

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Hate crime statistics released today by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation show a continued upward trend in certain categories of
bias motivated violence in 2007 and confirm the need for a more
vigorous response by the federal government, including enactment of the
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act (S.1105, H.R. 1592) and
other steps outlined in a recent report by Human Rights First.
"There have been some glaring omissions in the federal government's
response to a serious and growing problem of hate crime violence," said
Tad Stahnke, the Director of Human Rights First's Fighting
Discrimination Program. "The United States has both legislation and an
extensive monitoring system on hate crimes. However, several steps
should be taken to help ensure that the climate surrounding illegal
immigration does not contribute to impunity for those who perpetrate
violence targeting them and to strengthen the federal and local law
enforcement response to all hate crime, including increased violence
based on sexual orientation and gender identity bias."
Although the overall number of reported hate crime incidents
remained steady from 2006 to 2007, of particular note in the 2007
statistics are continued increases in reported violent attacks against
persons of Hispanic origin and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
(LGBT) persons. According to the new FBI report, there were 595
incidents of anti-Hispanic hate crimes in 2007, an increase of 3.3%
from the 576 incidents reported in 2006. There was also a rise in the
number of hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation bias, with a 5.5%
increase in incidents from 2006 to 2007 (from 1195 to 1265 incidents).
This confirms trends reported in Human Rights First's 2008 Hate Crime Survey.
Anti-Hispanic violence rose by 35 percent between 2003 and 2006,
according to an analysis conducted by the Southern Poverty Law Center
of FBI crime reports; anti-Hispanic incidents rose in 2007 in both the
State of California and Los Angeles County, according to official
statistics. The violence targets both U.S. citizens and foreigners, and
both legal and illegal immigrants, and has taken place amidst recent
mainstreaming of anti-immigrant rhetoric and fears. Many incidents
appear to target those perceived to be or provide assistance to illegal
immigrants.
Sexual orientation bias crimes are also on the rise, and continue to
be characterized by a high level of violence. Five of the nine reported
hate crime killings were on the basis of sexual orientation bias. There
is also a higher proportion of personal assaults than in other
categories of hate crime; over 47% of sexual orientation bias offenses
were violent assaults, in comparison to 31% for all hate crimes.
Nongovernmental monitors reported a substantial increase in 2007 of
violent attacks on LGBT people. The National Coalition of Anti-Violence
Programs (NCAVP) and more than thirty of its member organizations
across the country reported a 24 percent increase in incidents of
violence against LGBT people in 2007, compared to 2006. They noted that
murders more than doubled from 10 in 2006 to 21 in 2007.
In order for the U.S. government to more effectively address hate
crime, Human Rights First recommends the following (the complete list
of recommendations is below):
Although there was a slight increase in the number of police
jurisdictions that took part in the reporting - an important step
toward an understanding of the full extent of the problem - the fact
that almost 15,500 (out of a total of 17,500) still don't report at all
or report zero hate crimes, suggest that these figures represent only a
portion of the actual number. For example, three hate crimes were
reported in Georgia and none were reported in Mississippi for 2007,
where the participating law enforcement agencies covered only 7% and
24% of the total population of the states, respectively.
"The United States can show continued international leadership on
hate crimes by enhancing its response at home," added Stahnke. Human
Rights First's recent report on the United States is part of its 2008 Hate Crime Survey,
which concluded that incidents of violent hate crime targeting a number
of minority groups are increasing or occurring at historically high
levels in many of the 56 countries in Europe, North America, and the
former Soviet Union that comprise the Organization of Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), as governments fail to adequately combat
such crimes. That full report is available at: https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/discrimination/pages.aspx?id=157
Human Rights First is a non-profit, nonpartisan international human rights organization based in New York and Washington D.C. Human Rights First believes that building respect for human rights and the rule of law will help ensure the dignity to which every individual is entitled and will stem tyranny, extremism, intolerance, and violence.
"We will organize to win and defend the agenda that resonated with voters: free childcare, fast and free buses, freezing the rent and building affordable homes, and more," says Our Time for an Affordable NYC.
On the heels of over 1 million New Yorkers voting for Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's affordability agenda, his allies have launched an organization that aims to keep the movement behind the democratic socialist's successful campaign active during his term.
"We will organize to win and defend the agenda that resonated with voters: free childcare, fast and free buses, freezing the rent and building affordable homes, and more," says the website of the new 501(c)(4), Our Time for an Affordable NYC.
"We'll be door-knocking, phone-banking, communicating, and organizing at the neighborhood, city, and state level," the site explains. "To get it done, we'll collaborate with community organizations, movement groups, and unions that have been doing this work and share a commitment to the affordability agenda."
While Our Time embraces Mamdani's messages and policies, it is distinct from the mayor-elect and his campaign, and "was legally incorporated last week before his victory over former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo," the New York Times reported Thursday. The newspaper noted Mamdani's comments about the group during a press conference earlier this week.
"I will always celebrate anyone who is looking to build on the incredible, amazing grassroots enthusiasm of our campaign," he said. "This work was not simply to win an election but transform our city, and that means it has to continue."
Mamdani "also encouraged supporters to join the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, his political home," according to City & State New York. Our Time's leadership has ties to the NYC-DSA, which played a key role in mobilizing support for Mamdani during the campaign.
Our Time's site names five people leading the organization: executive director Jeremy Freeman, field manager Magdalena Morańda, senior adviser Susan Kang, and board members David Turner and Batul Hassan.
"Our goal is to channel the energy of a volunteer base towards winning the affordability agenda, and doing so at this scale is unprecedented in New York City history," Freeman told the Times. "In developing the organization, we're looking carefully at past examples both positive and negative, and we'll certainly be sure to avoid the pitfalls of any similar efforts by past administrations, and we'll be as transparent as possible in our practices."
The group's creation has prompted comparisons to Our Revolution, which launched after the 2016 presidential run of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), one of Mamdani's most prominent supporters.
Some political observers have also framed it as what former Democratic President Barack Obama should have done after winning his first term. The American Prospect's executive editor, David Dayen, said that "this is the opposite of what Obama did to his volunteer base after 2008."
There's also the cautionary tale of former NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio's Campaign for One New York, which shut down in 2016 amid alarm over its finances, including donations from entities that had business before or labor contracts with City Hall.
Our Time is "a fully independent organization," and it is "not asking for dues or formal membership," the group's site says. "We are accepting donations from individuals, foundations, and other philanthropic organizations. All donations greater than $1,000 will be disclosed publicly on our website."
Freeman told the Times that the group will not be accepting money from corporations or firms with business before the city.
"Our victory was historic, but the campaign for an affordable New York City is just beginning," Our Time's site says. "Even as billionaires have made their opposition clear, more than 100,000 volunteers helped win this election, and they want to keep going. Our Time can be a vehicle for continued engagement—a way for folks to plug in and stay active while they find a long-term political home."
The group is coming together as Mamdani supporters, skeptics, and critics all wonder how much of his popular platform he'll actually be able to accomplish after the state assemblyman is sworn in as mayor next January.
Time on Tuesday published a detailed look at the barriers Mamdani will face in his mission to deliver a rent freeze, more affordable housing, city-run grocery stores, fare-free buses, no-cost childcare, a higher minimum wage, and taxes targeting the 1%.
"Raising taxes would require approval from the Democratic-controlled state Legislature and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul," Time noted. "Hochul endorsed Mamdani but expressed fears that significant tax hikes would force wealthy residents out of the city, ultimately opposing his proposed tax increases."
After Mamdani's Tuesday victory, longtime labor organizers Peter Olney and Rand Wilson wrote in an op-ed that during his four-year term, "every Republican and corporate Democrat will do everything possible to ensure he fails, to discredit his socialist platform."
"Any success he achieves as mayor will be due to the strength of the movement that prevailed in the primary and continued to grow for his election in November," they stressed. "If that movement stays mobilized, continues to grow, and delivers for New York’s working class, it will be an inspiring political model that our labor movement should support and attempt to replicate in other US metropolitan areas."
"Under Gov. Hochul’s leadership, New Yorkers’ voices were silenced to appease President Trump’s fossil fuel priorities," said one critic.
Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul came under fire Friday after her administration approved a previously rejected fracked gas pipeline over the objection of climate and conservation campaigners.
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) announced approval of permits including a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the proposed Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) pipeline. Commonly known as the Williams Pipeline, the expansion project involves the construction of a 23.5-mile fracked gas conduit beneath the Raritan Bay and Lower New York Bay. The pipeline would carry hydraulically fractured gas from Pennsylvania across New Jersey and into New York.
“As governor, a top priority is making sure the lights and heat stay on for all New Yorkers as we face potential energy shortages downstate as soon as next summer,” Hochul said in a statement. “We need to govern in reality.”
DEC assured that it is "committed to closely monitoring the project’s construction and adherence to all permit conditions to ensure the full protection of New York’s waterways."
This, after the agency twice denied water quality certification for the same pipeline for failing to demonstrate compliance with state quality standards.
In 2020, the DEC under then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is also a Democrat, denied certification for the project after finding that the proposed pipeline was likely to harm water quality by stirring up sediment and other contaminants that “would disturb sensitive habitats, including shellfish beds.”
The advocacy group New York Communities for Change noted in a fact sheet that the project "would jack up already-high utility bills" and be a "super-polluter" that would "generate about 8 million tons of additional climate-heating and asthma-inducing air pollution each year."
"The pollution would also foul our water, including stirring up toxic waste during the construction process," the group added. "The project would especially hurt people on the Rockaways, a majority African American community, where it would terminate."
BREAKING: Hochul just did Trump’s bidding by approving the massive Williams fracked gas pipeline.Hochul’s dirty deal with Trump will jack up our utility bills, pollute our air & water, and cook the climate.Join us at 3:30 outside her office 919 3rd Avenue to protest TODAY.
— New York Communities for Change (@nychange.bsky.social) November 7, 2025 at 9:22 AM
However, Williams Companies, the group behind the project, filed a new application this year amid pressure from President Donald Trump for Hochul to green-light construction.
“Today’s decision by New York is a complete reversal of their two previous determinations to reject this pipeline project over threats to the state’s water resources," Mark Izeman, senior attorney for environmental health at the Natural Resources Defense Counsel, said in a statement Friday.
"The pipeline proposal is exactly the same, and state and federal law is the same, so there is no legal or scientific basis for taking a 180 degree turn from the state’s past denials," Izeman continued. "If built, the pipeline would tear up 23 miles of the New York-New Jersey Harbor floor; destroy marine habitats; and dredge up mercury, copper, PCBs, and other toxins."
The project "would also harm sensitive shellfish beds and fishing areas, and undercut billions of dollars New York has invested to improve water quality in the harbor," he added.
Earthjustice New York policy advocate Liz Moran said that “it is shameful that Gov. Hochul and her Department of Environmental Conservation made a decision that fails to protect New Yorkers and our precious waterways."
"We are reviewing the certificate and evaluating our options," Moran added. "The certificate application hasn’t changed since being previously rejected by the DEC, water quality standards haven’t changed—only the political context has changed, and that’s not a basis to completely reverse course.”
Sane Energy Project director Kim Fraczek also condemned the approval, asserting that "under Gov. Hochul’s leadership, New Yorkers’ voices were silenced to appease President Trump’s fossil fuel priorities."
"Hochul has made it abundantly clear that she will abdicate her responsibility as governor, violate New York’s signature climate law, dismiss the environmental and affordability struggles facing New Yorkers, and bend the knee to Trump for political expediency," Fraczek added.
Roger Downs, conservation director at the Sierra Club’s Atlantic chapter, said, "It is truly a sad day when New York leaders cave to the Trump administration and agree to build pipelines that New Yorkers do not need and cannot afford."
“This decision is an affront to clean water, energy affordability, and a stable climate," Downs added.
Food & Water Watch New York state director Laura Shindell called Hochul's approval "a betrayal of New Yorkers."
“In granting the certification for this pipeline, Gov. Hochul has not only sided with Trump, she’s fast-tracked his agenda," she continued. "Hochul has shown New Yorkers she’d prefer to do Trump’s dirty work rather than protect our waterways from pollution."
"She hasn’t kept her promises to fight against skyrocketing energy bills or the climate crisis," Shindell added. "But New Yorkers will fight Hochul’s dirty pipeline every step of the way—alongside our communities—until it is stopped for good.”
"The administration’s legal maneuver sends a clear and devastating message: that the well-being of America’s most vulnerable is not important," said the president of the Food Research & Action Center.
The Trump administration will not give poor Americans food assistance without a fight.
Instead of following a federal judge’s ruling Thursday that ordered officials to release Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funds to 42 million Americans by the next day, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked an appeals court to immediately block the ruling on Friday.
The Trump administration has argued that due to the government shutdown, the SNAP program, which provides food assistance to those making 130% of the federal poverty line or less, functionally does not exist.
In an emergency request to the 1st Circuit Court of the United States, the DOJ called the lower court's ruling, "unprecedented" and argued that it makes "a mockery of the separation of powers.”
Furthering what has been widely interpreted as an effort to pressure Democrats to cave on their demands in the government shutdown, the appeal stated that the lapse in SNAP funding was caused by “congressional failure, and... can only be solved by congressional action.”
US District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island, in his second ruling against the administration's efforts to choke off SNAP benefits, wrote the previous day that the administration's plan to partially fund the program was insufficient. The previous week, McConnell had ruled that the administration had to tap a $5 billion contingency fund to fund the program and make up for the shortfall by drawing from other sources.
The administration agreed to use the contingency fund but offered a plan that fell several billion dollars short of fully funding the program and would have amounted to a 61% benefit cut for the average SNAP recipient, leaving millions without benefits altogether, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
While the administration has sought to pin the blame for funding lapses on Democrats in Congress and has asserted that its hands are tied, McConnell described the administration's maneuvering as a deliberate political stunt.
"This is a problem that could have and should have been avoided," McConnell said. “The defendants failed to consider the practical consequences associated with this decision to only partially fund SNAP... It’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here."
He added that Trump had essentially telegraphed his plan to defy the court order over the weekend, writing on Truth Social that “SNAP payments will be given only when the government opens.”
This, along with messages on the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) website blaming Democrats for the lapse in funding, McConnell suggested, was evidence that “SNAP benefits are being withheld for political reasons.”
“Children are immediately at risk of going hungry,” McConnell said. “This should never happen in America.”
More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the SNAP program, 39% of whom are children. As the CBPP report explained, families with children would likely be those hardest hit under Trump's partial funding proposal.
"Nearly 1.2 million SNAP households with roughly 4.9 million people—roughly 1 in 9 SNAP recipients—will receive zero benefits because their normal benefit amount is less than the planned benefit reduction," it says. "Only one-or two-person households receive a minimum benefit under SNAP rules, leaving some households with three or more members—which are primarily households with children—at risk of receiving nothing."
The USDA has also issued a warning to grocery stores telling them it is illegal for them to offer special discounts to SNAP recipients hurt by the freeze, even though the government is allowed to grant them waivers. On Thursday, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a bill that would allow grocery stores to voluntarily offer discounts to SNAP recipients whenever their benefits are affected by a government shutdown.
“Donald Trump is the most powerful person in the world,” Wyden said. “Only a monster would use that power to deny help to millions of families that don’t know where their next meal is coming from.”
As the CPBB has noted, contrary to its claims, nothing is stopping the Trump administration from transferring funds from other food assistance programs to fund SNAP fully. It has already done this twice to sustain the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which a court ruled was legal.
"Instead of using the funding that has been readily available to feed people, this administration continues to fight to deny tens of millions from accessing the nutrition they need," said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center. "For some unfathomable reason, the Trump administration wants to punish the 42 million people, including children, working parents, older adults, people with disabilities, and veterans, who rely on SNAP to put food on the table."
She added that "at a time when food insecurity is rising due to increasing grocery prices, the administration’s legal maneuver sends a clear and devastating message: that the well-being of America’s most vulnerable is not important."