

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Martin Luther King Jr. meeting with President Lyndon Johnson at the White House in 1966. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons/cc)
In 1967, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. faced a painful dilemma. How could he tell oppressed young blacks and police to shun violence on the streets of our country, but rather to behave nonviolently, when the entire country watched state-sanctioned violence in Vietnam on evening TV?
What Dr. King chose to do then needs to happen again--NOW. Against the "practical" advice of virtually all his Realpolitik associates, King asked one of his closest advisers, Vincent Harding, to draft a speech, Beyond Vietnam, in the dangerous prophetic tradition of speaking truth to power. (Thirty-five years later, I studied under the late Dr. Harding at Word and World, a timely workshop in Greensboro, North Carolina, aimed at making faith relevant by closing the gaping gaps between Seminary, Sanctuary, and Street.)
In that momentous Vietnam speech before 3,000 people at Riverside Church in New York, Dr. King broke multiple taboos by making unmistakably clear and explicit the organic connection between violence at home and abroad. The date of the speech was April 4, 1967; King was murdered exactly a year later.
But who will be today's Dr. King? Who will have the courage of Harding and King to tell it like it is--to draw the connections between 15 years of state-sanctioned violence abroad and what is happening in our streets at home? Are there no prophets left?
I edged toward this key issue in an article that I wrote last year, which Consortiumnews.com dusted off from the archives and posted again in the wake of the despicable, but--I would suggest--largely explainable violence in Baton Rouge, Minneapolis and Dallas.
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
In 1967, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. faced a painful dilemma. How could he tell oppressed young blacks and police to shun violence on the streets of our country, but rather to behave nonviolently, when the entire country watched state-sanctioned violence in Vietnam on evening TV?
What Dr. King chose to do then needs to happen again--NOW. Against the "practical" advice of virtually all his Realpolitik associates, King asked one of his closest advisers, Vincent Harding, to draft a speech, Beyond Vietnam, in the dangerous prophetic tradition of speaking truth to power. (Thirty-five years later, I studied under the late Dr. Harding at Word and World, a timely workshop in Greensboro, North Carolina, aimed at making faith relevant by closing the gaping gaps between Seminary, Sanctuary, and Street.)
In that momentous Vietnam speech before 3,000 people at Riverside Church in New York, Dr. King broke multiple taboos by making unmistakably clear and explicit the organic connection between violence at home and abroad. The date of the speech was April 4, 1967; King was murdered exactly a year later.
But who will be today's Dr. King? Who will have the courage of Harding and King to tell it like it is--to draw the connections between 15 years of state-sanctioned violence abroad and what is happening in our streets at home? Are there no prophets left?
I edged toward this key issue in an article that I wrote last year, which Consortiumnews.com dusted off from the archives and posted again in the wake of the despicable, but--I would suggest--largely explainable violence in Baton Rouge, Minneapolis and Dallas.
In 1967, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. faced a painful dilemma. How could he tell oppressed young blacks and police to shun violence on the streets of our country, but rather to behave nonviolently, when the entire country watched state-sanctioned violence in Vietnam on evening TV?
What Dr. King chose to do then needs to happen again--NOW. Against the "practical" advice of virtually all his Realpolitik associates, King asked one of his closest advisers, Vincent Harding, to draft a speech, Beyond Vietnam, in the dangerous prophetic tradition of speaking truth to power. (Thirty-five years later, I studied under the late Dr. Harding at Word and World, a timely workshop in Greensboro, North Carolina, aimed at making faith relevant by closing the gaping gaps between Seminary, Sanctuary, and Street.)
In that momentous Vietnam speech before 3,000 people at Riverside Church in New York, Dr. King broke multiple taboos by making unmistakably clear and explicit the organic connection between violence at home and abroad. The date of the speech was April 4, 1967; King was murdered exactly a year later.
But who will be today's Dr. King? Who will have the courage of Harding and King to tell it like it is--to draw the connections between 15 years of state-sanctioned violence abroad and what is happening in our streets at home? Are there no prophets left?
I edged toward this key issue in an article that I wrote last year, which Consortiumnews.com dusted off from the archives and posted again in the wake of the despicable, but--I would suggest--largely explainable violence in Baton Rouge, Minneapolis and Dallas.
"Rep. Grijalva fought a long and brave battle," his staff said. "He passed away this morning due to complications of his cancer treatments."
Condolences and remembrances swiftly mounted on Thursday after the staff of U.S. Congressman Raúl Grijalva announced that the Arizona Democrat died at the age of 77, following a fight with lung cancer.
"Rep. Grijalva fought a long and brave battle. He passed away this morning due to complications of his cancer treatments," according to the office of the late congressman, who announced his diagnosis last April.
Grijalva, who represented Arizona's 7th District, was first elected to Congress in 2002. While on Capitol Hill, he rose to leadership roles, including co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and chair of the House Natural Resources Committee.
"From permanently protecting the Grand Canyon for future generations to strengthening the Affordable Care Act, his proudest moments in Congress have always been guided by community voices," Grijalva's staff said. "He led the charge for historic investments in climate action, port of entry modernization, permanent funding for land and water conservation programs, access to healthcare for tribal communities and the uninsured, fairness for immigrant families and Dreamers, student loan forgiveness, stronger protections for farmers and workers exposed to extreme heat, early childhood education expansion, higher standards for tribal consultation, and so much more."
"From Tucson to Nogales and beyond, he worked tirelessly for transformational improvements. Rep. Grijalva pushed for new public parks, childcare centers, healthcare clinics, local businesses, and affordable housing [that] breathed new life into neighborhoods across Southern Arizona. Improvements to our roads, bridges, and streetcar system have improved our daily lives and attracted new businesses and industries to the area," the office added. "Rep. Grijalva's passion was not only for his community, but for preservation of the planet."
Grijalva's colleagues also highlighted key parts of his legacy. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a former House member, said that "I am heartbroken by the news of Congressman Raúl Grijalva's passing. For climate justice, economic justice, health justice—Raúl fought fearlessly for change. We served a decade together on the Natural Resources Committee, and I will forever be grateful for his leadership and partnership."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who also previously served in the lower chamber, said that "I mourn the death of Rep. Raúl Grijalva, a former colleague of mine and one of the most progressive members of the U.S. House. Raúl was a fighter for working families throughout his entire life. He will be sorely missed."
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called his death "a genuinely devastating loss," adding: "Raúl Grijalva stood as one of the biggest champions for working people in all of Congress. His leadership was singular. He mentored generously and was an incredible friend. I will always be grateful for his lifelong courage and commitment."
Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) said that "today we lost a dedicated progressive leader in Raúl Grijalva. The son of a bracero, Rep. Grijalva's 12-term commitment to our environment, to immigrant communities, and to his constituents in Tucson enriched this country. His passing is a monumental loss for our caucus and communities."
Congressman Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.) wrote: "Wow. This is such a loss for Arizona and our country. Chair Raúl Grijalva has been a champion for progressive change his entire life. From the school board to Congress, his leadership and voice inspired so many. Myself included. Rest in power, Chairman Grijalva."
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), elected to Congress in November, said that "I'm devastated to hear of the passing of my colleague Raúl Grijalva. He was a fighter for Arizonans and a champion for Indigenous communities and our planet. We will all miss him dearly. My thoughts are with his family, friends, loved ones, and constituents."
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), who switched chambers after the last election, said that "Congressman Grijalva was not just my colleague, but my friend. As another Latino working in public service, I can say from experience that he served as a role model to many young people across the Grand Canyon State. He spent his life as a voice for equality."
"In Congress, I was proud to see firsthand his leadership as chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee as he stood up for Arizona's water rights, natural beauty, and tribes," Gallego added. "I am praying for his family during this time of grief, and I hope that they find comfort knowing his legacy is one that will stand tall for generations."
Advocacy group leaders also weighed in, with Kierán Suckling, executive director and founder of the Center for Biological Diversity, calling his death "a heartbreaking, devastating loss for the people of Southern Arizona and everyone around this nation who loves the natural world."
"Raúl was a great friend and partner in our fight for clean air and water, our beautiful public lands, and wildlife great and small," Suckling said. "We can all look to him as the model of what every member of Congress and every person of dignity and hope should aspire to be."
"From Mexican wolves to spotted owls to the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, every creature in this country had a friend in Raúl," Suckling added. "He was as fierce as a jaguar, and that's why we called him our Macho G. I'll miss him dearly."
According to KVOA, the NBC affiliate in Tucson, Grijalva's office "will continue providing constituent services during the special election" to fill his seat.
Grijalva's death follows that of Congressman Sylvester Turner (D-Texas), who died on March 5. His seat will also need to be filled by a special election.
"Trump is causing a completely unforced recession, the markets tanking, and your 401(k)s plummeting, and he's focused on invading Greenland," said one observer.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Mark Rutte met with President Donald Trump on Thursday at the White House in Washington, D.C., where he brushed off the Republican leader's suggestion that the transatlantic alliance might get involved in his quixotic bid to annex the autonomous territory of another NATO member.
Revisiting his wish to somehow acquire Greenland from Denmark—an outcome opposed by Greenland, Denmark, and a majority of Americans—Trump told reporters during a joint press conference with Rutte and other NATO and U.S. officials including Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that he's bullish on the prospects of annexation.
"I think it'll happen," the president said. "And I'm just thinking, I didn't give it much thought before, but I'm sitting with a man that could be very instrumental. You know, Mark, we need that for international security, not just security, international."
At one point during the meeting, Trump turned to Hegseth and remarked, "You know, we have a couple of bases on Greenland already, and we have quite a few soldiers, and maybe you'll see more and more soldiers go there, and I don't know, what do you think about that, Pete?"
"Don't answer that, Pete," Trump said, eliciting laughter.
Maintaining the congenial vibe of the meeting, Rutte said with a laugh that "when it comes to Greenland yes or not joining the U.S., I would leave that outside, for me, this discussion, because I don't want to drag NATO into that."
The former longtime Dutch prime minister then said that Trump is "totally right" about countering Chinese and Russian regional influence, and that NATO cooperation on that matter is "very important."
While many observers focused on Rutte's diplomatic rejection of Trump's desire to acquire Greenland, Rasmus Jarlov, a member of Denmark's Parliament representing the Conservative People's Party, said on social media that "we do not appreciate the secretary general of NATO joking with Trump about Greenland like this."
"It would mean war between two NATO countries," Jarlov warned. "Greenland has just voted against immediate independence from Denmark and does not want to be American, ever."
The center-right Demokraatit Party pulled off a surprise victory Tuesday in Greenland's parliamentary election, with Jens-Frederik Nielsen, the territory's likely next prime minister, vehemently rejecting U.S. annexation.
"I hope it sends a clear message to [Trump] that we are not for sale," he said of the election results in an interview with Sky News. "We don't want to be Americans. No, we don't want to be Danes. We want to be Greenlanders, and we want our own independence in the future. And we want to build our own country by ourselves."
Trump's comments came on the same day that
NBC News cited U.S. officials who said the president has ordered the Pentagon to prepare plans to "take back" the Panama Canal—including through the use of military force if deemed necessary.
Republicans' continuing resolution, he warned, "will provide a blank check for the administration and Mr. Musk to continue their savage war against working families, the elderly, children, the sick, and the poor."
With a shutdown looming, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday offered his Democratic colleagues a blueprint for how to reject Republicans' stopgap measure, which would fund the government through the end of September but, as critics warn, give President Donald Trump—and billionaire Elon Musk—broad discretion over spending priorities.
"Since President Trump has been in office we have seen chaos, shock, and heartbreak," Sanders (I-Vt.)—who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 and 2020—said in a statement explaining his plan to vote "no" on the House-approved package.
"We have seen oligarchs take over our government and the wealthiest person in the world decimate programs that provide support for a struggling working class," Sanders said, pointing to Trump and Musk's recent attacks on the Department of Education, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Social Security Administration.
"We have seen a move toward authoritarianism where the president is illegally usurping the powers of Congress, while his administration challenges the role of the federal courts in constraining unconstitutional administrative actions," he continued, echoing his recent Senate floor speeches and national tour.
The continuing resolution (CR) passed Tuesday by 216 House Republicans and Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) "will provide a blank check for the administration and Mr. Musk to continue their savage war against working families, the elderly, children, the sick, and the poor in order to lay the groundwork for massive tax breaks for the billionaire class," Sanders warned.
"This legislation will also provide a green light for the administration to continue its illegal and unconstitutional activities," he concluded. "This is a bill I cannot support. Instead, the Senate must pass a 30-day CR so that all members of Congress, not just the House Republican leadership, can come together and produce legislation that works for all Americans, not just the few."
Sanders' statement came amid fears that Senate Democrats may cave to the GOP plan in exchange for a certain-to-fail vote on an alternative bill. Although Republicans control the upper chamber, they lack a filibuster-proof majority—meaning at least 60 senators have to agree to hold a vote on most legislation, including a CR on funding.
Progressives in the House who stood against the Republican package urged Senate Democrats to continue the fight to actually pass an alternative spending bill that doesn't further empower Trump and Musk—such as a "clean" 30-day CR that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other key members of the party have suggested.
"Some Senate Democrats are being tempted to pretend to fight the Trump-Musk funding bill today, then quietly agree to give up on blocking it," Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said on social media Thursday. "That would be a disastrous decision. Voting for cloture on a bill that allows Musk and Trump to steal from taxpayers is the same as voting to allow Musk and Trump to steal from taxpayers. Everything is on the line. Democrats weren't elected to put up a fake fight."
CPC Chair Emeritas Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) similarly declared that "Democrats need to stand up and fight for the American people," and expressed support for the 30-day resolution.
Progressive voices outside of Congress are also calling on Democrats to keep up the fight ahead of the potential shutdown, which would occur if a deal isn't reached before the end of Friday.
"Leader Schumer and Senate Democrats must insist on a clean 30-day funding bill," Public Citizen and Indivisible said in a joint statement. "Helping Republicans pass their harmful, partisan slush-fund for Trump and Musk would correctly and needlessly redirect the public's outrage from Republicans to Democrats. Even those who would be most directly harmed by a government shutdown—federal employees—have said they are willing to risk a Republican-created government shutdown instead of allowing the ongoing lawless dismantling of government, and they're right."
"All Americans should be clear: The Republican long-term CR is not a clean continuation of previous funding commitments. It would enable Trump and Musk to claim much greater authority to violate the separation of powers and refuse to spend appropriated funds," the groups continued. "The Republican long-term CR also would impose draconian spending cuts on Washington, D.C. and impose pointless, devastating harm on children in the nation's capital."
"If Republicans disregard the well-being of the country and choose to shut down the government over their failure to pass their destructive funding bill," they vowed, "we and our partners will mobilize across the country to ensure the anger of voters is directed at the culprits of this manufactured crisis, in defense of the vital programs that Musk's MAGA allies are eager to destroy for the sake of greater corporate profits."