Introduction

Choosing high-quality premium rose bushes can be a rewarding process for both new and experienced gardeners. Factors such as plant health, variety selection, growing practices, and reliable customer support all play important roles in selecting the right source. April & Ashley focus on carefully selected rose varieties designed to help gardeners create beautiful, lasting outdoor spaces. With attention to quality, presentation, and customer experience, the brand offers options suited for a range of gardening preferences and landscaping projects. By combining thoughtful cultivation practices with a focus on exceptional floral beauty, April & Ashley aims to help customers bring elegance, color, and character to their gardens. For those looking to enhance their outdoor spaces with premium roses, understanding the qualities behind each variety can make the selection process easier and more rewarding.

What Sets April & Ashley Apart in the World of Premium Rose Bushes?

April & Ashley is recognized for offering a thoughtfully curated selection of premium rose bushes for home gardeners and landscape enthusiasts. The company focuses on providing a variety of rose options to suit different garden styles, climates, and growing preferences, making it easier for customers to find plants that fit their landscaping goals. In addition to its diverse selection, April & Ashley emphasizes quality, careful plant care, and customer support throughout the purchasing process. By combining attractive rose varieties with helpful growing information and dependable service, the company aims to help gardeners create healthy, vibrant outdoor spaces. Whether customers are planting their first rose garden or expanding an established landscape, April & Ashley offers products designed to support successful gardening experiences. For gardeners looking to learn more about selecting and caring for roses, The Spruce provides practical guidance on rose varieties, planting, and ongoing maintenance.

How Does April & Ashley Ensure the Quality and Freshness of Their Rose Bushes?

Ensuring peak quality is central to the April & Ashley experience. Each rose bush is pruned, prepared, and shipped as soon as the order is received, with overnight delivery ensuring that plants arrive at peak freshness. This direct-from-farm approach eliminates extended storage times, maximizing vitality and decreasing transplant shock for customers. By the time the rose reaches its new home, it is ready to settle in and thrive. Packaging is carefully designed to protect the integrity of the leaves, buds, and root system. Their teams are meticulous about moisture control and insulation during transport, which is instrumental in reducing the risk of stress or damage that often occurs in less robust supply chains.

What Sustainable Practices Does April & Ashley Implement in Rose Cultivation?

Sustainability is a guiding principle at April & Ashley. The company utilizes eco-friendly packaging and invests in sustainable farming practices, minimizing waste and conserving resources wherever possible. Their commitment to green processes extends from their fields to final delivery, symbolizing reverence for both plants and the environment. By championing responsible agriculture, April & Ashley combines the concept of sustainable luxury with practical environmental stewardship. Their practices align with broader industry efforts to cultivate beauty while reducing ecological impact and increasing environmental impact, supporting the creation of gardens that are both stunning and responsible.

How Does April & Ashley Cater to Diverse Gardening Needs and Preferences?

April & Ashley’s extensive catalog caters to a wide spectrum of preferences, from compact potted roses for patios and small spaces to bare-root collections ideal for expansive landscapes. Each purchase includes in-depth care instructions and guidance, making rose gardening accessible to all skill levels. Their commitment to education ensures that new gardeners and experts alike can confidently cultivate healthy, flowering plants.

What Exclusive Rose Varieties Are Available Through April & Ashley?

April & Ashley offers exclusive rose varieties developed through collaborations with respected rose breeders and creative partners. One notable example is The Most Beautiful Rose, inspired by Prince’s iconic song and created in partnership with Mayte Garcia. These collaborations bring together horticulture, artistic inspiration, and thoughtful garden design, giving customers access to distinctive rose varieties with unique stories. By offering exclusive selections alongside a diverse range of premium rose bushes, April & Ashley provides gardeners with options that suit a variety of landscapes, preferences, and growing styles. These carefully selected varieties are designed to help create memorable gardens while celebrating the beauty and diversity of roses.

How Does April & Ashley Support Customers in Their Rose Gardening Journey?

Customer service sets April & Ashley apart even further. Their detailed planting guides and ongoing care tips help growers at every stage, from first planting through years of growth. A responsive customer service team is on hand to answer specific questions, resolve concerns, and ensure a positive gardening experience. This blend of educational support and personalized service exemplifies their customer-first philosophy.

By offering expertise, premium plant quality, and an unwavering dedication to satisfaction, April & Ashley makes every customer feel confident and inspired in their gardening pursuits.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I order rose bushes from April & Ashley without creating an account?

Yes, orders can be placed as a guest for convenience. Registering for an account is recommended for easier tracking and order management, but is not required.

What is April & Ashley’s policy on order cancellations or changes?

All sales are final, and orders cannot be returned, exchanged, or canceled after placement. Refusing delivery may incur additional fees and does not count as a cancellation.

How does April & Ashley ensure the longevity of their cut roses?

With farm-direct harvesting and swift, careful shipping, April & Ashley’s roses retain their beauty for up to two weeks in bouquets when properly cared for.

Conclusion

April & Ashley’s legacy of quality, sustainability, and outstanding service makes it a trusted source for premium rose bushes. From carefully selected varieties to dependable customer support, the company is committed to helping gardeners achieve beautiful, thriving landscapes with confidence. Their focus on healthy plants, responsible growing practices, and attention to detail reflects a dedication to both customer satisfaction and long-term garden success. Whether you are creating a new rose garden, enhancing an existing landscape, or searching for a thoughtful gift for a gardening enthusiast, April & Ashley offers products designed to inspire lasting enjoyment. By choosing April & Ashley, gardeners invest in quality plants nurtured with expertise, care, and an appreciation for sustainable horticultural practices, helping create vibrant outdoor spaces that can be enjoyed season after season.

Staff Writer; Karl Brown

Let me be careful here, because this is a subject that invites cruelty, and cruelty is not my aim. When I speak of men chasing the appearance of wealth ahead of its substance, I am not describing a failure of character. Instruction is what failed. Somewhere along the way we stopped handing down the quiet arithmetic that turns a modest income into a secure life, and in its place the culture installed a louder and far more expensive teaching. Whatever he can display, it now says, is the measure of him.

Consider the pressure some young Black men feel to spend money on being seen. A vehicle that announces him before he speaks. Garments that carry another man’s name across the chest. Jewelry, weekend excursions, long nights in rooms designed to make ordinary people feel briefly important. None of this is evil in itself. Fine things have pleased me in my own time, and no shame came with it. Desire is not the trouble. Sequence is. We have convinced ourselves that looking prosperous and being prosperous are the same condition, when in truth they are often opposites wearing the same coat.

Stability, by its nature, resists display. Undramatic is what it is. Its home is a savings account no one photographs and a retirement plan no one admires at a party. You see it in the capacity to absorb a broken transmission, a hospital bill, a stretch of weeks without work, and to do so without the whole life coming apart. These are the real marks of arrival, and precisely because they cannot be worn or driven, they are too easily overlooked in a culture built around visible success. No applause greets the settled obligation. No admiration follows the emergency fund. So the man who builds these things quietly gets passed over, while the man who leases the illusion is celebrated.

My father comes to mind often, a man not wealthy by any measure the world respects. For the better part of two decades he wore one good coat, cleaned and repaired until it carried a dignity all its own. Saving came hard, and still he managed it, without ceremony, month after month, year after year. Prosperous he never looked. Yet he died owning his home outright and left something behind for the children of his children. His life proved a principle the culture no longer bothers to teach. Wealth is what you keep and pass forward, not what you flash and forfeit.

Set that against the daily instruction our Black men now receive. The device in every pocket delivers an endless procession of other people apparently winning. One trip financed rather than earned. Something bought on credit and posted as though it were paid. Ease performed for an audience of strangers. Beneath it the message never changes. Show this, or you do not count. So a young Black man hungry to matter goes and acquires the proof, often on borrowed money at punishing terms, and mistakes the transaction for progress. Nothing has been built. What got rented was a feeling, and the rent comes due with interest.

What grieves me most is how much talent sits behind these choices. Many of these men are diligent and capable. The drive is plainly there. What they lack is an older voice willing to tell them the truth without contempt in it. Grasp the difference between being broke and being financially fragile. Being broke can be temporary. Financial fragility can become a pattern when a man repeatedly chooses the visible over the durable every time the choice presents itself. Money in the pocket alone does not cure that condition. Meanwhile a man of modest means who understands the purpose of a dollar is already on his way to building something real.

I would be dishonest if I ignored where some of this hunger comes from. Our fathers and grandfathers were denied the front door of establishments that took their money at the back. Followed through stores, doubted at counters, they were made to feel like intruders in a country they helped to build. Out of that wound grows a powerful need to be seen as someone who belongs, to answer old insults with visible proof of worth. That same impulse lives in my own chest. Yet answering the world’s contempt by decorating ourselves for its approval hands our peace right back to the very people who withheld it. Those ancestors did not endure what they endured so their sons could seek permission to feel valuable. Part of the freedom they purchased for us is the freedom to stop performing for anyone at all.

If we must use the language of the moment, then let me say plainly that stability is the genuine achievement. A man who owns his time owns the only thing that cannot be repossessed. Picture the one who can decline extra hours because his affairs are in order, who can bury a parent without a predatory loan, who can promise his family the roof will hold and mean it. That man commands a wealth no ornament can imitate. He simply does not advertise well, and in a world addicted to advertisement, his quiet sufficiency goes unseen.

Here, then, is the counsel I would offer if the young brothers chasing the look would grant an old man a few minutes of patience. Become unremarkable first. Build the thing that earns no applause. Move money into places your own hand cannot easily reach. Buy the sensible vehicle and drive it long past the point of fashion. Live beneath your means on purpose, and watch what it does to a man’s posture when the first of the month no longer frightens him. Once the foundation has set and hardened, go acquire your fine things if you still desire them. You may find the craving has quieted, because the peace you were pursuing was never inside the object. It lived, all along, in the security the object was only imitating.

None of this is written to shame anyone. I put it down because I have stood at too many services for men who left behind more debt than legacy. We have survived too much history to keep dying encumbered while appearing enriched. Our people made something out of nothing more than once. Surely we can make something lasting out of something, if only we quiet the noise long enough to hear what has always mattered most.

Look prosperous later. Become stable now. One of those is a costume. The other is a life.

Staff Writer; Lee Walker

This brother is a fitness trainer with 12 years of experience, focused on building strength, clarity, and real health within the Black community. Through his writing, Mr. Walker hopes to uplift younger Black men and men in general through honest conversations about fitness, financial pressure, fatherhood, discipline, mental wellness, and the importance of brotherhood.

Have questions? Reach me at LeeW@ThyBlackMan.com.

The fireworks have dimmed, and the Fourth-of-You-Lie sales are waning. In this country, we commemorate through commerce and celebrate through retail activity, so even though we are just a few days into July, back-to-school signs are already shouting from store windows and websites.

Who is going back to school, and under what circumstances?

As with every milestone in this country, inequality roars. Some students will return to school with new laptops, quiet rooms, family-paid tuition, and networks that cushion every stumble. Others will return carrying debt, doubt, family obligations, food insecurity, transportation challenges, and the accumulated disadvantages of underfunded schools and under-resourced communities.

The back-to-school season is marketed as a fresh start. For too many students, it is also a reminder that opportunity in America has always been rationed.

That is why Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) still matter. Indeed, that is why HBCUs remain the vanguard.

The vanguard is not always the largest part of the army. It is the front edge. It moves first. It absorbs blows. It clears the path. By that definition, HBCUs have always been the vanguard. They were built because this country’s higher education system excluded Black people by law, custom, violence, and contempt. Their founding question was not, “How do we reproduce privilege?” Their founding question was, “How do we cultivate genius where America has refused to see it?”

That question remains urgent.

HBCUs enroll only a fraction of Black college students, but their impact is outsized. In 2022, HBCUs enrolled about 9 percent of Black college students, yet they produced 16 percent of the bachelor’s degrees earned by Black students in 2021–22. UNCF reports that HBCUs generate $16.5 billion in annual economic impact, support more than 136,000 jobs, and that the 2021 HBCU graduating class is projected to earn $146 billion over their lifetimes.

These are not sentimental institutions. They are economic engines, leadership factories, and community anchors.

Still, HBCUs are too often asked to do transformative work with transactional support.

That contradiction is especially sharp now, as federal student loan policy shifts under the feet of students and families. The Biden-era SAVE plan — Saving on a Valuable Education — was designed to make repayment less punishing by tying payments to income and family size, reducing monthly payments for many borrowers, limiting runaway interest, and creating a shorter forgiveness path for some small-balance borrowers. Now SAVE has ended, and millions of borrowers have been told to move into other repayment plans.

The change lands first on borrowers already in repayment, but current students are not untouched. Undergraduates will face a narrower repayment landscape when they leave school. Families will confront new Parent PLUS limits. Graduate and professional students will face new borrowing caps just as advanced credentials remain expensive and often necessary. Graduate PLUS loans, which previously allowed many graduate students to borrow up to the cost of attendance, are being phased out for new borrowers. Grad PLUS was the backstop many students used when tuition and living costs exceeded unsubsidized loan limits.

These numbers are not abstractions. They determine who can become a nurse practitioner, a physical therapist, a psychologist, a professor, a public health leader, a lawyer, a dentist, a physician, or a minister. They determine who can move from the first degree to the next rung. They determine whether talent is nurtured or stranded.

For Black students, the stakes are higher because the debt burden is heavier. Black students are more likely to borrow for college, more likely to borrow more, and more likely to struggle in repayment because the racial wealth gap follows them from home to campus and from campus to workplace. A loan policy that may look race-neutral on paper can still deepen racial inequality in practice.

That is the context in which HBCUs do their work. They educate students through inequality, against inequality, and beyond inequality. They do not merely polish privilege. They cultivate possibility. They take seriously the students America too often treats as afterthoughts, and they turn potential into leadership.

Having led an HBCU, I know both the miracle, the math, and the myth. At Bennett College, I saw daily what HBCUs do with too little: stretch dollars, nurture brilliance, hold students close, and insist that Black women’s futures were worth fighting for. I know the devotion of faculty, the exhaustion of administrators, the anxiety of families, and the constant scramble for resources. I also know this: HBCUs cannot be praised in February and underfunded in July. They cannot be applauded at commencements and ignored in appropriations. They cannot be celebrated as cultural treasures while their students are left to navigate a debt system that punishes aspiration.

The country loves the symbolism of back-to-school season. New backpacks. New notebooks. New slogans. But the real question is not what is on sale, it’s what is at stake.

If HBCUs are the vanguard, then the question is not whether they have earned our admiration. They have. The question is whether they will receive the investment, protection, and respect that their record demands.

Back to school should not mean back to debt, back to rationed opportunity, or back to the same old inequalities dressed up in fresh retail packaging. It should mean back to possibility. Back to purpose. Back to institutions that have carried us when the broader society would not.

HBCUs are still carrying us. The question is whether public policy will finally carry its share.

Nearly 700 years old, the series of fresco paintings includes a depiction of a bustling city that illustrates the effects of good government, as well as representations of the decay that results from arbitrary and unjust rulers. The visual treatise on political economy holds important lessons for us today.

Lorenzetti’s city isn’t thriving because its government is energetic or ambitious. It’s thriving because a wise government knows its place.

The people creating its wealth aren’t politicians. They’re merchants opening shops, artisans practicing their crafts, builders raising new homes, farmers bringing goods to market, families walking safely through the streets and a couple getting married. Prosperity comes from their voluntary cooperation. The government appears as the guardian of the rules that make prosperity possible: justice, security, predictable laws and limits on arbitrary power.

That distinction is everything. America did not become the richest nation in history because Washington, D.C., was exceptionally good at directing the economy. It thrived because its institutions largely prevented Washington from interfering. The rule of law and constitutional limits have allowed millions of individuals to make sound decisions that no central authority could possibly coordinate.

Lorenzetti understood that institutions shape incentives, and incentives shape civilization. When political institutions protect a people’s liberty, property and contract rights, they will invest, innovate, trade, build and cooperate. When institutions become vehicles for arbitrary power, society reorganizes itself around politics instead of production, and everything decays.

That’s why the most troubling trend in American politics today isn’t just how remarkably bloated the government has become. It’s that both major political parties are now comfortable using their power to direct private economic life, and they seem unbothered by whether this undermines the rule of law.

Federal spending and debt continue their relentless rise because politicians prioritize today’s voters over future generations. They support industrial policy to prop up their favorite industries. The Trump administration is taking equity stakes in companies like Intel and USA Rare Earth, with some members enriching themselves in the process.

Meanwhile, many Democrats champion taxes on held wealth and unrealized capital gains, challenging the principle that property exists independently of political permission. Genuine socialists who aspire to subordinate property rights and voluntary exchange to political power are now winning elections.

Today, Democrats and Republicans share an understanding that the government should actively allocate resources, direct investment and determine economic outcomes, which can translate to votes, campaign contributions or other benefits.

That’s a shift Lorenzetti’s frescos implicitly warned against. The danger is not poorly executed government; it’s that society’s rules eventually begin to break down. Businesses learn that political influence matters as much or more than serving customers. Investors devote increasing attention to Washington rather than to innovation. Entrepreneurs spend more time competing for subsidies than for customers. Citizens become clients of the state instead of participants in a free society. Political discretion displaces voluntary cooperation.

This transformation rarely arrives dramatically. It instead comes one exception at a time: one bailout, one industrial policy, one new entitlement, one emergency spending bill, another emergency bill that no one feels any need to repay, one “golden share,” one creative tax hike. Together, these changes reshape the relationship between citizen and state.

Lorenzetti’s companion depiction of a bad government is often interpreted as a portrait of tyranny. Justice lies bound at the feet of a horned, demonic ruler, her scales broken and cords cut. Around them, the city decays: Buildings crumble, the streets are empty of commerce, stores are looted, and the only workshop still doing business belongs to the armorer. Soldiers seize a woman — a dark reflection of the happy bride processing through the city on the opposite wall — while a man lies slain at her feet.

Similarly, in one painting of the countryside, the figure of Security, guaranteed by law and not by whim, flies above cultivated fields. In another, Fear hovers over villages burning and barren ground. Same land, same people, different institutions.

But tyranny isn’t simply oppression. It’s the condition under which political power, no longer constrained by enduring principles, becomes society’s organizing force. That’s where bad becomes worse. High taxes become levies meant to punish and confiscate. Regulating industries becomes the locking down of an economy. Constraints on speech become censorship and book burning.

That’s why institutions matter. A constitutional government’s purpose is not to directly produce prosperity. It’s to prevent political power from suffocating the countless acts of creativity, exchange, investment and cooperation through which free people produce prosperity themselves.

America’s greatness has never rested on the brilliance of its politicians. It rests on institutions that leave enough room for people to flourish. The lesson from Siena is that we must restore and preserve what keeps political power in check. Without it, the government does not merely redistribute wealth; it coarsens and corrupts the character of the people, leading to its destruction.

Written by Veronique de Rugy

Official website; http://twitter.com/veroderugy

Trump told the press gaggle his administration just might sell NATO member and reliable U.S. ally Turkey the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter.

This is not an arcane dispute. It wasn’t arcane in 2019 when Trump Administration 1, after a lot of thought, politically sanctioned Turkey. The U.S. denied Turkey the right to buy the F-35 and its support systems, even though Turkish pilots were in the U.S. flight testing the aircraft.

Turkey was a member of the F-35 development consortium. A Turkish company manufactured an F-35 part. The vindictive Erdogan was Turkey’s president in 2019, and he took the sanctions as a personal affront.

The decision was a diplomatic and economic punch in his face.

And he deserved it, for Erdogan and his government committed what the Trump administration regarded as a grievous error in judgment.

In 2019, over bitter U.S. and other European NATO state objections, Erdogan’s government decided to purchase the Russian-made S-400 surface-to-air missile system.

The F-35 is touted as a “networking” weapon — a weapon and sensor-carrying platform that can integrate with scores of other manned and unmanned platforms. It can provide guidance and targeting data to weapons fired by other planes and ships.

For example, in stealth mode, an F-35 can detect targets and relay the information to non-stealthy U.S. and allied aircraft. In fall of 2018, U.S. Marines discovered the sensors on their F-35B vertical takeoff jets could locate ground targets, by day and night and in all weather. The Marines linked F-35Bs with their M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System. HIMARS is an Army-developed weapon that fires long-range, precision-guided rockets.

The F-35 is a stealthy forward observer for 21st-century weapons.

When engaged in combat training or combat operations, all NATO military aircraft fly within an air control network that integrates with ground-based air defense weapons. These, and other communication networks, scan and share more than air and space data. They can share targeting data, intelligence, friendly locations and friendly flight routes.

The Russian S-400 missile system is also a network — the missiles link to radars and electronic support equipment.

NATO military leaders concluded that if Turkey plugged the S-400 into NATO’s air defense network, the entire S-400 system could act as a digital spy. Moscow might tap other communications and sensor networks. An S-400 with an embedded chip the Turks failed to find and remove could in real time relay to Moscow the location of every NATO aircraft in the air.

So why did Turkey buy the S-400? In 2019 I blamed Erdogan’s ego. Since the curious anti-Erdogan coup of July 2016, Sultan Recep (Erdogan’s derisive nickname) has systematically repressed political opponents. He also pursued an ornery foreign policy often at odds with western NATO allies.

However, after acquiring the S-400 in 2020, Turkey all but sidelined the system. In 2024 Turkey decided not to use the S-400 in its “Steel Dome” defense network.

Combat operations have exposed S-400 flaws. Ukraine has successfully attacked Russian S-400 sites. Ukraine reported its drones destroyed one on July 6. Israeli F-35s erased S-400 sites in Syria and Iran. Apparently, U.S. F-35s and B-2s easily evade Iranian S-400s.

Trump on his own cannot lift the F-35 restrictions — Congress gets a say. NATO internal squabbles continue, with Trump scolding NATO members for failing to pay their fair share and failing to support the U.S. war to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

For 47 years, Turkey has had the insane ayatollahs on its border. The U.S. has done Turkey a huge favor. The Trump administration has indicated Turkey has provided significant support in the Iran war. Were F-35s part of the deal? In December 2025, U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack said the S-400 dispute with Turkey was “nearing resolution.”

The deal may link to another deal. I suspect Erdogan has concluded Russia cannot defeat Ukraine — which amounts to a Russian loss. If so, Trump will want Erdogan to personally deliver that message to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Written by Austin Bay

Official website; https://twitter.com/draustinbay

They can look instead to the World Cup, where the performance of the U.S. Men’s National Team is renewing the patriotic pride and national solidarity of a free people — led by players whose diversity and citizenship stand against the anti-immigrant bigotry of the current regime.

At a time when Trump and his xenophobic henchman Stephen Miller shriek incessantly about immigrants “poisoning” the nation — and just vowed to continue their unconstitutional crusade against birthright citizenship — the USMNT is a living testament to true American values.

Under the motto “One Nation, One Team,” their roster is one of the most diverse in the world. The 26 players on the World Cup squad are not just interracial, with 12 Black and three Latino players, but include six born overseas to military families, and a dozen with immigrant roots in eight other countries around the globe.

Team USA, like the nation it represents, features an extraordinary global array of languages and cultures, with players who learned the sport in their home country like Gio Reyna, raised in suburban New York, and team captain Christian Pulisic, who grew up in Hershey, Pennsylvania, and Malik Tillman, who spent his boyhood in Bavaria on a German youth team.

And then there is the instructive case of Folarin Balogun, born by accident in Brooklyn when his Nigerian mother, on her way back to England, was told by airline officials that her pregnancy was too advanced for her to fly safely.

Like so many of his teammates, the hugely talented Balogun chose to join the USMNT and feels a special responsibility in doing so. Having scored three goals for Team USA before he got a red card in last week’s victory over Bosnia-Herzegovina, he has said, “To represent the United States means a lot. I just hope I can bring that prestige and winning mentality over into soccer.”

While American fans thrill to the play of Balogun and his teammates, lovers of the beautiful game flocking to our shores have found an America starkly different from what Trump’s vulgarity and rancor led them to expect. Or what the dimwits at the Department of Homeland Security try to convey when they post ultranationalist “OUR SOIL” memes on social media ahead of World Cup matches.

No, people from all over the world are discovering a generous and inclusive kind of American greatness — not in the blustering and domineering Trump style but in the beautiful welcome extended to the global visitors and their teams, from sea to shining sea. It could be seen in the boisterous hospitality encountered by the Scots in Boston, where they emptied the taverns of beer, or the joyous crowds who greeted the Japanese in Nashville.

But perhaps the most poignant example is the Algerians who found themselves in Lawrence, Kansas, a heartland city that welcomed a team from a nation that Trump himself had once stigmatized. The residents of Lawrence embraced Team Algeria with astonishing enthusiasm and grace.

Indeed, it was the Kansans who expressed sincere thanks for a moment on the world stage brought by the visiting Algerians. “We’re very grateful to Algeria,” said one Lawrence resident as the team departed for a match in Canada. “We’ve loved getting to know your country, and we wish you all the best.” During their final group-stage match against Austria, the Algerians unfurled a big banner behind their goal: “Thank You Lawrence.”

That is the America of our better angels, the city on a hill we have longed to become in our highest aspirations, the nation of ideas and ideals that the crooks and criminals now ruling us have aimed to suppress. The joy and the honor brought by this World Cup tournament will be remembered long after Trump’s ludicrous “Freedom 250” is mercifully forgotten.

Written by Joe Conason

Official website; https://twitter.com/JoeConason

This strategy is commonly known as “driving for dollars.” It involves looking for properties that may need repairs or appear to have been neglected. Common signs include overgrown landscaping, damaged roofs, boarded windows, accumulated mail, faded paint, or homes that have clearly been vacant for some time.

Driving for dollars became an important part of how I built Kernvestors and eventually completed more than 100 home flips.

Bakersfield was an ideal place to learn this business. The city contains a wide variety of neighborhoods, property ages, and housing styles. Some homes only need cosmetic improvements, while others require substantial repairs to plumbing, electrical systems, roofing, foundations, or interiors.

Taft also presented opportunities, although it required a different approach. It is a smaller community, so understanding local prices and renovation costs was especially important. In a smaller market, spending too much on improvements can quickly make a project financially unsuccessful.

The goal was never simply to locate the most distressed-looking house. The real work involved determining whether a property could be purchased at a fair price, repaired correctly, and resold at a price supported by nearby comparable sales.

Over time, driving through Bakersfield and Taft taught me how to recognize construction problems, estimate renovation costs, and understand the differences between neighborhoods. It also taught me patience. Many properties I identified were not immediately available for sale. Sometimes months or even years passed before an owner was ready to have a conversation.

Homeowners often face complicated situations. Some inherit properties they do not want to maintain. Others own rentals with difficult tenants, deferred repairs, unpaid utilities, or years of accumulated belongings. Some simply want to Sell your house Fast in Bakersfield without preparing it for a traditional listing.

As the company grew, people also began finding us while searching for Home buyers in Bakersfield or a Company that buys houses in Bakersfield. However, the foundation of the business remained simple: understand the property, communicate honestly, and avoid making promises that cannot be kept.

The same lessons can apply in other Central California markets. Someone researching how to Sell your Your house Fast Santa Maria may be dealing with many of the same concerns, including repairs, inherited property, moving expenses, or an uncertain closing schedule. Home Buyers on Santa Maria

Written by Joy Gebarah

Joy Gebarah

Miramar Real Estate

661-777-7774

Joy@gebarah.com

How prophetic was the brilliant American sociologist, writer, historian, Pan-Africanist, and civil rights activist, Dr. Du Bois? As we witness the backlash from the Democratic Party’s leadership, as well as President Trump’s response to the success of democratic socialist candidates in the New York City and Washington, DC primaries and anticipate backlash from the democratic socialist victory in Colorado, a couple of important questions come to the forefront. Are we witnessing the development of a new politics in America? If so, what should the response of the African American community and electorate be?

It is important to understand that changes in the political landscape take time. Events such as Democratic Socialists winning over Democratic Party-backed candidates do not happen in a vacuum. One must understand the history in order to understand “the now”.

In the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primary Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) decisively defeated Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. During the 2016 campaign Senator Sanders “came out” as a “democratic socialist (DS)” during a speech at Georgetown University. He told the crowd that democratic socialism is not a Marxist ideology calling for the abolition of capitalism. “I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal…” Democratic Party leaders were initially alarmed and strategists suggested the party distance themselves from Sanders. They feared that the label “democratic socialist” would be politically radioactive. Hillary Clinton said his ideas were economically unfeasible and politically unrealistic. Republicans seized on the “socialist” label to frame his campaign as a radical shift toward government control.

In the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary, Senator Sanders gained more traction as his message of free tuition at public universities, campaign finance reform, and single-payer healthcare resonated with more voters across the electorate. In Iowa, Sanders won the popular vote, while Pete Buttigieg narrowly led in state delegate equivalents after a chaotic and heavily criticized caucus count. Sanders won a narrow victory in the New Hampshire primary, and won in the Nevada caucuses. From 2016 forward, Democratic Party stalwarts and elites watched Sanders and his message take hold. They see the growing crowds, growing energy and enthusiasm, favorable polling data, and growing fundraising from small and large donors. The concern for them has shifted from “will he lose to Republicans?” to “what do we do if he wins?” It’s no longer the messenger; it’s now the message. And other than stating the obvious, that Trump is, as Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has told us, “Trump is a ‘race-baiting, xenophobic’ bigot”; what’s the Democratic Party’s message? How are they going to make the lives of Americans better?

Building upon the momentum created by Senator Sanders, we now have “The Squad” — four congresswomen of color who were sworn into Congress in 2019. While some refer to themselves as democratic socialists, they all express support for DS policies. Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, the first Somali-American member of Congress, Rashida Tlaib are the first two Muslim women ever elected to Congress. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan challenged the Democratic Party agenda when she publicly supported the pro-Palestine BDS movement. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts is very clear in her support of immigrant rights and has said, “The people closest to the pain should be closest to the power.” They have motivated the “progressive” ranks within the Democratic Party to varying degrees. These women have articulated support for ideas such as Medicare for All, a $15-dollar minimum wage, debt-free college and have called for abolishing ICE.

In last year’s Democratic Party mayoral primary, then NY Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani defeated former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary, 56% to 44%. The Democratic Party establishment was not pleased with the outcome. Cuomo said, “Extremism, division and empty promises are not the answer to this city’s problems, and while this was a look at what motivates a slice of our primary electorate, it does not represent the majority.” After the primary former NY Gov. David Patterson called upon Democrats (members of Mamdani’s own party) to work together to defeat him. Democratic leadership held meetings to discuss their options in the general election. Mamdani went on to defeat Cuomo who ran as an Independent and Republican Curtis Sliwa in the general election. To that Trump said (as Dr. Du Bois projected), “Look, we don’t need a communist in this country…”

Based upon this brief history of fits and starts we now come to the current day. Three congressional candidates in New York City won their primary races with the support of Mayor Mamdani and his allies. In Washington, DC, Councilmember Janeese Lewis George, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist won the Democratic Party primary for mayor as well. In Colorado, democratic socialist Melat Kiros, 29, ousted longtime Denver Rep. Diana DeGette, a liberal incumbent who had served for roughly three decades, 51% to 42%. The Washington Posted reports, “After three candidates endorsed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani won their congressional primaries in New York last week, establishment Democrats felt angst. Democratic socialists looked to Colorado, and the money followed.”

In New York, Brad Lander, a Mamdani allied candidate defeated incumbent Congressman Daniel Goldman, 66% to 34%. Goldman received over $320,000 in contributions connected to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for the 2026 election cycle. Claire Valdez defeated Antonio Reynoso for an open seat, 58% to 33%. Darializa Avila Chevalier, another democratic socialist unseated five-term incumbent Congressman Adriano Espaillat, 49% to 46%. Espaillat’s campaign directly received $5,000 from AIPAC itself, with an additional $140,000 to $376,000 in individual contributions earmarked or bundled by the organization. Additionally, United Democracy Project—AIPAC’s super PAC—poured $650,000 into another PAC (BOLD America) that spent $2.8 million supporting Espaillat.

Are the democratic socialist politics of Mayor Mamdani and the candidates he supports proving to be the next iteration of a progressive movement within the American body politic? If so, why is the Democratic Party establishment, including many of its African American leaders, so afraid of this shift in politics?

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) says Mayor Mamdani is going to have to smooth things over with congressional Democrats. Why? The candidates he and his allies backed won the primaries fair and square. Unless as Dr. Du Bois stated, “I believe that democracy has so far disappeared in the United States that no “two evils” exist. There is but one evil party with two names…” NY AG Letitia James (who formerly supported Mamdani) said, “Some of the candidates that he (Mamdani) has supported are individuals who do not understand the politics of New York City, the cultural differences from district to district, who have not been part of the history and the struggle of some of these districts, and are relatively new to the body politic…” Oh, so the voters are stupid and were fooled? Does she honestly believe that establishment politicians who fill their coffers with AIPAC money know what’s best for voters more that the actual voters themselves? Really? These are the racist tropes usually used by white politicians to explain votes cast by “colored” voters.

The voters are not stupid, but many are confused. I wrote a piece entitled, He Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune, wherein I wrote, “Many voters are confused. They can’t understand why in so many instances the individuals they elect to represent their interests, get to Congress and represent the interests of outside forces.”

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) have received millions of dollars in campaign funding from AIPAC. According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, AIPAC-backed members of the caucus have received at least $3.6 million—and an estimated total of nearly $9 million across several election cycles.

Specific leading recipients include:

Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY): At least $950,331.
Shontel Brown (D-OH): At least $1,028,686.
Glenn Ivey (D-MD): At least $775,199.

When AIPAC boasted that it was committing $100m to defeat Democratic Party incumbents in order to fight back a wave of progressive dissent over Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza, did Rep. Jeffries complain? No!  When AIPAC money helped a pair of Black pro-Israel Democrats defeat progressive Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.), did AG  James or Rep. Jeffries demand an apology or claim that representatives of AIPAC were, “going to have to smooth things over with congressional Democrats.”, as he has demanded of Mamdani?  No!  They went along to go along.

What is it about affordable housing, a living wage, and the growth of unions, that is causing establishment Democrats such consternation? What’s wrong with the idea of working people running both the economy and civil society? Why won’t the Democratic Party clearly condemn Israel for the genocide in historic Palestine? Aren’t these the policies and politics of Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer, Ms. Ida B. Wells, Dr. King, Dr. Du Bois, Paul Robeson, Malcolm X, Ms. Ella Baker and so many others? Are these not the policies and politics of the original members of the CBC, the original corps of lawmakers dedicated to safeguarding civil rights and known as “the conscience of the Congress”? Is the conscience of the Congress now unconscious?

How prophetic was Dr. Du Bois? “If a voter organizes or advocates a real third-party movement, he may be accused of seeking to overthrow this government by “force and violence.” Anything he advocates by way of significant reform will be called “Communist”” No matter what you call it, no matter what you call them, those who are championing civil rights, workers’ rights, equal pay for equal work, an end to these senseless, illegal and immoral wars of choice should be listened to.

There is a new politics developing and members of the African American electorate should be paying attention because the constituents are not being paid by AIPAC to vote against their own interests and the interests of their community. Too many so-called people in positions of leadership are. Remember, it’s not the messenger, it’s the message.

Written by Dr. Wilmer J. Leon, III

Official website; http://www.wilmerleon.com

One may also purchase his book, entitled Politics: Another Perspective.

The Connection Between School Quality and Neighborhood Vitality

Research consistently shows that the quality of local schools is one of the top factors families consider when choosing where to live. When a neighborhood earns a reputation for excellent public education, it tends to attract and retain residents who are deeply invested in the long-term health of that community. Property values stabilize, local businesses benefit from consistent foot traffic, and civic organizations gain the engaged membership they need to function effectively. This dynamic creates a virtuous cycle in which strong schools produce informed, motivated graduates who go on to become the teachers, entrepreneurs, and community leaders of tomorrow.

In Los Angeles specifically, this pattern plays out across dozens of neighborhoods. Families who once felt they had no choice but to relocate in search of better educational options are increasingly finding that high-quality public schools exist closer to home than they realized. Identifying those schools, and understanding what makes them successful, is the first step toward making informed decisions for children and communities alike.

What Sets the Top Public Schools Apart

Not all schools that perform well share the same formula, but the most consistently successful institutions tend to share a few core characteristics. Strong instructional leadership, a stable and experienced teaching staff, high expectations for all students regardless of background, and genuine family engagement are recurring features of schools that outperform their peers. Equally important is a school culture that treats students as capable individuals rather than passive recipients of information.

For parents navigating the complex landscape of public education in Southern California, resources that aggregate and contextualize school performance data are invaluable. A thorough look at the best schools in los angeles reveals that high performance is not limited to any single zip code or demographic. Charter schools, magnet programs, and traditional neighborhood schools all appear among the top performers, which speaks to the diversity of educational models that can succeed when the right conditions are in place.

The Role of Community Investment in School Success

Schools do not exist in isolation. Their success is deeply intertwined with the communities they serve and the broader networks of support that surround them. Parent-teacher organizations, local business partnerships, nonprofit foundations, and city government all play meaningful roles in determining whether a school can sustain its performance over time. When these stakeholders align around a shared commitment to student outcomes, the results can be transformative.

Community investment also takes more tangible forms. Volunteer tutoring programs, after-school enrichment activities, mentorship initiatives connecting students with working professionals, and fundraising campaigns for technology and arts programs all contribute to an educational environment that goes beyond what standardized test scores can capture. Schools that thrive in Los Angeles are almost always embedded in networks of community support that extend well beyond the classroom walls.

Education as an Engine of Economic Mobility

The economic argument for investing in public education is compelling and well-documented. Students who receive a strong foundational education are significantly more likely to complete high school, pursue post-secondary credentials, and enter the workforce with the skills employers actually need. Over a lifetime, the income differential between those who complete a quality education and those who do not is substantial, and those individual outcomes aggregate into measurable effects on local and regional economies.

As Pew Research Center has documented through decades of social and economic analysis, educational attainment remains one of the strongest predictors of economic security and upward mobility in the United States. In a city as economically diverse as Los Angeles, where the gap between high earners and low earners is among the widest in the nation, the stakes of educational access are especially high. Every student who gains access to a quality school represents not just an individual success story, but a concrete contribution to the city’s long-term economic resilience.

Looking Forward: Building on What Works

The encouraging news is that Los Angeles has no shortage of models worth scaling. Schools that have managed to close achievement gaps, raise graduation rates, and send first-generation college students to four-year universities are demonstrating every day that the obstacles are not insurmountable. The challenge now is ensuring that the lessons learned in those high-performing environments can be applied more broadly, and that families across the city have the information they need to advocate for their children effectively.

Policy conversations about school funding equity, teacher recruitment and retention, and the expansion of successful school models are all part of this larger picture. So too are the quieter, less headline-grabbing efforts of individual principals, counselors, and classroom teachers who show up every day committed to making a difference. Progress in public education rarely arrives in dramatic leaps. It accumulates through sustained effort, honest evaluation, and a willingness to learn from both successes and failures.

Los Angeles is a city with enormous potential, and its schools are both a reflection of that potential and one of the primary means of realizing it. When communities rally around the goal of educational excellence, the benefits extend far beyond any individual student or classroom. They ripple outward into neighborhoods, economies, and generations, shaping the kind of city Los Angeles is capable of becoming. The work is ongoing, but the evidence that it matters could not be clearer.

Staff Writer; Walter Jones

Beneath their rhetoric lies the familiar Washington story of a bill shaped less by evidence than by the demands of organized interests.

Perhaps the clearest example comes from the rail provisions. If the bill is being driven by a coherent safety philosophy, why would legislators soften rules requiring the faster replacement of old hazardous-materials tank cars, despite repeated recommendations from the independent National Transportation Safety Board? Some safety recommendations are treated as essential, while others become negotiable once influential people object.

The reason, of course, is politics, which come with clientelism.

Much of the debate over freight-car inspections didn’t center on the frequency, timing or type of inspections required — things the conversation would focus on if safety was the overriding goal. Instead, most of the argument centered on who would perform inspections.

Labor organizations pushed provisions that would narrow who counts as qualified to inspect freight cars, thereby reserving those jobs for organized carmen. They opposed railroads’ de facto practice of routing inspection volume to non-carmen staff (conductors) as a cost-saver that didn’t affect safety. Legislators ultimately crafted a compromise that reflects the competing interests of these two powerful stakeholders more than measurable safety outcomes. This is regulatory capture in action.

The role of organized labor is especially revealing. At a recent Senate hearing, Teamsters officials openly acknowledged that autonomous trucking is going to happen and that workers have historically adapted to technological changes. Rather than trying to prevent deployment of the technology altogether, they argued that policymakers should proactively focus on worker transition issues. This is sensible enough. Yet many of the same labor groups strongly oppose automation and technology deployment in freight rail, including with systems believed to improve safety and detect defects far earlier than traditional inspection methods.

Why is automation acceptable in trucking but unacceptable in rail? The distinction, once again, is less about safety than politics. Where technological change threatens existing, strongly pro-labor work rules, opposition is intense. Where resisting new tech is less practical, the conversation shifts to something else. That may be understandable from a labor-relations perspective, but legislators should not treat it as a sound basis for national transportation policy.

The broader bill suffers from a litany of problems. Together, they point toward the same influence issues.

Fiscal conservatives, assuming there are still enough of them to be heard in Congress, should be particularly concerned about a package that authorizes roughly $580 billion in spending while doing little to address the long-term insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund. Legislators are instead choosing to promise more spending while avoiding the structural reforms necessary to put transportation funding on sustainable footing.

Meanwhile, they inserted a controversial new federal registration fee structure for electric and hybrid vehicles. Progressives oppose it because they believe it discourages EV adoption. Many conservatives oppose it because it expands federal fee collection and further entangles state governments in administering federal policy.

The growing coalition of critics extends well beyond those issues. Transit advocates argue the bill underfunds transit and passenger rail. Environmental groups oppose permitting and climate-related provisions. Labor unions object to autonomous-vehicle language. Federalism-minded Republicans question federal preemption provisions.

When a bill generates opposition from nearly every direction, it is worth asking whether legislators are solving problems or trying to accommodate too many competing interests.

That’s the deeper lesson here. Congress increasingly treats transportation policy as an exercise in stakeholder management. Instead of establishing clear goals and allowing innovation and competition to deliver results, legislators pile on mandates, carveouts, protections and special-interest provisions designed to satisfy whichever constituency has secured a seat at the table.

The result is predictable: Every organized interest receives something of value. Taxpayers inherit the costs.

The Senate will have an opportunity to reject this approach. Senators should evaluate every one of the House’s mandates and favors using a simple test: Does it produce a measurable public benefit that likely exceeds its cost? If the answer is no, it should be removed.

Transportation policy should be guided by safety outcomes, economic efficiency and fiscal discipline — not by whichever stakeholders have the strongest lobbying operations. Unfortunately, Washington still struggles to distinguish between the public interest and the interests of those who are in the room.

Written by Veronique de Rugy

Official website; http://twitter.com/veroderugy