

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.

Members of Lebanon's parliament should vote to end restrictions on
Palestinian refugees' rights to own property and work, Human Rights
Watch said today. The Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) introduced a
bill on June 15, 2010, that would cancel prohibitions on property
ownership and social security benefits for Palestinians, and ease
restrictions on their right to work.
Following a heated debate, the speaker of the house, Nabih Berri,
referred the bill to the parliament's Administration and Justice
Committee for further study. The full parliament will vote on it in a
month. The National Syrian Socialist Party (NSSP) says it plans to
introduce a second bill in the coming days that would go even further
in easing restrictions on Palestinian refugees.
"Lebanon has marginalized Palestinian refugees for too long,"
said Nadim Houry, Beirut director at Human Rights Watch. "Parliament
should seize this opportunity to turn the page and end discrimination
against Palestinians."
Lebanon's estimated 300,000 Palestinian refugees live in
appalling social and economic conditions - most of them in crowded
camps that lack essential infrastructure. In 2001, Parliament passed a
law prohibiting Palestinians from owning property, a right they had for
decades. Lebanese law also restricts their ability to work in many
areas. In 2005, Lebanon eliminated a ban on Palestinians holding most
clerical and technical positions, provided they obtain a temporary work
permit from the Labor Ministry, but more than 20 high-level professions
remain off-limits to Palestinians.
Few Palestinians have benefited from the 2005 reform, though. In
2009, only 261 of more than 145,679 permits issued to non-Lebanese were
for Palestinians. Civil society groups say many Palestinians choose not
to apply because they cannot afford the fees and see no reason to pay a
portion of their salary toward the National Social Security Fund, since
Lebanese law bars Palestinians from receiving social security benefits.
Many Lebanese employers are also unwilling to support Palestinian
workers in getting a work permit.
The proposed law would grant Palestinians the right to obtain
social security benefits and end-of-service compensation, and allow
them to bring complaints before the labor arbitration courts. However,
it would keep the work permit system for clerical jobs in place and not
address the ban on Palestinians working in certain professions,
including law, medicine, and engineering. For these jobs, membership in
the relevant syndicate is required - and most syndicates condition
membership for foreigners on reciprocity in their home country. This
effectively bars the stateless Palestinians.
The second bill expected to be introduced would go further to
address these exclusions. It would exempt Palestinian refugees
registered in Lebanon from the requirement of obtaining a work permit
altogether and would grant Palestinians the right to join all
professional syndicates organized by law.
Reforms to labor laws to end discrimination against Palestinian
refugees in all professions are essential to improving their dire
situation in Lebanon, Human Rights Watch said. According to the United
Nations Relief and Works Agency, the organization set up to address the
needs of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and elsewhere, Palestinian
refugees in Lebanon have the highest proportion of special hardship
cases among those in any country in the region.
An extensive study by the Norwegian social welfare research
organization Fafo found that just 15 percent of adult Palestinians have
employment contracts. Forced to work illegally and without legal
protection, Palestinians face severe discrimination in wages and
hiring. Many employers pay them less than their Lebanese colleagues, or
refuse to hire Palestinians.
"If there is a work shortage, they will hire you, [but] because
you're Palestinian and it's not allowed, they will pay you half," one
Palestinian told Human Rights Watch. As Palestinians, he added, "We are
not asking for money, we are asking for the right to work, to live in
dignity."
Increasingly, Lebanese politicians have begun to voice support
for providing Palestinians their basic rights. In December, Lebanon's
unity government adopted a ministerial declaration that promised to
provide Palestinians' "humanitarian and social rights" in Lebanon. And
in January, Labor Minister Boutros Harb told a gathering at the General
Labor Federation that, "Palestinians must be granted their basic civil
rights in Lebanon until they return to their homeland."
"It is time to turn words into actions," Houry said. "The coming
weeks will make it clear whether Lebanon's politicians are engaging in
empty rhetoric or whether they are truly committed to the rights of the
Palestinians."
Politicians from several parties have echoed these calls. During
the debate in parliament on June 15, Prime Minister Saad Hariri said,
"We have a historic opportunity to vote on the proposal; there are
people in need."
Critics of the bill, even as they urged caution, agreed. Lebanese
Forces member George Adwan said, "It is unacceptable for Palestinians
not to get their rights, on the basis of our humanity and commitment to
their cause, as well as the situation in the camps."
And a Free Patriotic Movement member, Alain Aoun, agreed, saying, "We cannot deny anyone in Lebanon their human rights."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"Steve Bannon motivating Democratic voters," said one historian in response to comments by the former Trump White House advisor.
Far-right podcaster and former top presidential advisor Steve Bannon told a crowd of aspiring conservative staffers on Capitol Hill this week that the job of Republicans between now and the midterm election next year is to seize complete control of government institutions and turn as many of President Donald Trump's executive orders as possible into law as a way to avoid politic defeat in the coming years and, ultimately, keep MAGA loyalists from being tried and sent to jail.
"I'll tell you right, as God as my witness, if we lose the midterms and we lose 2028, some in this room are going to prison," Bannon told the crowd Wednesday at an awards event hosted by the Conservative Partnership Academy, a group that offers training and certifications to aspiring right-wing ideologues working in politics and government.
Bannon, who has already served time in prison for refusing to submit to a congressional subpoena related to his role as a top aide to Trump during his first term, included himself among those who might be targeted if Republicans lost power.
In his remarks, Bannon said Tuesday's election results in New York City, Virginia, New Jersey, and elsewhere—where Democrats swept the GOP—should be seen as a warning to Trump's MAGA base, but called for an intensification of the agenda, not a retreat.
Steve Bannon: If we lose the midterms and we lose 2028, some in this room are going to prison, myself included.
pic.twitter.com/O1iyPipz0n
— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) November 6, 2025
"They're not gonna stop," Bannon said of Democrats and progressives aligned against Trump's authoritarian push and Republican economic policies that have focused on lavishing ever-larger tax cuts for corporations and the rich while gutting government programs, including cuts to Medicaid, food assistance for the poor, devastating environmental policies, and dismantling of healthcare subsidies leading to a surge in monthly premiums for millions of families.
Trump's opponents, warned Bannon, are "getting more and more and more radical, and we have to counter that."
His advice to Republicans in power and the right-wing movement that supports them is to counter "with more intense action" and more "urgency" before it's too late. "We're burning daylight," Bannon said. "We have to codify what Trump has done by executive order."
In what seemed like a reference to Trump's recent talk of going "nuclear" on the filibuster in the US Senate and other efforts, Bannon said, "We have to get beyond these structural barriers" in Washington, DC, that he believes are hindering the president from consolidating his power even further.
Speaking about discussions behind the scenes, Bannon said he has been in touch with Republicans in the Senate who he says are asking him to go through for them what he means and that in the coming days people may be surprised by who "in the conservative movement" are coming around to his thinking, mentioning "institutionalists" like Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as those he's been speaking with.
"These are what I would call heavy-hitters on the limited-government constitutionalists, in our movement," Bannon said of other unnamed individuals, "and they're about to come out in the next couple of days and make this argument because I said, 'Look, we have to understand that if we don't this to the maximum—the maximalist strategy—now, with a sense of urgency, and in doing this, seize the institutions... if we don't do this now, we're going to lose this chance forever, because you're never going to have another Trump."
In an interview with Politico following Tuesday's elections, Bannon said the win by democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani to become New York City's next mayor "should be a wakeup call" to Trump's right-wing nationalist movement. "These are very serious people," Bannon said of Mamdani and others who support his affordability agenda that focuses on the needs of working people, "and they need to be addressed seriously."
As such, Bannon called for the Justice Department, the State Department, and the Department of Homeland Security to target Mamdani specifically by going after his US citizenship and calling for him to be deported. Mamdani is a naturalized US citizen who came to the United States with his parents when he was seven years old.
As the video clip of Bannon's remarks about jail time if the Republicans lose in the upcoming elections made the rounds online Thursday, reactions were predictable along partisan lines.
"Steve Bannon motivating Democratic voters," said Aviel Roshwald, a Georgetown University professor of history with a focus on nationalist movements.
Bannon's call for "seizing the institutions" has been a mainstay on his popular War Room podcast for months, but critics warn that his open embrace of the demand should not make it any less shocking or worrisome.
"He’s preparing his audience to see violence and institutional takeover as 'necessary.' And he’s counting on Democrats and independents being too divided or too polite to call it what it is," warned Christopher Webb, a left-leaning political writer on his Substack page last month.
Bannon and his allies, continued Webb, "do not give a damn about the law, the Constitution, or democracy. They only care about control. And if we keep treating their words as 'just talk,' it will be too late when it stops being talk."
He concluded: "This isn’t going to end well."
"Shame on the Republicans who continue to shirk their duty and deny their constituents a voice," said one retired US Army general.
Senate Republicans on Thursday rejected a bipartisan war powers resolution aimed at stopping the Trump administration from continuing its bombing of alleged drug boats or attacking Venezuela without lawmakers' assent, as required by law.
US senators voted 51-49 against the measure introduced last month by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). Two Republicans—Paul and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—joined Democrats and Independents in voting for the resolution.
"It's sad that only two Republicans voted in favor," Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the peace group CodePink, said on X following the vote. "So much for 'America First' and for upholding their constitutional authority by stopping the executive branch from taking illegal military actions."
Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, a senior adviser to the group VoteVets, said in a statement that President Donald Trump "is waging a war that he unilaterally declared and refuses to get approved by the American people via their representation in Congress."
"It isn't just criminal and unconstitutional, it betrays those who did fight on battlefields and spilled blood to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," Eaton added. "Shame on the Republicans who continue to shirk their duty and deny their constituents a voice."
VoteVets' MG Paul Eaton (Ret) blasts GOP Senators for rejecting Senator Tim Kaine's War Powers Resolution. He says Trump is waging a "criminal and unconstitutional" war and betraying the principle that Americans shouldn't die without having a say in the matter, through their elected representatives.
[image or embed]
— VoteVets (@votevets.org) November 6, 2025 at 3:06 PM
The War Powers Resolution was passed over then-President Richard Nixon's veto in 1973 to affirm and empower Congress to check the president’s war-making authority. The law requires the president to report any military action to Congress within 48 hours and requires congressional approval of troop deployments exceeding 60 days.
It's been 63 days since the first-known Trump-ordered the first strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. At least 67 people have been killed in 16 such reported strikes since September 2, according to the Trump administration, which argues that it does not need congressional approval for the attacks.
Speaking on the Senate floor ahead of Thursday's vote, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said:
As we speak, America’s largest aircraft carrier, the Gerald Ford, is on its way to the Caribbean. It is part of the largest military buildup in our hemisphere that we’ve seen in decades. According to press reports, Donald Trump is considering military action on Venezuelan territory. But it also sounds like nobody really knows what the plan is, because like so many other things with Donald Trump, he keeps changing his mind. Who knows what he will do tomorrow?
Trump has also approved covert CIA action in Venezuela and has threatened to attack targets inside the oil-rich country. The government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro recently claimed that his country’s security forces had captured a group of CIA-aligned mercenaries engaged in a “false-flag attack” against the nation.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said after Thursday's vote: “Today, I was proud to once again cast my vote for Senator Kaine’s war powers resolution. President Trump is acting against the Constitution by moving toward imminent attacks against Venezuela without congressional authorization. In doing so, he is risking endless military conflict with Venezuela and steamrolling over the right of every American to have a say in the use of US military force."
“Asserting Congress’s constitutional role in war is not some procedural detail; it is fundamental. Our government is based on checks and balances, and Congress’s authority to declare war is a core principle of what makes America a democracy," Markey added. "Going to war without consulting the people is what monarchies and dictatorships do. Strong democracies must be willing to debate these issues in the light of day.”
"Americans understand we're living in a rigged economy," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "Together, we can and must change that."
Elon Musk is the world's richest person, with an estimated net worth of nearly $500 billion, but the Tesla CEO could become the world's first trillionaire, thanks to a controversial pay package approved Thursday by the electric vehicle company's shareholders.
Ahead of the vote, a coalition of labor unions and progressive advocacy groups launched the "Take Back Tesla" campaign, urging shareholders to reject the package for its CEO, who spent much of this year spearheading President Donald Trump's so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which prompted nationwide protests targeting the company.
Musk's nearly $1 trillion package would be the biggest corporate compensation plan in history if he gets the full amount by boosting share value "eightfold over the next decade" and staying at Tesla for at least that long. It was approved at the company's annual meeting after the billionaire's previous payout, worth $56 billion, was invalidated by a judge.
The approval vote sparked another wave of intense criticism from progressive groups and politicians who opposed it—including on Musk's own social media platform, X.
"Musk, who spent $270 million to get Trump elected, is now in line to become a trillionaire," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote on X. "Meanwhile, 60% of our people are living paycheck to paycheck. Americans understand we're living in a rigged economy. Together, we can and must change that."
The vote came during the longest-ever federal government shutdown, which has sparked court battles over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. A judge on Thursday ordered the full funding of 42 million low-income Americans' November SNAP benefits, but it is not yet clear whether the Trump administration will comply.
The Sunrise Movement, a youth-led climate group, noted the uncertainty over federal food aid in response to the Tesla vote, saying: "Meanwhile, millions of kids are losing SNAP benefits and healthcare because of Musk's allies in DC. In a country rich enough to have trillionaires, there's no excuse for letting kids go hungry."
Robert Reich, a former labor secretary who's now a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said: "Remember: Wealth cannot be separated from power. We've seen how the extreme concentration of wealth is distorting our politics, rigging our markets, and granting unprecedented power to a handful of billionaires. Be warned."
In remarks to the Washington Post, another professor warned that other companies could soon follow suit:
Rohan Williamson, professor of finance at Georgetown University, said Musk's argument for commanding such a vast paycheck is largely unique to Tesla—though similar deals may become more prevalent in an age of founder-led startups.
"No matter how you slice it, it's a lot," Williamson said. But the deal seeks to emphasize Musk’s central—even singular—role in the company's rise, and its fate going forward.
"I drove this to where it is and without me it's going to fail," Williamson said, summarizing Musk's argument.
"No CEO is 'worth' $1 trillion. Full stop," the advocacy group Patriotic Millionaires argued Wednesday, ahead of the vote. "We need legislative solutions like the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act, which would raise taxes on corporations that pay their executives more than 50 times the wages of their workers."