How much more blood must soak the Iranian soil before the cries of the people are heard? How many more lives must be bent, broken, or silenced before mercy outweighs fear? Enough of the killing. Enough of the suffocating control over the lives of millions of Iran’s people. Seventy-six years after the revolution, the people of Iran still struggle to breathe freely, to build families, and imagine futures untouched by dread.

A nation with such ancient beauty and brilliance should not be a place where hope is rationed and fear is abundant. The problems facing Iran are not insurmountable. They are human-made, and therefore human-solvable. The people deserve a life without terror, without confusion, without the constant shadow of violence.

The time has come. Not tomorrow. Not someday. Now. Let the people live the lives they have been denied for far too long. For many years, the people of Iran have endured profound hardship, fear, and restrictions that have limited their ability to live freely and safely. The continued loss of life and the tight control over personal freedoms have created deep pain across generations. It is time to bring this chapter to an end.

The Iranian people still face significant barriers to building stable families, secure futures, and peaceful lives. Yet Iran remains a nation with extraordinary potential, culturally, economically, and socially. The challenges Iran faces are complex but not beyond resolution. The Iranian people deserve a future built on dignity, safety, and trust. The people of Iran deserve the opportunity to live without fear, without violence, and without confusion.

Choosing a path of openness and humanity would not only strengthen the nation but also honor the resilience and aspirations of the Iranian citizens. The Iranian diaspora worldwide is longing to come home and smell the soil of the historical birthplace. They hope to see their beloved country take steps toward a more peaceful and prosperous future for all its people. The ongoing violence, repression, and control over the lives of the Iranian people must end.

No government has the right to deny its citizens safety, dignity, or the freedom to live without fear. The killing, the bloodshed, and the suppression of basic human rights cannot continue. After years of struggling, the people of Iran still struggle to form families, pursue opportunities, and live without intimidation. These are fundamental human rights that are not privileges to be granted or withheld.

Dropping bombs on Iran, killing scores of innocent people, is not the answer. Therefor, I believe it’s time to revisit the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). For those who forgot, in 2015, Iran and the P5+1 (US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China) reached the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program, reduce enrichment, and accept intensive inspections. In return, the world would lift nuclear-related sanctions, opening the door to economic recovery and global trade. Many inside and outside Iran saw this as a path to peace, prosperity, and normalization. It’s time for PEACE:

Therefore, I am sure that all intelligent nations and people would like the return of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. I believe that the majority of global leaders stand ready to support a path that prioritizes human rights, stability, and the well-being of the Iranian people and all others. It is time for change, meaningful, lasting, human-centered change.

PEACE

Detention or deportation does not automatically strip someone of their property rights. Legally, immigrants continue to own their homes, cars, bank accounts, businesses, and personal belongings. In practice, however, many lose access to these assets because they cannot manage them while detained or after being removed from the country.

Once someone is in ICE custody, access becomes extremely limited. Detained immigrants often cannot pay mortgages or rent, access bank accounts, renew car registrations, maintain property, or appear in civil court. As a result, assets are frequently lost: homes go into foreclosure, cars are repossessed, belongings are discarded after eviction, and businesses collapse due to lack of management.

Families sometimes step in by taking over payments, selling property on the person’s behalf, or storing belongings. But many immigrants do not have someone who can legally or safely manage their affairs.

A separate issue is civil asset forfeiture. If ICE or another agency claims that property is connected to a crime, it can be seized even without a criminal conviction. The owner must fight in court to reclaim it — something that is often nearly impossible from detention.

The reality is that many immigrants lose everything. This happens because detention cuts off communication and legal access, deportation often occurs suddenly, people cannot return to the U.S. to manage their property, many fear interacting with courts or banks, some states allow landlords to dispose of belongings after short notice, and civil forfeiture laws place the burden of proof on the owner.

To improve the chances of retaining their assets, immigrants can use several protective strategies: assign power of attorney to someone trustworthy, keep important documents accessible to family, consult an immigration or property attorney, document all assets, and arrange for someone to manage or sell property before deportation.

In the end, the issue is not simply about property; it’s about the human cost of a system that leaves people unable to protect what they’ve worked for. Immigrants may retain their legal rights on paper, but the realities of detention and deportation often make those rights impossible to exercise. Until there are meaningful safeguards that allow people to manage their affairs, countless families will continue to lose homes, vehicles, savings, and livelihoods not because they forfeited them, but because the system made it impossible to hold on.

Congress is often called the “first branch” of government because the Constitution places it at the center of lawmaking and grants it the foundational powers that define the federal system. Its role in creating laws, controlling the budget, and checking the executive and judicial branches reflects the framers’ intention that representative democracy begin with the people’s elected legislature.

In a country as wealthy and capable as the United States, it’s hard to ignore a painful contradiction at the heart of our healthcare system. The people who write our laws, enforce the law, and interpret the law, members of Congress, the White House, and the federal judiciary, all receive stable, high-quality, taxpayer-subsidized health insurance. Meanwhile, millions of ordinary Americans face rising premiums, shrinking coverage, medical debt, and the constant fear that loss of their jobs and one illness could upend their lives.

This isn’t just a policy gap. It’s an immoral action on behalf of American political leaders. Public officials are shielded from the very hardships they debate and refuse to provide to the average citizen. Political leaders’ coverage is guaranteed. Their premiums are subsidized. Their plans are comprehensive. They never have to worry about losing insurance if they lose an election, change jobs, or face a medical crisis.

The average American has to navigate a healthcare system that is full of uncertainty, one where coverage depends on employment, deductibles can swallow a paycheck, and political gridlock can determine whether families can afford basic care.

When leaders fail to secure protections for the people they serve, trust erodes. A government funded by taxpayers should not provide better care for itself than for the taxpayers who make that system possible. If anything, public servants should feel the urgency of fixing healthcare because they share in its vulnerabilities, not because they’re insulated from them.

A fair society demands that those in power confront the same realities as the people they represent. Until that happens, the moral imbalance at the center of American healthcare will remain impossible to ignore. Again, the wealthiest country in the world fails to fund health for the people.

What will Americans do when power breaks free from truth, and the lessons from our historical past, which are crucial for interpreting the present and shaping the future, are rapidly declining? Well, we are here now!

Civilizations rarely collapse in a single dramatic moment. More often, they erode quietly, grain by grain, as shared values weaken and truth becomes negotiable. History offers countless warnings about what happens when moral decay, unchecked power, and the abandonment of reason and evidence converge. Few examples are as instructive—or as haunting—as the final years of the Roman Republic.

The civic-minded, disciplined society that we fought for over the last 250 years is slowly dissipating in the rapidly corporate-driven, polluted air we are forced to breathe every day. Money-driven policies driven by billionaire/millionaire donors have neutered our political leaders; hence, wealth is rapidly concentrated in the hands of a few. Political offices are openly bought and sold, and public trust in institutions has thinned to a whisper.

This isn’t just institutional corruption; it is a deeper unraveling, a slow drift away from the shared moral framework that once held the American democracy together. Public service has been turned into a marketplace where influence is traded like stocks. Propaganda has replaced shared truth, and encounters become weaponized rumors, drowning citizens in competing realities.

In today’s America, power is concentrated in a dangerous manner. Specifically, the leadership of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Secretary of Defense commands personal loyalty from employees that eclipses loyalty to the Nation. It is apparent that, in most instances, decisions and expertise are sidelined for political advantage, not the public good. Violence has entered civic life, where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers blurred the line between protecting the community and intimidating citizens.

The danger of power without truth is emerging in America because our society is losing its shared understanding of reality, making it increasingly vulnerable to manipulation. Competing narratives fracture the public into tribes, facts become optional, and emotion becomes the primary currency of persuasion. Without a commitment to truth, power no longer needs to justify itself. Without reason, it no longer needs to persuade. Without shared moral norms, it no longer needs to restrain itself.

Based on history, at some point, every society faces moments when truth becomes contested, when institutions strain, when leaders discover how easy it is to bend reality to their will. The danger isn’t simply that someone might seize too much power. The greater danger is that people stop caring whether what they hear is true. Case in point: January 6, 2025, became a turning point for truth, legitimacy, and public trust. A culture that abandons truth invites its own undoing.

In closing, America is at a turning point, and if we are to save our democracy, we must strengthen our civic virtue by rewarding our integrity, not spectacle. We must protect shared truth by supporting institutions that verify facts and elevate evidence. We must limit concentrated power and ensure no individual or faction can dominate unchecked. We must value expertise and reason and let decisions be guided by knowledge, not noise. Lastly, we must wholeheartedly reject political violence because no society can honestly debate freely when fear enters the room.

When power becomes disconnected from reason, when leaders elevate loyalty over honesty, and when people choose comforting lies over difficult facts, decline becomes inevitable. The warning is historic, but the responsibility is ours.

I open this blog with a question: What has happened to peace-seeking global citizens? As of January 5, 2026, the world stands at a pivotal moment. Civility has yielded to dogmatic ignorance, and the international system is more fragmented than ever. Traditional alliances are strained, new regional powers are rising, and emerging technologies are reshaping how nations communicate, negotiate, and compete.

As major powers increasingly disregard institutions such as the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and the World Trade Organization, the foundations of collective security weaken. These institutions were created to uphold international law, mediate disputes, and provide a stable framework for cooperation. When they are undermined, the world becomes less predictable and more vulnerable to conflict, inviting powerful states to assert dominance within their spheres of influence.

This erosion of multilateral institutions has accelerated the fragmentation of global governance. Without trusted platforms for cooperation, crises escalate more easily, and nations are left to navigate challenges through unilateral actions or ad‑hoc alliances. Smaller nations, in particular, lose the neutral forums they depend on to safeguard their interests.

Yet the world of 2026 is defined not only by division but by deep interdependence. No nation can shield itself from climate shocks, economic volatility, technological disruption, or the movement of people across borders. This paradox, rising fragmentation amid growing interconnectedness, is the central diplomatic challenge of our time.

Meeting this moment requires a renewed commitment to cooperation. Stability cannot be achieved through isolation or dominance, but through dialogue, restraint, and shared responsibility. Diplomacy must evolve: reaching beyond traditional alliances, engaging emerging powers, and building flexible coalitions capable of responding to fast-moving crises. It must embrace innovation, transparency, and inclusivity, reaffirming that peace is built not through force but through understanding.

In this fractured landscape, leadership is measured not by dominance but by cooperation. The nations that will shape the future are those willing to listen, negotiate, and build bridges—even when it is difficult. Diplomacy is not merely a tool of statecraft; it is the foundation of global stability.

The world cannot afford complacency. The challenges ahead, from climate instability to technological upheaval, demand collaboration, not confrontation. Diplomacy must rise to this moment with creativity, courage, and conviction.

Our responsibility is clear: rebuild trust, strengthen dialogue, and reaffirm the principles that have long supported international peace. The future will be shaped not by those who act alone, but by those who choose to engage, listen, and lead through cooperation.

In 2026, diplomacy is not simply an instrument of influence. It is the path toward a more peaceful and resilient world.

Since the unfortunate and untimely death of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, Turning Point USA appears to be moving forward without pause or interruption in its activities. Under Kirk’s leadership, TPUSA raised nearly $400 million, according to tax filings, an extraordinary amount of money for any nonprofit operating in today’s complex social and political environment.

I also learned that several Jewish or pro‑Israel philanthropists, including extremely wealthy donors, have been involved with TPUSA at various points. Some of these donors reportedly withdrew support over disagreements with Kirk’s stance on Israel. This raises an important question: How do Jewish or pro‑Israel philanthropists benefit from supporting TPUSA, given that segments of the organization’s conservative base are known to express antisemitic views?

For many donors, philanthropy is strategic. Supporting an organization like TPUSA can provide political access, influence over messaging, and the ability to shape the ideological development of young conservatives. From this perspective, TPUSA becomes a long‑term investment rather than a simple charitable contribution.

TPUSA is one of the most influential conservative youth organizations in the United States. Backing TPUSA allows donors to promote pro‑Israel messaging to a new generation, counteract anti‑Israel sentiment on college campuses, and ensure that young conservatives remain aligned with their broader political goals. But this relationship is inherently transactional—and increasingly fragile.

TPUSA now sits at the intersection of mainstream conservative donors, including pro‑Israel philanthropists, and populist or far‑right influencers, some of whom have expressed antisemitic views. Donors often support organizations that advance their overall political objectives, even when they disagree with certain elements. However, tensions over Israel and antisemitism have already caused donor backlash and withdrawals, signaling that the alliance is far from stable.

In the post‑Kirk era, TPUSA will need to navigate these competing pressures carefully. Its ability to maintain relationships with major pro‑Israel donors may determine how effectively it can continue expanding its national and global activities. The organization’s future depends on whether it can balance ideological contradictions within its coalition while preserving the financial support that has fueled its rise.

The United States doesn’t have a King. It’s ruled by “three equal branches of one federal government. Legislative (Congress), Executive (President), and Judicial (Supreme Court and federal courts). The Constitution was designed with checks and balances to prevent any branch from dominating. Over time, though, the executive branch has often expanded its influence, especially in foreign policy, national security, and through executive orders. For this Democracy to survive, the Legislative and Judicial branches must reclaim their power.

The presidency was never meant to be the engine of America’s democracy. That line could serve as the guiding reminder for a nation that has increasingly placed the executive branch at the center of attention. Executive orders dominate headlines, wars unfold with little debate, and national emergencies stretch on for years. Meanwhile, Congress and the courts often appear muted, their constitutional authority overshadowed.

Congress must avoid delegating broad authority to executive agencies and instead write clearer, more detailed laws. They must strengthen oversight by using hearings, investigations, and budgetary control to check executive actions. Congress must also limit emergency powers and narrow the scope of presidential emergency declarations and war powers. Most of all, Congress must honor its oath to the people by reducing gridlock so it can act decisively, rather than leaving a vacuum for the executive branch.

The Judicial Branch (Courts) must assert judicial review by striking down unconstitutional executive actions or laws that overreach. The judiciary must clarify the limits of executive authority by issuing rulings that define boundaries on presidential powers, especially in areas like national security and administrative law. The judiciary must also protect its independence by resisting political pressure and maintaining credibility so that rulings carry weight. “We The People” must demand that our Legislative (Congress) and Judicial (Supreme Court) rein in the “administrative state” by limiting the amount of power the Executive has without direct congressional oversight.

It’s less about the two branches “reclaiming” power; it’s more about exercising the authority they already have under the Constitution. The American people must hold both Congress and the Supreme Court accountable for their lack of oversight related to the repeated failures of standard operations by the executive branch of the administration.

We, the American People, want our government to return to “Regular Order.”

The MAGA movement appears to be fragmenting into competing factions, some loyal to Trump’s billionaire-backed leadership. However, others are rallying around grassroots figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene. We may be witnessing the emergence of possible successors and new ideological directions.

President Donald Trump continues to insist he alone defines MAGA’s future. His administration still represents the billionaire class and maintains control of the movement’s brand.

However, Individuals like Marjorie Taylor Greene, often seen as a voice for grassroots MAGA, have clashed with Trump. Greene is set to resign from Congress in late 2025, highlighting tensions between Trump’s inner circle and populist supporters.

Analysts note that MAGA’s next leaders may not come from politics but from right-wing media influencers, podcasters, and broadcasters who shape the base’s daily beliefs. Disputes over issues like foreign policy, economic priorities, and Trump’s treatment of allies, including Greene, are creating cracks in MAGA’s coalition. Many believe that, even if MAGA splinters, its slogans, branding, and populist style have reshaped the Republican Party and will likely persist in some form.

Within MAGA, what we are seeing is the “Grassroots vs. Elites.” Greene and similar figures appeal to rank-and-file supporters, while Trump’s administration aligns with wealthy donors. Some insist MAGA cannot exist without Trump, while others push for a broader “America First” identity. Many traditional politicians compete with media personalities for influence over the MAGA base. The MAGA movement is unlikely to disappear, but it is splintering into factions.

In closing, the MAGA movement is indeed showing signs of fragmentation, and forecasters are debating where it’s headed next. What say you!

Next week, members of the U.S. Congress will face a defining test: whether to vote to release the Epstein files or not. This is not a partisan battle between Democrats and Republicans. It is a question of truth, accountability, and whether the powerful will finally be held to the same standard as everyone else. No one is above the law.

The vote is shaping up to be one of the most consequential transparency battles in recent Congressional memory. This is not only about the legacy of Jeffrey Epstein; it’s about the rights of his victims and survivors. For decades, Epstein operated with impunity, shielded by wealth, connections, and institutions that looked the other way. His network of associates has long been protected from scrutiny. That protection must now come to an end.

On Tuesday, November 18, 2025, the House of Representatives is expected to vote. If passed, the Department of Justice would have 30 days to release the files. The Senate’s position remains uncertain, meaning the measure could stall even if the House approves it. Any member of Congress who votes against releasing the international pedophilia files is voting against the survivors, against justice, against truth, and against morality.

Lawmakers are divided. Some argue that releasing the files could expose sensitive information or compromise ongoing investigations. Others warn that unredacted disclosures might unfairly implicate individuals. Yet every delay, every redaction, every excuse is a clear sign of complicity with the merciless individuals that brought this filth to America’s shores.

This vote is not just about sealed documents. It is about whether the American public has the right to know the full extent of one of the most disturbing scandals in modern history. The files are not mere paperwork; they are evidence of how power can be abused, how justice can be delayed, and how accountability can be evaded. To keep them hidden now would be to repeat the very failures that allowed Epstein to thrive.

Transparency is not optional; it is the only path forward. Congress must recognize that this vote is not about protecting reputations; it is about restoring trust. If lawmakers choose secrecy, they will confirm the public’s worst suspicions: that the powerful protect their own, even at the expense of justice for Epstein’s victims/survivors, many of whom were children when they were violated.

The Epstein files are more than a scandal. They are a mirror that Epstein’s co-conspirators and enablers will finally have to face. What Congress chooses to reveal, or conceal will reflect the integrity of the institution itself. Next week’s vote is not just about Epstein; it is about whether democracy can withstand the weight of truth.

Jeffrey Epstein did not build an ordinary social circle; he spun a web. It was a network designed to attract power, prestige, and influence, while concealing exploitation at its core. Like flies drawn to a spider’s silk, politicians, celebrities, financiers, and academics found themselves caught. The more they struggled to deny or distance themselves, the deeper they became entangled.

The image of the wealthy and powerful being caught “like a fly in a spider’s web” captures the essence of his entanglement with Jeffrey Epstein. What began as a social connection became a trap of scandal, denial, and consequence. The harder he tried to wriggle free, the deeper they became submerged in the sticky strands of public scrutiny and moral accountability.

Epstein’s network was designed to ensnare. Wealth, influence, and access were the threads that drew powerful figures close. The so-called friendship initially seemed to offer prestige. But once Epstein’s crimes came to light, every meeting, every photograph, every denial became another strand tightening around them.

As Epstein’s victims struggle in the web, like a fly, each movement to escape only made the web more visible and the entanglement more complete.

The metaphor reminds me that webs are not accidental; they are constructed. Epstein’s web was built on exploitation, secrecy, and power. Those who entered it, knowingly or not, faced a choice: break free early with honesty, or remain entangled by silence and denial. The participants’ stories show how privilege can blind one to danger until it is too late.

In the end, the spider’s web is not just about Epstein. It is about how power can ensnare, how denial can tighten bonds, and how truth, once ignored, becomes impossible to escape. The lesson is clear: when faced with exploitation, denial is not safety, it is the strand that binds.

Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes were not just about one man; it was a web spun from secrecy, privilege, and power. And as time moves forward, more and more names will be revealed. The reckoning is not finished; it is still unfolding.

As I said before, Epstein’s web was built to ensnare, but time is the force that breaks webs apart. As victims/survivors speak, as documents surface, as institutions are pressed to disclose, the reckoning deepens. The lesson is clear: truth delayed is not truth denied. Eventually, the strands give way, and those who thought themselves untouchable find themselves exposed.

Congress must realize that the revelations will continue, but they must lead somewhere. Exposure without accountability is just noise. Justice must be the final result because without it, the web remains intact, and history risks repeating itself.\

©Mansour Id-Deen