengthened it. This was always our prediction. I think this speaks to human nature, but also just to the culture of the region and the culture of the Shias. So we worked really against our own stated purpose for being over there. And now we’re in this cycle of, “Are we trying to get the uranium? What’s our actual strategic goal?” Whereas the Israelis keep moving the ball forward, because their goal, really, is just to either get rid of the regime completely or have the regime in a chaotic war state where they can’t launch attacks against Israel.
Glenn Diesen is a professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway (USN), and Associate Editor at Russia in Global Affairs. Diesen’s research focus is geoeconomics, conservatism, Russian foreign policy, and Greater Eurasia. Find more of his work at glenndiesen.substack.com.More by Glenn Diesen
A man holds a sign calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump during a “No Kings” protest in Howell, Michigan, on March 28, 2026.
(Photo by Jeff Kowalsky/AFP via Getty Images)
“The American people understand that Donald Trump poses a direct threat to our Constitution and to the rule of law and must be impeached and removed from public office,” said the head of Free Speech for People.
After just 14 months of President Donald Trump’s return to the White House, polling released Monday found that a majority of likely US voters support impeaching him a historic third time—which one pollster called “an unprecedented result this early in a presidential term.”
Lake Research Partners conducted the poll March 26-30 for Free Speech for People, a legal advocacy organization that has launched a campaign to “Impeach Trump. Again.” As part of that effort, FSFP gathered more than 1 million supportive signatures ahead of the latest “No Kings” rallies and has publicly detailed over 25 grounds for impeachment.
First on that list is that “in Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Middle East, Trump is abusing his role as commander of the US military to commit atrocities that violate US and international law.” The president notably spent the weekend threatening to commit more war crimes in Iran if it doesn’t reopen the Strait of Hormuz to all ship traffic—which it only closed in response to the joint Israel-US attack on February 28.
Another key argument for impeachment on the FSFP list is that “Trump has militarized and weaponized federal law enforcement, particularly US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to punish the opposition party, disrupt local communities, instill fear in the civilian population, and quell lawful political dissent.”
Pollsters noted both of those grounds in their question, asking respondents: “Several members of Congress have recently come out in support of impeaching President Donald Trump for violating Americans’ constitutional rights and the law, including actions by ICE in the US and the war he started with Iran. Do you support or oppose President Trump being impeached?”
Overall, 52% of all voters said they support impeachment, including 84% of Democrats, 55% of Independents, and even 14% of Republicans. Just 40% opposed, including 8% of Democrats, 34% of Independents, and 81% of Republicans.
(Image by Free Speech for People/Lake Research Partners)
“The result is quite striking,” David Mermin of Lake Research Partners said in a call with reporters. “It’s a clear majority. It’s a solid majority. And it reaches across all demographics and across partisan lines as well.”
The 800 respondents represented a variety of perspectives in terms of age, gender, racial identity, education, region, and partisanship. The margin of error is +/-3.5%.
Putting the finding in a historical context, Mermin noted that there were majorities in favor of impeachment in the mid-1970s, when then-President Richard Nixon was approaching impeachment and then resigned, well into his second term. Nearly a quarter-century later, during the proceeding that led to the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton, “most of that period, we did not see majorities in favor of impeaching him, even during that process,” the pollster explained.
“For President Trump, in his first term, there were two impeachment proceedings against him, and in the first one, near the end of 2019… some of the polls disagreed, but there were some polls showing him slightly about 50% approval of impeachment,” he continued. “And then the second proceeding that happened after the January 6th coup attempt, there was a clear majority… during those last few weeks of his term prior to his when he left office in January of 2021.”
As with Clinton, the House of Representatives impeached Trump, but the Senate declined to convict him. Now, both chambers of Congress are narrowly controlled by Republicans who have demonstrated an unwillingness to stand up to the president—including by refusing to advance war powers resolutions challenging his various unauthorized military actions abroad.
Mermin said that “this appears to be the earliest in a presidential term that you’ve seen a majority of Americans in favor of impeachment.”
FSFP co-founder and president John Bonifaz highlighted that the polling comes when there is not even an impeachment proceeding in the House.
Since Trump’s return to office last year, Reps. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) and Al Green (D-Texas) have introduced articles of impeachment against him, though those efforts have not gone anywhere. However, in the lead-up to the November midterm elections, even Trump has acknowledged that Democrats winning congressional races could lead to him being impeached a third time.
“You gotta win the midterms, ‘cause if we don’t win the midterms… they’ll find a reason to impeach me,” Trump told Republicans in January. “I’ll get impeached.”
The new survey shows even higher figures for disapproval of Trump’s job performance: 57% of all voters disapprove of the job Trump is doing, including 92% of Democrats, 56% of Independents, and 16% of Republicans.
Bonifaz said that “this poll confirms what we are seeing across the country: The American people understand that Donald Trump poses a direct threat to our Constitution and to the rule of law and must be impeached and removed from public office.”
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
This Sunday’s Town Hall: Announcing This Week’s Progressive Town Hall: Every Sunday at 4pm ET/1pm PT RSVP HERE Join PDA activists online from across the country to discuss the importance of progressives reclaiming the American story from the MAGA right, an issue of heightened importance as we’re now within one... Continue reading →
Community Coffee – Outer Sunset Sunday, April 19 | 1–3 PM Location: Java Beach Cafe, 1396 La Playa St Sign-up The San Francisco Democratic Party has been hosting community coffee events to connect with residents of our many different neighborhoods in SF every month. No speeches, just conversations and hearing... Continue reading →
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 April General Membership Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 21 Time: 7-9 PM Location: SF LGBT Center, 1800 Market Street, San Francisco Zoom Link: Click here
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 →
Meeting Agenda April 22, 2026 The San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee will meet on Wednesday, April 22, 2026 at 6:30 pm at Milton Marks Auditorium, 455 Golden Gate Ave, San Francisco, CA 94102. A security screening will be required to enter the building. Members of the public can live... Continue reading →
SF Green Party Showing events after 3/27. Look for earlier events Wednesday, April 20 7:30pm SF Green Party Council Meeting WhenWed, April 20, 7:30pm – 9:00pm WhereEl CafeTazo, 3087 16th St, San Francisco, CA 94103 (map) Description: This elected group is the equivalent to other political parties Central Committee. The San Franciso... 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 →
When you volunteer for Saikat, it’s on us to give you a great experience and a genuine chance to make a difference. We don’t want to waste a second of your time. That’s why we’re always optimizing. And I’m excited to report that this Saturday we talked with 300% more... Continue reading →
