We The People (Aired 05-23-25) Medicaid Truths, Power Politics and Rising Global Hate

[00:00:03] Speaker A: Getting back to our origin of we the People, tackling current issues, both political and legal, with common sense. As we the People, we must bring common sense back to make our lives better. Only on NOW Media tv. [00:00:23] Speaker B: Welcome to we the People. I am your hostess, Alina Gonzalez Dachry, and I am thrilled to be here for another evening where we do not just chase headlines, we stop to reflect on what they mean. Tonight's latest story isn't about partisanship or polling. It is about humanity. It's about health, and it's about the weight every leader carries, especially when the cameras are off. Former President Joe Biden has been diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer. Whatever your politics, this is a deeply personal moment for him, for his wife and for his family. And yes, for a country that watched him age in real time while bearing the pressures of the presidency. Let's take a moment to cut through the noise and talk with compassion, clarity, clarity and truth. It's now confirmed. Joe Biden, 82 years old, has been diagnosed with an aggressive late stage prostate cancer that has spread to his bones. It is a serious diagnosis, one that doesn't just touch the man, but reopens the public conversation about health, aging and leadership. Doctors say it's hormone sensitive, which means it can be treated, but at this stage, surgery is unlikely. And the five year survival rate for metastatic prostate cancer? Around 37%. Since leaving the White House, Biden has kept a low profile. He stepped aside during the 2024 race after a visibly difficult debate performance, one that marked the end of his campaign and the beginning of a deeper, quieter chapter. But now we know part of that struggle may have had more to do with his health than we realized at the time. And I'm not ignoring the fact that we all were saying whether the mainstream media would not, that we saw a cognitive decline. And yes, there was definitely cognitive decline. And it was so apparent on that stage, that fateful debate night in July. And yes, there will be critics. Some will say that this is further proof he shouldn't have run for a second term. Some already have. But others, like Megan McCain, who lost her father to brain cancer, said it best. Cancer is hell. It is incredibly difficult for any family. That is not the time for politics. And she's right. Because here's the thing. We've all had someone, a parent, a friend, a spouse, a sibling, a loved one. Maybe you face that diagnosis yourself, that word cancer, it lands like a gut punch. And when it's metastatic, it changes everything. So today we offer what we should all be capable of offering grace, grace to the man, grace to his family, and grace for this moment, even. President Trump paused the political fire, though briefly, and sent well wishes to the Bidens that that matters because dignity, dignity still has a place in public life, and we need more of it. But that doesn't mean the national conversation stops. That said, this isn't just a personal story. It is a national moment, too, because once again, we are reminded of something uncomfortable but important. We are electing presidents in their late 70s and 80s. Biden was 82 when he left office. Trump is 78, soon to be 79. And as a political scientist Larry Sabato pointed out, maybe the lesson here is to elect leaders in their 50s and 60s, leaders with both wisdom and stamina. This isn't about ageism. And yes, I agree, President Trump does portray an immense amount of stamina, but it's about capacity, longevity, energy, the reality that these jobs are not just symbolic, they're physically and cognitively punishing. The presidency isn't just the highest office, it's the heaviest. Of course, questions will come. Was the cancer already present during Biden's final year? Most likely, yeah. Did it impact his ability to lead? If the reports were true that the staff members were already discussing having to use a wheelchair because of the his spinal cords weakening, then yes, it was affecting him. It also complicates everything, along with his diminished capacity. And then the bigger question, why we the people, were not given the full truth about his health. This is the President of the United States. He had doctors. And for them to say, oh, well, he wasn't checking his prostate for 10 years, I can tell you that sounds absolute Boulder. Guess this is a man in the highest position in the world, even. And these aren't accusations. These are fair questions. And they don't make us cruel. They make us responsible as citizens. If anything, this diagnosis makes the case for more transparency, not less. And maybe, just maybe, it reminds all of us that character isn't just in policy. It is in how we show up for each other when the news gets hard. So tonight, we hold space for a man who served for a family now facing a brutal road, and for a country that, regardless of party, should be able to honor service while still asking honest questions. That's what we do here. With compassion, with conviction, with clarity. And as we reflect on President Biden's diagnosis and the difficult questions about age, legacy and leadership, it forces us to face it's worth looking back at another man, one who made a very different choice. His name was David Souter, a Supreme Court justice appointed by President George H.W. bush. He passed away this month, quietly and without fanfare. And yet his legacy is loud in all the right ways, because former Supreme Court Justice Souter did something rare in today's political culture. He said he stepped aside while he still had more to give. Now, you may not have always agreed with his rulings, but that's not the point. What mattered is that he served with integrity, recognized his moment, and chose to make room for the next generation. He retired at 69. He made many years left. He could have held power, he could have stayed in the spotlight. But he believed public service was a duty, not an identity. A stark contrast to today's politicians that are holding seats in Congress. And when that duty had run its course, he went home. No Brahm, no drama, no late stage confusion, no political gains. Just a graceful exit. In a time when we've seen too many leaders of both parties cling to power far past their prime, Souter's example suddenly feels almost radical. Let's be honest, we lost something in our political culture. Somewhere along the way, we stopped asking, how did I finish? Well, we see it in our courts, in our Senate, in our House of Representatives, and yes, in the White House. U.S. supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held onto her seat, refusing to resign, though she was battling cancer. She died on the bench at 87. Senator Dianne Feinstein, some of you will remember those pictures of her being wheeled in, looking lost completely, people telling her how to vote, died at 90. Senator Mitch McConnell is 83. He just stepped down as the minority Republican leader. Former President Joe Biden ran again at 81, almost 82, despite visible declines in his capacity. President Trump turned 79 next month and would be the oldest serving president. But for Biden, Senator Chuck Grassley, he's 91, is still voting on the floor. Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House, is 85. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is a virtual adolescent, comparably at 74. Let that see sink in. 74 years old. Eight members of Congress have died in office in the past three years, all of them over 70. What are we doing? Why do we continue putting these people that are so far beyond what some would be forced out to retire if they were in private entities. The truth is, it's not just the leaders. It's about us, too. We built a culture that defines people, but by what they do, not who they are. We reward staying in power, we punish. Stepping aside and powerful people, they're surrounded by others. Who benefit from their presence, staffers, families, donors. Heck, just look at President Biden, his administration, his own family. They profited so much off of him. And as David French wrote so well, the people closest to Biden didn't beg him to step down. They encouraged him to stay. Why? Because his power served theirs. But Justice Souter reminds us that power doesn't have to be your purpose. After he retired, he moved back to New Hampshire. He read books. He walked in nature. He heard a few cases. He lived a full private life. He believed, as one of his former clerks said, that his life was bigger than the court. And maybe there's the lesson. Your legacy isn't what you hold on to, it's what you leave behind. We can still reclaim it. We have a lot of justice, not enough mercy and humility that's gone missing in Washington. We can still honor men like Justice Souter, not for being perfect or powerful, but for being a man for his word. Coming up next, we turn to major decisions out of Washington. A Supreme Court deadlock has just blocked state funding for religious charter schools. What does it mean for schools, choice, faith in education and future parental rights? We're breaking it all down right after this. Welcome back. Before the break, we reflected on Justice Souter and the quiet courage it takes to step aside. Now we turn to a moment that reveals just how loud and divided the current Supreme Court really is, especially when it comes to religion, education and parental rights. This week, the court delivered a 44 deadlock on a high stakes case out of Oklahoma, effectively blocking the creation of the first publicly funded religious charter school in the country. The case involved St. Isidora Seville Catholic Virtual School, a proposed online charter school backed by Oklahoma's Catholic dioceses. The school's mission was simple but bold. Bring Catholic education to rural communities through the state's charter school system. But not everyone agreed. The state's Republican attorney general, Ganttner Drummond sued to stop it. And it is a twist only 2025 could deliver. The fight wasn't even between right and left, but among conservatives themselves. So here's what happened. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that funding religious charter schools violates both the state and federal constitution because, again, we have separation of state and religion. St. Isadora and the charter school board appealed to the US Supreme Court arguing that charters are technically private organizations operating under public contracts, so excluding them on religious grounds is discrimination. But the Supreme Court split 4 to 4, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett recusing herself, likely due to ties with a former colleague who helped build the legal strategy for the school. And just like that, the Oklahoma decision stands. Not a national president. It only affects that in Oklahoma. But I assure you, with 11 other states passing the same type of testing, the same type of laws, no majority opinion is a legal message. Let's be clear, this wasn't just about Oklahoma. This was a test case designed to challenge the limits of religious liberty within public education. If St. Isadora had been approved, it would have created a new legal category. Religious charter schools. Not private, not traditional public, something in between. Supporters say that the future school choice that meets families where they are including faith based needs. Critics argue it's a slippery slope and it is that it opens the door to taxpayer dollars funding everything from Catholicism to, oh, well, wait a minute, in Christianity. Because Christians don't tend to think Catholicism is it. Even schools presuming promoting radical Islamic views or wiccan beliefs. Even A.G. drummond, himself a conservative, warned that forcing the state to fund one faith would open the gates to fund all faiths. And he didn't mean it as a compliment. As a lawyer, I'll say this. The constitutional tension here is very real. On one hand, you had the First Amendment's free exercise clause which says the state can't penalize a group just because they're religious. On the other hand, you've got the establishment clause which says the state can't promote religion either. When you mix that with charter school laws, what? Which are already a hybrid of public private governance, you get murky legal waters. And at the center of it all, parents, families who want faith based options but can't afford private tuition, families who feel locked out of the public system, and families who are simply asking, why can't my tax dollars follow my values? This case didn't end the debate, it just hit a pause. The ruling didn't create national precedent, it didn't resolve the constitutional question. And it won't be the last time this issue hits the court. As Nicole Garnett of Notre Dame's Religious Liberty Clinic put it, this question is still alive and I believe the court will eventually rule in favor of religious charged schools. Whether that's true, I don't know, because it is an interesting conversation to be had and one that has been had since the times of our founding fathers. But for now, the status quo stands. So what's the takeaway? The ruling wasn't a loss of religious freedom. It is a legal crossroads. It forces us to take hard but necessary questions about how we define public education, how we fund it, and whether school choice includes faith choice. Because in today's America, protecting religious liberty doesn't just mean keeping faith out of the classroom, it may mean finding room for it within. And that's a conversation worth having, especially nowadays when you see people not really having the compassion or morals or ethos. And speaking of constitutional discussions and potential showdowns, let's next dive into a developing story about presidential authority and congressional spending powers. The Government Accountability Office, or gao, has just ruled that the Trump administration violated federal law by halting funding for a $5 billion electric vehicle charging station program. This program was originally authorized by Congress through the bipartisan infrastructure law passed in 2021. As someone with a legal background, I find the constitutional questions here fascinating. The gao, which serves as Congress's non partisan watchdog, determined this action constitutes an improper impoundment, essentially saying the administration, AKA Executive Branch AKA President Trump, can't simply freeze funds that Congress has already approved. The White House, through Budget Director Russell Val, is taking a bold stance here. They've rejected the GAO's findings, arguing the Transportation Department has legitimate authority to review impose spending. Secretary Sean Duffy specifically cited inefficient guidance and failed performance in the EV program. This isn't just about electric vehicle chargers. It's about the fundamental separation of power. The 1974 Impoundment Control act, passed after Nixon era overreach, specifically limits a president's ability to withhold congressionally approved funding. What's particularly noteworthy is that the GAO has opened over three dozen similar investigations into the current administration's handling of federal dollars. We saw comparable findings during Trump's first term regarding Ukraine aid finding that ultimately contributed to the impeachment proceedings. The administration maintains they should have broader authority to manage spending according to their priorities. Budget Director vowed has even questioned his constituent the constitutionality of existing impounding limits. Several states, including California, have now filed lawsuits challenging these funding freezes. This appears to be building toward a significant constitutional shadow over who truly controls the nation's purse strengths. And as this story develops, we'll continue tracking whether the GAO pursues court action to enforce its findings and how Congress responds to what Democrats are calling executive overreach. And recall that the reason why this is going to be a constitutional issue as to who has the power or the right to determine the purse strings. Is is it Congress? Who Congress is responsible for passing the budget. Congress is responsible for allocating the dollars and the funds to each branch or administrative bureaucracy or what program. So the real question lies does the president have the authority to retroactively? Because that's what's happening here Retroactively decide, you know what, we're not going to give that money, we're done. And though it really is about who has what is the separation of powers and, and such, it is also interesting to note that there is another event happening in regards to electric vehicles. So now you recall that California among some other states decided to put extreme restrictions on, on carbon and combustible or gasoline cars, trying to phase them out completely and try to make it where you can only purchase an electric vehicle. Well, with the lobbying efforts of, with the lobbying efforts of the major car dealerships and car manufacturers, I mean Detroit, Ford, Chevrolet and such, they have now had Senate starting to pass major significant controls, taking the power away from the state, saying that only the national, only Congress is able to place emission controls and thereby removing or preventing California and other states from, for making this, this huge impact of saying that eventually phasing out gasoline cars and that you could only be using electric vehicles. This I'm sure is going to be another lawsuit headed by California, most likely, and the other 11 blue states that have also initiated this because again, now it goes to do the states in their separation because remember that each state is sovereign to be able to make rules that impact the state. Does the state have the right to, to, to do such emissions, restrictive emissions and eventual phasing out of gas? Or is that truly something that falls only under the purview of Congress? So you see, we do have a lot of things that are happening and, and some will say it's a bit of a burden or is this really a headache? And you know, like some I have friends that will say what is up with Trump and him doing all this? But then again, it's like what's up with certain states trying to push or force their agenda on the masses? It all comes down to constitutional separation of powers. Who has the right to make these decisions? Is it the executive branch that gets to determine that? Hey, by the way, if we really have shortfalls and we have a deficit that is increasing to over 36/trillion million dollars, we have the right to withhold funds so that we can save money until such time as we start running from a deficit budget, but to a surplus budget, or is it under Congress that says we allocated, we're in charge of the money and you can only have a congressional amendment or bill passed terminating that funding. Then we have the other constitutional thing. Who has the power to determine emissions? Is it the state or the federal government? Where does the separate but equal cost go? We're going to take A quick break and when we return, we'll discuss the House passing Trump's big beautiful bill. Stay with us. Welcome back to we the People. The Republican led House has passed President Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill by the narrowest of margins, 215 to 214, with one lockmaker voting present. Basically a non vote. This one big beautiful bill, as the President calls it, represents a significant victory for both Trump and probably more importantly, House Speaker Mike Johnson, who managed to navigate the competing demands of the GOP's various factions. And let's face it, we've seen it in the past under McCarthy, even when the election, you know, when they were voting in Mike Johnson, it is a bunch of little clicks that sometimes don't get along. So from my lawyerly perspective, what's fascinating is how Johnson threaded this needle. The bill extends Trump's expiring 2017 tax cuts while implementing several conservative priorities. But it requires some crucial last minute changes to secure those final votes, mostly from moderate Republicans that come from blue states. Among the key modifications, Medicaid work requirements will now be accelerated to December 2026 instead of 2029. This means able bodied adults between the ages of 19 and 64 without children will need to document 80 hours of monthly work to maintain their coverage, which is part time. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this could result in over 8.6 million people losing coverage by 2034. For residents in high tax states like New York and New Jersey, the SALT deduction cap has been raised to $40,000, up from the $30,000 in previous versions. This represents a significant concession to moderate Republicans from those states. The bill also accelerates the phase out of wind and solar energy tax credits, ending them by 2028 instead of 2031, a clear win for conservatives who've long targeted these subsidies. Democrats have sharply criticized the package, arguing it takes resources from lower income Americans to fund tax cuts for the wealthy, which is a broke record because that's all they keep saying. Although then they hypocritically say how they need to travel in private jets and have five houses and when you sell books and make millions, that's good for them. Sorry, had to do it. They pointed to CBO analysis showing the bottom 10% of households would lose resources while top 10% would gain. The bill now heads to Senate where Republicans hold a 53 to 47 majority. President Trump has already urged senators to act quickly, posting there's no time to waste in getting the legislation to his desk. With the debt limit increase included in this package. There's a real deadline looming. The Treasury Department estimates the US could run out of borrowing capacity by August. So let's break down what is in this GOP tax bill. So, as we discussed, the House's narrow passage of President Trump's tax and spending bill was by a one vote margin. But let's break down exactly what's in this sweeping legislation, what it means for American families and our economy. At its core, this bill extends the Trump era tax cuts from 2017 that were set to expire January of next year. Without Congressional action, marginal income tax rates would have increased in 2026. But this bill maintains the current structure with the top rate of 37%. Now, you may say, well, that's at the top rate. Well, guess what? That would have affected middle class America and working class America as our tax rates would have jumped, say from 21% to 24% or from 24 to 28. For families with children, there's a temporary boost to the child tax credit, increasing from $2,000 per child to $2,500 per child from 2025 through 2028, before returning to $2,000 and being indexed to inflation thereafter. However, it's worth noting that while the credit amount increases, the refundable portion that benefits lower income households remains unchanged. The bill also delivers on several of President Trump's campaign promises, though in modified form. From 2025 through 2028, there will be tax relief for tipped employees and overtime workers, though with income limitations to prevent high earners from benefiting. And while the President promised to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, the bill instead provides a $4,000 addition to the standard deduction for seniors and 65 and over, which phases out for higher income recipient. So one of the most contentious aspects was the state and local tax deduction cap, or salt. Now, this affects states where they have a state income tax, a county income tax, and that would be New Jersey, New York, California, I believe Pennsylvania in some other states, currently limited to $10,000. The revised bill raises this to $40,000 starting in the tax year 2025. So this year with a gradual phase down to $10,000 for those earning over a half a million dollars. This is crucial for securing votes from Republicans representing high tax states like New York and New Jersey. So to partially offset these tax cuts, the bill makes significant changes to Medicaid and nutrition assistance. The Medicaid will implement work requirements, require more frequent eligibility checks, and reduce funding to states that offer coverage to unauthorized Democrats, which, as we reported last week, California was already revamping their state Medicaid or state health insurance to basically now repealing the free insurance they were providing to undocumented or unauthorized immigrants. Similarly, the Supplemental Nutrition assistance program, or SNAP, which is formerly known as food stamps, faces approximately $300 billion in cuts, primarily by expanding the work requirement. The bill raises the age of able bodied individuals who must work at least 80 hours monthly to receive benefits from 54 to 64 years old, so one year less than the mandatory retirement age. The bill also targets certain green energy initiatives, ending tax credits for commercial and used electric vehicles after this year, with most new EV credits also disappearing. According to the Congressional Budget Office, these changes would increase the deficit by nearly $3 trillion over the next decade. However, Republican leaders maintain that the economic growth will, will offset these costs through the, the, through many economic positives or benefits that they are promoting. Also because of the new tariffs and actually a lot more free trade and opening trade to other countries of American products such as beef. As the bill now moves to the Senate, we can expect further modifications before it potentially reaches the President's desk because remember, There is only 57, 57 Republican Senate, the majority. If they wanted to make this filibuster proof, they will need 60 to vote on it. But the real deadline is that August 2025, when we are going to be hitting that debt ceiling yet again. And that debt ceiling is because we have been running a deficit budget for years. I think the last surplus budget was under Bill Clinton in the 90s. So what does that tell you? Okay, yes, we have tax cuts coming forward and these are bigger tax cuts than from the era, the Reagan era. Will this put more dollars in people's back pockets? Most likely. Do the Democrats have somewhat of an argument or a basis to say yes, it may impact low income people? Yes and no. Because here's the reality. If people who are at poverty level or Even let's say 200% or below the poverty level, the reality is, is they get a, a tax return. And in that tax return, if they have children and such, they usually get or not usually, I should say many get more than what they put in. What that means is they're getting a bigger return of the federal taxes that were removed from their paychecks. They may potentially see also a reduction in the returns that they're receiving. But the, the argument that the Republicans are saying is by extending these tax cuts and increasing the tax cuts, this will allow working class citizens, middle class citizens to have more disposable income, to be able to buy more goods, which will increase our economic outlook. So they are truly putting their eggs in the basket that between the tariffs, increase in world trade and also increase of people's spending power will boost the economy and offset any potential deficits. Also with the potential Medicaid cut. Now, that's going to be an interesting thing to to watch because the reality other states have also attempted to do Medicaid requirements and it really didn't have as big of effect. But we're going to get into that more because when we return after this commercial break, we're going to take a deep dive into what many are calling the strictest Medicaid work requirements ever passed by Republicans, a critical component that helps secure the conservative support for this legislation. So stay with us and tune back right after this. In our final segment today, we're examining what many are calling the strictest Medicaid work requirements ever passed by Republicans. And this was the critical component that got the one vote over from to okay, we're passing a bill. I mean, it's unbelievable if you ever thought that your vote didn't count in this aspect, that one vote counted. So we're going to break it down. What are these new requirements and what would they actually mean for Americans on Medicaid? Now, remember, this isn't Medicare. This isn't what like retirees receive after they turn 65. This is Medicaid. This is if you are an indigent or somebody within the poverty guidelines that receive free health care for their children or for people that are disabled. They're on Medicaid because they're not at retirement age or eligibility for Medicare. Under this legislation, childless adults without disabilities. That's crucial to, let's say no children and no disability. So you're not on ssi, you're not on ssdi, would need to prove they worked, volunteered or attended school for at least 80 hours in the month before enrollment, which averages about 20 hours a week. This is a significant departure from previous proposals. What makes this version particularly stringent? For starters, states could require proof of work for up to six months or even a year before someone becomes eligible. Those who fail to meet these requirements would not only lose Medicaid coverage, but would also be blocked from receiving subsidies for private plans under the Obamacare marketplace and sexually or potentially cutting off all pathways to affordable coverage. The Congressional Budget Office estimates these Medicaid changes would cause 7.6 million people to lose health insurance coverage. Most of these individuals would actually be eligible for the program, but the Congressional Budget Office is stating that they are unable or maybe uneducated to navigate or comply with the strict documentation requirements, which would be a great opportunity for nonprofit organizations or legal aid organizations to then try to get grant funds or use grant funds to help these people. Because that's what legal services there a little plug for legal services. Also an educational side note. This would save the federal government approximately $280 billion over six years. That is triple what earlier Republican plans would have cut. House Speaker Mike Johnson has framed this as returning the dignity of work to young men who need to be out working instead of playing video games all day. However, data suggests a different reality. Most Medicaid enrollees are already working in school or too sick to be employed in Contrary to the Speaker's characterization, unemployed Medicaid enrollees are more likely to be older women, not young men. And we do have some real world examples of how these requirements might play out. So back in 2018, Arkansas implemented a work requirement that was significantly less stringent than this proposal. And even with that more flexible approach, 18,000 people lost coverage, not because they weren't working, but because they didn't know about the rule or couldn't navigate the paperwork. Georgia, the great state of Georgia, they had a program that they passed beginning in 2023 which more closely resembles this proposal. That Georgia program spent over $30 million to manage the work requirement system, yet only 7,000 people have enrolled, far short of the 100,000 state officials had projected. President Trump has insisted no one will lose health insurance under this legislation, but the evidence and expert analysis suggests otherwise. The bill originally gave states until 2029 to implement these requirements, but conservative lawmakers fought to accelerate the timeline. And so the current version would require states to have those systems in place by the end of next year, 2026. And as we look ahead to the Senate's debate, it's worth noting that while Republican senators generally support work requirements, some have expressed reservations about large Medicaid cuts. The question now is whether they'll view these particular requirements as reasonable reforms or as de facto cuts that could leave millions without health care coverage. Or is it really the impetus to say, you know what, there's a lot of people that have been just milking the system, not working or maybe even working under the table, and it's time to get some of these well abled, non disabled, childless people back into the workforce. And when you're seeing that everybody's hiring and nobody's coming in, maybe that is also a benefit. Time will only tell. But one thing is for certain, there is going to be an impact. Whether you want to admit it or not, it will have an impact. Whether it will be as big of an impact and as much of a savings cost over the decades, time will tell. Time will also tell to see how it could potentially affect those that need it the most. And if it is older women who find themselves maybe for whatever reason, no fault of their own, find themselves needing Medicaid, then that's going to be issue. There might be also some other reforms that need to be done or tweaks because if someone is severely ill but they are not disabled, say somebody has cancer, will they, will they be denied Medicaid? So these are the things that are still going to be fine tuned. And again, the Senate now has this and I'm sure the Senate will make its own tweaks and then throw it back to the House. But one thing is for sure, Mike Johnson did something that some thought would be impossible. He eeked it out. He got it passed by that one vote. And before I close today's program, I need to address some deeply troubling news that broke Wednesday evening in our nation's capital. Two Israeli Embassy aides, Yaron Leshinsky and Sarah Milgram, were fatally shot outside the Capitol Jewish museum in Washington, D.C. where the American Jewish Committee was hosting reception. According to reports, the suspect exclaimed Free, Free Palestine. When taken into custody. Ambassador Yesho Liter shared the heartbreaking detail that the young couple had been about to become engaged. This tragedy is part of what law enforcement officials and monitoring monitoring groups describe as a global surge in anti Semitic incidents that began after that horrific hamas attack of October 7, 2023. Since that day, offenses against Jewish people and property have doubled or even tripled worldwide and have remained at historically high levels throughout Israel's 19 month military campaign in Gaza. This data is sobering. In France, anti Semitic incidents increased 2 260% compared to 2022. That's two and a half years ago. In Germany, cases involving expressions of hatred against Jews doubled to over 5,600 in 2023. In Britain, such incidents rose 112% over a two year period, with 201 cases involving physical attacks on Jewish people. Here in the United States, we've witnessed similar disturbing trend. The firebombing of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's home earlier this year, where the suspect cited Israel's treatment of Palestinians, is just one example of the rising hatred against Jews. The violence doesn't occur in isolation. It follows a pattern of attacks on Israeli diplomatic outposts worldwide. Molotov cocktails thrown at embassies in Mexico City and Bucharest, a crossbow attack in Belgrade, gunfire at an Israeli consulate in Munich, and grenades detonated near the embassy in Copenhagen. As we reflect on these events and send sympathies and compassion to the family of this young couple, it's important to recognize that while passionate political disagreement is the cornerstone of democracy and hatred and violence are never acceptable responses and violence is not protected First Amendment right. The line between legitimate criticism of government policies and antisemitism becomes blurred when the criticism targets individuals simply for their identity. Professor Walter Reich at George Washington University notes that this conflict has exposed historical hatred of Jews that had been somewhat contained in decades following the Holocaust, saying, and I quote, pent up violence against Jews has exploded globally. Often masquerading as anti Zionism, it has targeted both Jews and their state. So as we close today's program, I want to emphasize that in times of heightened global tension, our commitment to protecting all communities from hatred and violence must remain unwavering. We can debate policies vigorously while we still respect the fundamental dignity of every person, regardless of the color of their skin, of their nationality, or of their religious or non religious classification. And as we approach Memorial Day this coming Monday, I'd like to take a moment to honor the brave men and women of our armed forces, forces who made the ultimate sacrifice to protect the freedoms we hold dear. Their courage and devotion to duty embodied the very essence of what makes America exceptional. They gave their lives so that we the people could continue to live in liberty and pursue our constitutional rights. This weekend, as we gather with family and friends and travel, let's remember that our nation's freedoms were purchased at a tremendous cost. And let's recommit ourselves to being worthy of their sacrifice. I am Alina Gonzalez Dockery. Thank you for joining us today on we the People. I am proud to say that I'm a camp American and I thank every single one one of those armed forces, the people of our personnel, of our armed forces who continue to sacrifice for the benefit of this country. I shall see you next week when we continue our thoughtful analysis of the events shaping our nation and our world. Wishing you all a good night. This has been a NOW Media Network's feature presentation. All rights reserved.