May, 11 2017, 11:30am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Email:,press@lawyerscommittee.org
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Condemns Launch of Commission to Review Unfounded Claims of Voter Fraud
WASHINGTON
Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, released the following statement Thursday in response to alarming reports that President Trump will launch a commission to review his unfounded claims of voter suppression. According to reports, the commission will be co-led by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a partisan advocate for voter suppression laws:
"In no uncertain terms we condemn the launch of this so-called Presidential Commission on Election Integrity. President Trump is trying to create a distraction from actual threats to our democracy, such as ongoing voter suppression and Russia's interference in the 2016 election.
"When Attorney General Jeff Sessions led a similar effort as a former prosecutor in Alabama, it had a chilling effect on the black vote. Now, President Trump is seeking the counsel of Kansas Secretary of State Kobach, who has a proven record of advocating for discriminatory and burdensome policies that prevent members of minority communities from exercising their right to vote."
The Lawyers' Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar's leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity - work that continues to be vital today.
(202) 662-8600LATEST NEWS
Trustee Reports Show Medicare, Social Security Must Be Defended From Trump
"The future of these earned benefit programs depends on who is elected this fall—both as president and to Congress," said one campaigner.
May 06, 2024
Advocacy groups, congressional Democrats, and U.S. President Joe Biden's reelection campaign on Monday pointed to new government reports on Medicare and Social Security as proof that the key programs must be protected from Republican attacks.
The annual trustee reports show that Social Security is projected to be fully funded until 2035, a year later than previously thought, while Medicare is expected to be fully funded until 2036, five years beyond the earlier projection.
Former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee to face Biden in November, "proposed cutting Social Security and Medicare every year he was in office, he's said repeatedly he would cut them, his allies openly plan to target them, and just this weekend he dismissed them as bribes," noted James Singer, a spokesperson for the Democrat's campaign.
"Let's be clear, Donald Trump will steal the hard-earned Social Security and Medicare benefits Americans have been paying into their entire lives and he'll use it to fund tax cuts for rich people like him," Singer warned. "President Biden keeps his promises. He has and will continue to protect Social Security and Medicare from MAGA Republican efforts to cut them—Donald Trump won't."
"No doubt we will hear cries from so-called 'fiscal conservatives' that Social Security is going 'bankrupt,' supposedly requiring Draconian measures—which couldn't be further than the truth."
Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said Monday that "current and future American retirees should feel confident about both Medicare and Social Security, which [are] stronger due to the robust economy under President Biden. But the future of these earned benefit programs depends on who is elected this fall—both as president and to Congress."
Fiesta highlighted that Biden's latest budget "calls for strengthening" the programs whereas Trump recently said that "there is a lot you can do... in terms of cutting" them and "the Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes around 80% of House Republicans, stands ready to make cuts as well."
Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, similarly declared that "today's report shows that our Social Security system is benefiting from the Biden economy. Due to robust job growth, low unemployment, and rising wages, more people than ever are contributing to Social Security and earning its needed protections."
"That said, Congress should take action sooner rather than later to ensure that Social Security can pay full benefits for generations to come, along with expanding Social Security's modest benefits," she argued, noting various plans from Democrats in Congress that "are paid for by requiring millionaires and billionaires to contribute more of their fair share."
Unlike Democratic leaders in Washington, D.C., "Republicans want to cut benefits despite overwhelming opposition from the American people," Altman said of federal lawmakers and the former president. Additionally, "Trump plans to sharply restrict immigration. This would harm Social Security by reducing the number of workers paying in."
"The United States is the wealthiest nation on Earth at the wealthiest moment in our history. We can use that wealth to protect and expand Social Security, or to provide yet more tax handouts to billionaires," she concluded. "This report is a reminder that the next decade is a crucial one for Social Security's future. Americans should vote accordingly this November."
Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, also asserted that "Congress must act NOW to strengthen Social Security for the 67 million Americans who depend on it. We cannot afford to wait to take action until the trust fund is mere months from insolvency, as Congress did in 1983."
According to Richtman:
No doubt we will hear cries from so-called 'fiscal conservatives' that Social Security is going 'bankrupt,' supposedly requiring Draconian measures—which couldn't be further than the truth. Revenue always will flow into Social Security from workers' payroll contributions, so the program will never be 'broke.' But no one wants seniors to suffer an automatic 17% benefit cut in 2035, so Congress must act deliberately, but not recklessly. A bad deal driven by cuts to earned benefits could be worse than no deal at all.
We strongly support revenue-side solutions that would bring more money into the trust fund by demanding that the wealthy pay their fair share. Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) has offered legislation that would do just that—by maintaining the current payroll wage cap (currently set at $168,600), but subjecting wages $400,000 and above to payroll taxes, as well—and dedicating some of high earners' investment income to Social Security. Rep. Larson's bill also would provide seniors with a much-needed benefit boost.
Larson was among the lawmakers who responded to Monday's Social Security report by demanding urgent action. The Democrat also called out his Republican colleagues for pushing cuts and trying to "ram their dangerous plan through an undemocratic and unaccountable so-called 'fiscal commission,'" which critics have dubbed a "death panel."
"The Social Security 2100 Act is co-sponsored by nearly 200 House Democrats and would improve benefits across the board while extending solvency until 2066, while Donald Trump and House Republicans continue their calls to slash Americans' hard-earned benefits!" Larson said. "By contrast, President Joe Biden and Democrats are working to strengthen Social Security, not cut it."
Co-sponsors of Larson's bill include Congressman Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), ranking member of the House Budget Committee.
"Social Security is the greatest anti-poverty program in history, and ensuring its solvency for future generations has been one of my top priorities in Congress," Boyle said Monday, promoting the Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act, his bill with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). "Unfortunately, while Democrats and President Biden want to protect Social Security and Medicare, Republicans have made clear they want to tear them down."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'War Criminals': IDF Strikes Rafah After Hamas Agrees to Cease-Fire
"Why?" asked Israeli lawmaker Ofer Cassif. "Because killing Palestinians is more important for the Israeli government than saving Israelis."
May 06, 2024
Israel on Monday launched long-awaited strikes on Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip despite Hamas publicly confirming it agreed to a cease-fire and hostage release proposal from Egyptian and Qatari mediators.
The Israel Defense Forces said on social media that "the IDF is currently conducting targeted strikes against Hamas terror targets in eastern Rafah," the city to which over a million Palestinians have fled since October 7, when Israel launched a retaliatory war that has already killed at least 34,735 people in Gaza and wounded another 78,108.
Earlier Monday, the IDF had dropped leaflets directing residents and refugees in that part of Rafah to relocate to a strip along Gaza's coast, ignoring warnings from the international community and humanitarian groups that a full-scale Israeli attack on the crowded city would further endanger civilians and relief efforts.
"It is obvious Netanyahu wants this genocidal war to continue indefinitely so that he can remain in power."
In addition to sparking outrage around the world, the Israeli government's Rafah attack and rejection of the Hamas-backed proposal was met with criticism from people across Israel. The Associated Pressreported that "thousands of Israelis rallied around the country Monday night calling for an immediate deal to release the hostages still held in the Gaza Strip."
Ofer Cassif, a member of the Knesset who was almost expelled by fellow Israeli lawmakers earlier this year for backing South Africa's ongoing genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), again called out his own government.
"Israeli tanks and infantry enter east Rafah while planes bomb from above, just hours after Hamas' decision to accept the hostages/prisoners exchange deal," Cassif said Monday. "Why? Because killing Palestinians is more important for the Israeli government than saving Israelis. War criminals!"
The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday that "the War Cabinet unanimously decided this evening Israel will continue its operation in Rafah, in order to apply military pressure on Hamas so as to advance the release of our hostages and achieve the other objectives of the war."
Along with the prime minister, Israel's War Cabinet includes Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Benny Gantz, former IDF chief of the general staff, along with three observers.
Netanyahu added that "while the Hamas proposal is far from meeting Israel's core demands, Israel will dispatch a ranking delegation to Egypt in an effort to maximize the possibility of reaching an agreement on terms acceptable to Israel."
Reutersreported that "an Israeli official said the deal was not acceptable to Israel because terms had been 'softened.'"
According to the news outlet, the first part of a three-phase plan that Hamas—which has controlled Gaza for nearly two decades—agreed to includes a 42-day pause in fighting, the release of 33 hostages held by the group and some Palestinians in Israeli jails, a partial IDF withdrawal, and free movement in the besieged enclave.
Phase two would be "another 42-day period that features an agreement to restore a 'sustainable calm' to Gaza, language that an official briefed on the talks said Hamas and Israel had agreed in order to take discussion of a 'permanent cease-fire' off the table," Reuters detailed. This phase also includes withdrawing most Israeli troops and Hamas releasing some soldiers and reservists.
The third phase would involve the exchange of bodies; reconstruction of Gaza overseen by Egypt, Qatar, and the United Nations; and ending the complete blockade on the strip, the outlet added.
Shortly before Israel's Monday night strikes on Rafah began, Stéphane Dujarric, a spokesperson for United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, said that the U.N. chief "reiterates his pressing call to both the government of Israel and the leadership of Hamas to go the extra mile needed to make an agreement come true and stop the present suffering."
Expressing concern about the then-imminent Israeli operation in Rafah, the spokesperson said that "we are already seeing movements of people—many of these people are in desperate humanitarian condition and have been repeatedly displaced. They search safety that has been so many times denied. The secretary-general reminds the parties that the protection of civilians is paramount in international humanitarian law."
Other U.N. officials have been warning of what an assault on Rafah will mean for the over 1.4 million Palestinians there, among them 600,000 children. So have humanitarian and political leaders, including U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—who on Monday urged President Joe Biden to stand by his earlier position that attacking the city was a "red line" and "end all offensive military aid to Israel."
Council on American-Islamic Relations national executive director Nihad Awad issued a similar call Monday evening, warning that "the Israeli government is hellbent on using American financial, military, and diplomatic support to ethnically cleanse what remains of Gaza and commit another massacre."
"President Biden must stand up to Benjamin Netanyahu and take concrete action to end the genocide now," Awad continued, nodding to the Israeli leader's legal trouble. The prime minister faces not only potential consequences on a global scale for what the ICJ has deemed a "plausibly" genocidal war on Gaza but also a corruption trial in his own country.
"It is obvious Netanyahu wants this genocidal war to continue indefinitely so that he can remain in power, avoid jail, and fulfill his racist, far-right Cabinet's demands for the complete destruction of Gaza and the massacre of its people," Awad said. "It is long past time for President Biden to end our nation's complicity in this 21st-century genocide."
Biden spoke with Netanyahu by phone ahead of the IDF strikes on Monday and "reiterated his clear position on Rafah," according to a White House readout. They also discussed the hostage negotiations, humanitarian aid, the Holocaust, and antisemitism.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, also suggested that the Israeli prime minister wants the bloodshed in Gaza to continue for personal reasons.
"Netanyahu does not want an end to the war because the moment the war ends, his political career ends as well. And his prison sentence will commence," said Parsi. "Yet, Biden has for seven months deferred to Netanyahu."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pulitzer Snubs Palestinian Journalists' Gaza Coverage
The Pulitzer Prize Board avoided "naming the brave Palestinian journalists who did the reporting and filming and died in record numbers," said one journalist.
May 06, 2024
In recent years, the Pulitzer Prize Board has given special recognition to the journalists of Ukraine and Afghanistan for reporting from war zones, honoring their "courage, endurance, and commitment to truthful reporting" and their ability to tell their communities' stories under "profoundly tragic and complicated circumstances."
On Monday, no such recognition was given to Palestinian reporters in Gaza, at least 92 of whom have been among more than 34,000 Palestinians killed in the enclave since Israel began its bombardment in October.
The annual journalism and literature awards included a special citation for "journalists and media workers covering the war in Gaza"—but didn't differentiate between those around the world who have spent the last seven months telling the story of Israel's escalation from the safety of far-off countries, and those struggling to report on the destruction of their own home under the constant threat of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) attacks.
"The missing word is—is always—Palestinian," said Writers Against the War on Gaza (WAWOG). "Palestinian journalists and media workers deserve, if nothing else, this recognition; and half of them are dead."
Public health writer Abdullah Shihipar noted that in 2022, the board awarded the special citation to the "journalists of Ukraine." In 2021, it recognized "women and men of Afghanistan," saying that from "staff and freelance correspondents to interpreters to drivers to hosts, courageous Afghan residents helped produce Pulitzer-winning and Pulitzer-worthy images and stories."
This year, said Intercept journalist Jeremy Scahill, giving a special citation to "'media workers covering the war in Gaza' is a way to avoid naming the brave Palestinian journalists who did the reporting and filming and died in record numbers."
Many of those killed, Scahill added, might not have been had it not been for U.S.-made weapons sold to Israel.
The Pulitzer Prize for international reporting was awarded to The New York Times "for its wide-ranging and revelatory coverage of Hamas' lethal attack in southern Israel on October 7, Israel's intelligence failures, and the Israeli military's sweeping, deadly response in Gaza."
One of the Times' most explosive articles about Israel and Gaza, "Screams Without Words," about the alleged sexual assaults of Israeli victims of the October 7 attack, was not among those submitted for consideration. The article has come under scrutiny because of the anti-Palestinian bias expressed by one of the freelance reporters who worked on it, and questions about its veracity.
WAWOG, which has started a website titledThe New York War Crimes, posted on social media that the Times should have instead been awarded the Pulitzer for "manufacturing consent."
By honoring the Times for its international reporting this year, said City University of New York sociology professor Heba Gowayed, the Pulitzer Prize "lost any credibility it ever had."
The prize is administered by Columbia University, where students have been protesting for weeks against U.S. support for the IDF and against the school's investment in companies that contract with Israel.
Last week, the university called on the New York Police Department to forcibly remove student protesters from a school building; police told student journalists they would be arrested if they left Pulitzer Hall to report on the incident. Student journalists are reportedly still being barred from campus.
Columbia, said Jack Mirkinson of The Nation, announced the Pulitzers "at the exact same time it is clamping down on the press freedom of its own students. You couldn't make it up."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular