The Boston Tea Party wasn't really about the tea, and it certainly wasn't about the Mohawks though those were the costumes the colonists wore as they dumped the boxes overboard.
In Tuesday's Democratic Senate primary in deep blue Massachusetts, longtime Sen. Ed Markey is harking back to those revolutionary roots as he pitches himself to voters as the anti-establishment candidate against Rep. Seth Moulton – despite arriving to Washington just three years after Joe Biden did in 1973.
Although the language of the left-wing insurgency surrounds the race, under the surface, the contest for many appears to be less about ideological issues or governing philosophies than a smash-up of ambition, efforts to secure Democratic power in the state in the future, and personal pique.
Sen. Ed Markey speaks during a Get Out the Vote event, Saturday, August 29, 2026 in Boston. - Mark Stockwell/AP
Markey, 80, in one corner, is vowing to keep fighting for left-wing ideals, which include some successes and some that he hasn't passed in all his years in power so far. In the other, Moulton, the 47-year-old decorated Marine and six-term congressman who has frustrated Nancy Pelosi and many other Democrats by repeatedly challenging their leadership, has staked his campaign on generational change.

#boston #left

Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville said the Democratic Party faces an ideological "reckoning" in 2028 but rejected the idea that primary voters will choose a democratic socialist presidential nominee.
Speaking on "Saturday in America," Carville offered his prediction of how Democratic voters will approach the party's 2028 presidential primary.
"The reckoning will be in a nominating process for the nominee of the Democratic Party in 2028. This has to be taken to Democratic voters," Carville said while discussing recent victories by candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).
James Carville Predicts 2028 Democratic Primary Will Test True Strength Of Party's Socialist Wing
As DSA-backed candidates have won races across the country, some centrist Democrats have raised concerns about the group's growing influence. Carville argued that Democratic voters won't nominate a DSA-aligned presidential candidate in 2028.

#democratic #party

By Kanishka Singh
WASHINGTON, Aug 25 (Reuters) - New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said on Tuesday he did not support an upcoming event in his city featuring the leader ‌of the Hindu nationalist group that is the ideological parent of India's ruling Bharatiya Janata ‌Party (BJP).
Mohan Bhagwat, chief of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), is scheduled to speak at a Manhattan event on Saturday, according to the event's website.
"I don't support the rally, but I don't know if the city has any jurisdiction on cancelling a private event," Mamdani, who is the first Muslim and Indian American mayor of New York City, said when asked if the event should be cancelled.
"The vision of India that I was taught ‌by my family and one that ⁠I grew up being very familiar with was of a pluralistic society of a secular Republic that believed in the belonging of each and every person ⁠who was from India. And it has been incredibly troubling to see the rise of a movement that is predicated on an exclusionary vision."

#Event #support #vision

A new report is warning that networks aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood have become deeply embedded in Canada, raising concerns that Islamist influence taking root north of the border could pose a broader threat to the U.S. and Western democracies.
A report from the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) revealed ties between Muslim Brotherhood-aligned groups and Canadian democratic institutions, civil society, electoral politics and higher education, demonstrating similarities with other activist movements in the West, a phenomenon some ****** ysts have described as the "red-green alliance."
"Canada's challenge is not simply the presence of individual extremist voices or isolated institutional weakness. The report maps how interconnected ideological networks acquire legitimacy, institutional access, public funding, political influence and protection from scrutiny," Charles Asher Small, the research institute's executive director, told Fox News Digital.
Turkey's Nato Role Under Scrutiny Amid New Report On Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood Ties
Protestors carrying Palestinian flags, gathered outside Consulate General of Israel, during a rally organized by Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) Toronto and marched in downtown Toronto.

#ties

In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) discusses the ideological divides within the Democratic Party as democratic socialist candidates head to the general midterm elections.

#discusses

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats remain mixed over what ideological direction the party should take. But across a series of closely watched primaries, they are sending a clearer message about the party's path forward: They want change.
In marquee Senate primaries in Michigan and Minnesota, progressive candidates defeated two members of Congress with significant backing from party leaders. Wisconsin voters narrowly rejected a democratic socialist but still chose a 40-year-old county executive who is seeking to become the state's first Black governor. And in Connecticut, voters ousted one of the longest-serving Democrats in Congress for a challenger who campaigned on generational change.
The results so far this month deliver no clear ideological mandate. Instead, they add to mounting evidence from this year's primaries of an Democratic appetite for turnover that is cutting across the party's traditional divisions.
"If leaders in our party don't recognize that we need to make changes, then the changes are going to come from the ground up," Luke Bronin, a former mayor who defeated 14-term Connecticut Rep. John Larson in Tuesday's primary, said in his victory speech. "That's a message our party needs to hear."
The immediate challenge for Democrats is whether they can harness the frustration fueling revolts against their own party and turn it against Republicans in November. Beyond that looms the 2028 presidential race, when a new generation of leaders will compete to shape a changing Democratic Party.

#democratic #connecticut #ideological

Black bishop and author Earl Walker Jackson, a descendant of enslaved ancestors, is criticizing the Smithsonian National Museum of American History for what he said amounts to anti-American "indoctrination" against the "greatest nation on earth."
Although his great-grandparents were enslaved, Jackson believes that "if you were born an American, you hit the proverbial lottery because you have more opportunity and hope than any people living anywhere else on the planet."
In an interview with Fox News Digital, Jackson said the latest controversy over what the White House described as the Smithsonian's woke "ideological capture" angered him because of what he views as smears against the U.S.
"It makes me angry when people do this to our country, but it's sad too because what it tells me is that the indoctrination machine is hard at work convincing people [of] this narrative," he said. "This is a wonderful country; it's the greatest nation on earth. And you've got people so indoctrinated into seeing our country sliced and diced into race and ethnicity and class and income and so forth that they fail to understand the blessing of the United States of America."
Smithsonian's Taxpayer Funds Face Chopping Block As Gop Demands Accountability For 'Woke' History

#jackson #country

WASHINGTON (AP) — When George W. Bush wrote an essay this year about another president named George, he avoided mentioning the one named Donald.
So did Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. The three ex-presidents joined a roster of historians and authors in contributing to the In Pursuit project, a 250th-anniversary series that had each writer produce an essay about a president or first lady.
Though the project was explicitly designed to transcend today's politics, some of its essays nevertheless reflect anxieties that are flaring in the era of President Donald Trump over the use of power, the health of the democracy and the integrity of the presidency.
The project is being curated by Colleen Shogan, the U.S. archivist who was fired without explanation by Trump last year. She instructed contributors not to be partisan or ideological. "Everybody took those instructions and that guidance very seriously," she told The ****** ociated Press. The goal was for all Americans to "feel welcome to be able to read these lessons and essays and learn something from them."
The mission, Shogan said, "is to surface the lessons from the past 250 years of American history, so that we can learn from those lessons, from both our successes and our failures, so we can plan for the present and the future. It's what has been described as debriefing the American story."

#donald #Trump #year

No matter the discourse that flares up around her style of play, the fouls she takes from opposing players or the various political controversies that find their way into the WNBA ecosystem, Caitlin Clark has been remarkably consistent about one thing during her entire career.
She wants no part of your agenda.
If you're on the left and believe Clark is doing something to foster online racism and harassment toward her opponents, it is apparent that no amount of denunciation (which she has done many times) will convince you that she just wants to play ball. And if you're on the other side of the spectrum, trying to bait her into one of these hot-button debates that dominates right-wing media, you, too, will find yourself disappointed by her equal-opportunity evasiveness.
In an era where every athlete is supposed to have an opinion on everything for the rest of us to judge as we retreat into ideological camps, here's a basketball player who literally just wants to shut up and dribble.
And her reward is getting attacked from both sides.

#find #WNBA #matter #flares

I know we live in a fragile day and age where running with the first sign of a conspiracy might be the easiest (read: laziest) thing to do, but we've really got to get a grip on how we're talking about Argentina in the men's World Cup.
Yes, this is the final international tournament in the legendary career of Lionel Messi, the greatest player in the history of soccer. Yes, reigning World Cup champion Argentina, Messi included or not, is a wildly popular team considered a traditional men's World Cup power. Yes, FIFA is a notoriously shady sporting organization (perhaps even the shadiest) that already has what sure looks like a massive scandal involving the United States men's national team at this same tournament. And yes, an underdog team like Egypt happened to get screwed by a broken Soccer Computer (a.k.a. Video ******* istant Referee) in a Round of 16 match against Argentina.
But, and stick with me here, that doesn't mean FIFA is "rigging" the biggest sports tournament in the history of human civilization, just so the best player can ride off into the sunset with the first men's World Cup ******* le repeat in six decades. That's such a huge leap to make. Yet, with Messi and Argentina waltzing into the World Cup semifinals of this coming week, that "rigged" conspiracy theory seems to be the prevailing sentiment in some of the darkest corners of the internet. So much so that Breel Embolo's egregious flopping for Switzerland is somehow a point of contention.
For anyone who actually believes FIFA is manipulating this World Cup for Argentina and Messi with an "invisible hand," uh, pardon my French: Do you know how utterly stupid you sound? How irrational? It boggles the mind.
Do you know how difficult something like this would be to execute on a logistical basis, even beyond the parameters of the five-week tournament? Do you understand the sheer financial and ideological commitment it would take from every person who is even tangentially ******* ociated with the FIFA organization, from the people in suits to the referees on the field, to execute such a Herculean task without getting caught? Rest ******* ured, every soccer reporter on the planet would already be all over this story.

Far-left journalist Joy Reid unloaded on the Democratic Party after Graham Platner suspended his Maine Senate campaign on Wednesday, telling voters they have her "permission to not vote" if leadership opts to replace the progressive candidate with a more moderate option.
On "The Joy Reid Show," the former MSNBC host warned key figures in the party that if they do not replace Platner with an "ideologically similar candidate," voters may stay home on Election Day.
"You need to replace him with somebody who is ideologically the same because that is what was decided. The people of Maine, the Democratic voters of Maine said, 'We want a progressive.' They did not say they want an AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] moderate," Reid said. "So, the Democratic Party in Maine ought to pick someone who is ideologically the same or ideologically similar as Platner."
Reid went on to give Maine voters her blessing not to cast their ballot if the Democrats do not select a candidate whose policies are in line with Platner's campaign promises.
Platner Drops Out Of Crucial Senate Race After Bombshell Rape Allegation Torpedoes Campaign

Last month, we marked eight years since the Supreme Court ruled in Janus v. AFSCME that public employees cannot be forced to pay union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. Until then, those dues had been mandatory for millions of government workers.
What's more, most of them never learned that Janus had changed that, until organizations like mine started telling them.
The 2018 ruling was decided 5-4. The majority held that compelling a public employee to subsidize a union's speech — speech he may deeply oppose — violates the First Amendment. For workers who had spent years funding ideological messaging and political activity they disagreed with, it was long overdue.
So, what has changed since? More than unions want to admit, but also less than workers deserve.
As of 2023, as many as 1.2 million public employees had either cancelled or declined union membership who otherwise would have been forced to join prior to Janus. That represents a cut of roughly $720 million per year in union revenue nationwide.

By Andy Sullivan and Steve Holland
WASHINGTON, July 4 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump marked the 250th anniversary of the United States on Saturday with a campaign-style speech that repeated his calls for new voting restrictions, warned that "communists" could gain ground in the country and cycled through what he touted as his achievements.
After ‌a storm-related delay of nearly two hours, Trump appeared on the National Mall in Washington to deliver a speech that mixed broad appeals to patriotism with pointed ‌attacks on perceived ideological threats at home and abroad.

It's been a history-filled two months for Wall Street and investors. **** e Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) etched its name in the record books with the largest-ever initial public offering, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJINDICES: ^DJI), S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC), and Nasdaq Composite (NASDAQINDEX: ^IXIC) all soared to fresh highs.
But the changing of the guard at Wall Street's foremost financial institution, the Federal Reserve, may be the pinnacle of these events. Jerome Powell's second term as Fed chair came to an end on May 15, allowing President Donald Trump's handpicked successor, Kevin Warsh, to officially become head of the central bank.
Missed Nvidia in 2009? This Rare Signal Is Flashing Again. In 2009, a "Double Down" signal flashed for a little-known chipmaker called Nvidia. For the first time in years, that same "Total Conviction" signal is flashing for a company 1/100th the size of Nvidia. Continue »
Although Trump seemingly couldn't usher Powell out the door fast enough -- Powell has chosen to remain on the Board of Governors -- a new Fed chair isn't a panacea for the ideological gap between the president and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), led by Warsh, over interest rates.
Shortly after the start of Trump's second, non-consecutive term, he began publicly chastising Jerome Powell and the FOMC for not aggressively lowering interest rates. These vocal criticisms are what made it clear that Powell wouldn't return for a third term as Fed chair.

Hunter Biden said the Democratic Party should rethink its political strategy after a slate of progressive and socialist candidates backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) won their primary races in New York this week.
The son of former President Biden said the string of victories showed voters are more receptive to candidates with more definitive ideological positions than establishment Democrats.
"The middle is not a strategy," he said in a post on the social platform X detailing his takeaways from Tuesday's election night. "Voters reached past the establishment to grab someone who actually believes something."
Hunter Biden said candidates who spoke directly about core issues including affordability, housing security and the war in Gaza outperformed more moderate rivals. He said focusing on cost of living is "everything."
"Conviction beats caution. The candidates who said hard things about rent, about who pays for what, about Gaza, they won. The triangulators lost," Biden said.

WASHINGTON (AP) — As artificial intelligence companies reshape the economy and race toward trillion-dollar valuations, Sen. Bernie Sanders is proposing a sweeping transfer of wealth and power from the industry to the American public.
The legislation, shown first to The ***** ociated Press, would create a sovereign wealth fund overseen by an independent commission and financed through a one-time 50% tax on the stock of the largest AI companies. Sanders estimates that the tax would create a nearly $7 trillion fund that would generate hundreds of billions of dollars annually in direct payments to Americans and programs such as health care, education and housing.
“The benefits cannot simply go to the handful of wealthy corporations. They will be shared by the American people," the independent Vermont senator said in an interview Wednesday.
The idea of giving the public a stake in AI has recently drawn interest from figures as ideologically diverse as President Donald Trump and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. But Sanders’ proposal goes much further, calling for public ownership of half of the largest AI companies and direct influence over corporate decision-making.
“The public has got to have a significant seat at the table to make sure that terrible things do not happen to ordinary people, and that in fact, AI benefits ordinary people, not hurts them,” Sanders said.

For more than two decades, Americans have lived with a peculiar feature of their healthcare system: television commercials in which smiling actors jog through sunlit parks, while a voice rapidly lists side effects ranging from nausea to death. Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising has become so normalized that it is easy to forget how unusual it is globally.
The United States is effectively the only country in the world that allows this practice. Most advanced nations have concluded that prescription drugs are fundamentally different from ordinary consumer products, and that medical decisions should be guided by physicians and evidence — not billion-dollar advertising campaigns designed to manufacture demand.
At long last, this expensive and harmful practice may finally be under real political pressure.
Across the country, a new bipartisan skepticism is emerging around the role of pharmaceutical advertising in shaping both healthcare costs and medical decision-making. These efforts are not confined to one ideological camp. They reflect a growing consensus across the left, right, and populist movements that the current system is distorting both medicine and markets.
At the federal level, independent Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Angus King (Maine) have introduced legislation that would ban prescription drug advertising nationwide. At the same time, Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) have advanced bipartisan legislation to eliminate the federal tax deduction for pharmaceutical advertising expenses, ending a taxpayer subsidy for drug marketing.

Expecting any level of ideological consistency from partisan political actors is a fool's errand; even so, the amount of sheer hypocrisy generated by the Graham Platner scandal is striking.
In response to fresh allegations that Platner, the presumptive Democratic candidate for Senate in Maine, was abusive in his past relationships, conservatives who in the past have been correctly discerning of the motivations behind certain **** ual misconduct claims are now heralding these accusations as all but confirmed. In fact, they have **** ailed The New York Times, which published a detailed story about Platner's dating history and alleged violent episodes, for not going further in its indictment.
Meanwhile, many Democrats who gleefully and uncritically embraced the "believe all women" mantra of the #MeToo era are broadly dismissive of the Times story, even though the evidence of wrongdoing is arguably more compelling in this case.
What do I mean by that? The central accusation unfurled by the Times comes from Lyndsey Fifield, who dated Platner from 2013 to 2015. Fifield is a Republican activist, which is probably enough reason for some people to be dismissive of the claims — her partisan reasons for raising issues about Platner's behavior and character are obvious. Nevertheless, Fifield claims that Platner often grabbed her, dragged her, and shoved her during arguments and when he was drinking; he once "twisted her arm behind her back, shoved her into a bedroom and held the door closed from the other side so she couldn't get out," she told the Times. Fifield denied that he ever seriously hurt her, instead characterizing his behavior as "rough."
In an appearance on MSNBC last week, Platner strongly denied that any of these altercations took place, though he has conceded to being a bad boyfriend in the past and has chalked this up to psychological trauma from his service as a U.S. Marine.

President Donald Trump reportedly is reconsidering the $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" described in his May 18 settlement agreement with the IRS, which was designed to compensate people who claim they were targeted by the Biden administration for "improper and unlawful political, personal, and/or ideological reasons." That brazenly corrupt scheme, which provoked vigorous objections from Republican legislators and ran into two judicial roadblocks last week, "has become a distraction," an unnamed administration official told Axios.
Although "the president believes government was weaponized against people," that official added, "this isn't the time and vehicle" for addressing those grievances. In other words, doling out taxpayer money to Trump's allies under the pretext of a lawsuit that pitted the president against agencies he oversees turned out to be unexpectedly controversial. It's a mystery why Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche ever thought that plan was a good idea.
Trump sued the IRS and the Treasury Department in January, preposterously alleging that an IRS contractor's illegal leaking of his tax returns had caused "at least" $10 billion in damages. In addition to offering an improbable estimate of the injury he had suffered, Trump missed the statutory deadline for filing such claims. And although he argued that the IRS had failed to properly oversee its contractors, it was not clear whether the agency could be held liable for the crimes of someone it did not employ. But the Justice Department, which was charged with representing the IRS in court, never bothered to mount a defense.
That failure underlined the blatant conflicts of interest created by the case, both sides of which were represented by lawyers who work for Trump. "I'm supposed to work out a settlement with myself," Trump acknowledged a few days after filing the lawsuit.
That bizarre situation prompted Kathleen Williams, the federal judge overseeing the case in the Southern District of Florida, to question whether it involved a genuine controversy between adverse parties, as required for the lawsuit to proceed. Williams ordered briefing on that issue by May 20. The Justice Department dodged that order by announcing the settlement, which Williams never had a chance to review, two days before the deadline.

President Donald Trump reportedly is reconsidering the $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" described in his May 18 settlement agreement with the IRS, which was designed to compensate people who claim they were targeted by the Biden administration for "improper and unlawful political, personal, and/or ideological reasons." That brazenly corrupt scheme, which provoked vigorous objections from Republican legislators and ran into two judicial roadblocks last week, "has become a distraction," an unnamed administration official told Axios.
Although "the president believes government was weaponized against people," that official added, "this isn't the time and vehicle" for addressing those grievances. In other words, doling out taxpayer money to Trump's allies under the pretext of a lawsuit that pitted the president against agencies he oversees turned out to be unexpectedly controversial. It's a mystery why Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche ever thought that plan was a good idea.
Trump sued the IRS and the Treasury Department in January, preposterously alleging that an IRS contractor's illegal leaking of his tax returns had caused "at least" $10 billion in damages. In addition to offering an improbable estimate of the injury he had suffered, Trump missed the statutory deadline for filing such claims. And although he argued that the IRS had failed to properly oversee its contractors, it was not clear whether the agency could be held liable for the crimes of someone it did not employ. But the Justice Department, which was charged with representing the IRS in court, never bothered to mount a defense.
That failure underlined the blatant conflicts of interest created by the case, both sides of which were represented by lawyers who work for Trump. "I'm supposed to work out a settlement with myself," Trump acknowledged a few days after filing the lawsuit.
That bizarre situation prompted Kathleen Williams, the federal judge overseeing the case in the Southern District of Florida, to question whether it involved a genuine controversy between adverse parties, as required for the lawsuit to proceed. Williams ordered briefing on that issue by May 20. The Justice Department dodged that order by announcing the settlement, which Williams never had a chance to review, two days before the deadline.

It’s a slogan that’s long encapsulated the unique ability of Hugo Chávez's fiercely nationalistic revolution to stay in power in Venezuela for 27 years: “United, we will win!”
The young, the old, ruling party leaders and propagandists alike shout it at official events, street demonstrations and on state television, pumping their fists to show loyalty to the self-described socialist government — and its traditional antipathy toward the United States. Even when confronted with overwhelming truths that defy such bravado, the diverse coalition of military, ideological and opportunistic hangers-on has acted in lockstep.
But cracks in that unity have emerged after the stunning U.S. military operation that captured then- President Nicolás Maduro in January. Longtime loyalists are airing disagreements with the government of acting President Delcy Rodríguez and even discussing publicly rumors that an insider’s betrayal helped the U.S. depose Maduro.
Rodríguez, has done away with some of Chávez’s policies, complied with U.S. demands and shuffled the government to her liking, removing ministers, pushing legislation through the National ******* embly to overhaul the nation's oil industry and releasing political prisoners.
Supporters of Chavismo are making their disapproval known. Many criticize the warming relationship between Rodríguez’s government and the White House, whose occupant, regardless of party, Chavismo has historically seen as its main adversary.

Rift grows between Trump and European far-right over Greenland plan

BRUSSELS (AP) — Tensions over U.S. President Donald Trump's plans to take control of Greenland have driven a wedge in the once iron-clad link between MAGA and Europe's far-right.
The rift seems to signal that ideological alignment alone may not be enough to temper worries among European nationalists over Trump's interventionism abroad.
Far-right leaders in Germany, Italy and France have strongly criticized Trump's Greenland plans. Even Nigel Farage, a longtime ally of Trump and head of the Reform UK nationalist party, cal

Since President Donald Trump took office for the second time, many researchers across academic disciplines have had their funding cut because of their purported ideological bias. These funding cuts were further exacerbated by the extensive 2025 government shutdown.
As a team of sociologists studying universities, higher education policy and administration, academic freedom and science production, we recognized these cuts as part of a recent global trend of weakened academic freedom. Since the mid-2000s, political attacks on higher education have increased in many countries. Consequently, acad

Since when is this the business of a school board? The level of ideological capture is strong in you.

Even got the unnecessary ****** ouns to really drive it home.