

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.
STEPHEN ZUNES, [email]
Professor of politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco, Zunes recently wrote the piece "The Case Against Kerry," which states: "John Kerry's attacks on the International Court of Justice, his defense of Israeli occupation policies and human rights violations, and his support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq raise serious questions about his commitment to international law and treaty obligations. His false claims of Iraqi 'weapons of mass destruction' and his repeated denial of human rights abuses by allied governments well-documented by reputable monitoring groups raise serious questions about his credibility.
"In the 1980s, during the early part of his Senate career, Kerry was considered one of the more progressive members of the U.S. Senate on foreign policy. ... More recently, however, Kerry became a prominent supporter of various neoconservative initiatives. ...
"In 2002, he voted against an unsuccessful resolution authorizing the president to use force against Iraq only if the United Nations Security Council permitted such force under the UN Charter and instead voted for an alternative Republican resolution, which authorized President Bush to invade that oil-rich country unilaterally in violation of the UN Charter.
"The October 2002 war resolution backed by Kerry was not like the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution regarding Vietnam, where there was no time for reflection and debate. Kerry had been briefed by the chief UN weapons inspector and by prominent scholars of the region, who informed him of the likely absence of any of the alleged 'weapons of mass destruction' and the likely consequences of a U.S. invasion, but he voted to authorize the invasion anyway. It was not a 'mistake' or a momentary lapse of judgment. It demonstrated Kerry's dismissive attitude toward fundamental principles of international law and international treaties that prohibit aggressive war.
"Kerry and his supporters claim he does not really reject international law. They note that, in voting to authorize the invasion of Iraq, Kerry stated at that time that he expected President Bush 'to work with the United Nations Security Council and our allies ... if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.' He then promised that if President Bush failed to do so, 'I will be the first to speak out.'
"However, Senator Kerry broke that promise. When President Bush abandoned his efforts to gain United Nations Security Council authorization for the war in late February 2003 and pressed forward with plans for the invasion without a credible international coalition, Kerry remained silent. Indeed, when President Bush actually launched the invasion soon afterwards, Senator Kerry praised him, co-sponsoring a Senate resolution declaring that the invasion was 'lawful and fully authorized by the Congress' and that he 'commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President ... in the conflict with Iraq.'"
See video of some of Kerry's statements on Iraq leading to his war vote as well as the IPA news release "Kerry's Judgement Questioned Because of Pro-War Vote."
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.
"It’s a raw deal for working people: higher costs and less coverage, or no coverage at all," said Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle.
The Republican bill that's set for a vote in the US House on Wednesday would leave around 100,000 more Americans uninsured per year over the next decade, according to a new analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
The analysis published late Tuesday examines each major section of the legislation, which experts have characterized as an assortment of GOP healthcare ideas that—in combination—would do little to achieve its stated goal of "lower healthcare premiums for all."
The CBO estimates that the Republican bill, which stands no chance of passing the Senate even if it clears the House on Wednesday, would lower gross benchmark premiums by 11% on average between 2027 and 2035.
But the legislation does not extend enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies that expire at the end of the year, meaning premiums overall are poised to more than double on average in the coming year. Many Americans are expected to forgo insurance coverage entirely in the face of unaffordable premium increases.
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said Tuesday that the CBO analysis "makes clear that the bill Republican leadership wants to pass tomorrow would make a bad situation even worse," compounding the widespread damage caused by the Medicaid cuts the party approved over the summer.
"It’s a raw deal for working people: higher costs and less coverage, or no coverage at all," said Boyle. "If Republicans were serious about fixing the healthcare crisis they created, they’d work with Democrats to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits and prevent costs from rising for tens of millions of Americans.”
"While Congress heads home for the holidays, it’s leaving millions of families behind to wonder how they will make ends meet in the new year."
The CBO analysis came hours after House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) shot down a bipartisan push for a vote to extend the expiring ACA tax credits, which more than 20 million Americans relied on to afford health coverage.
But on Wednesday, four swing-district House Republicans—Brian Fitzpatrick, Rob Bresnahan, and Ryan Mackenzie of Pennsylvania and Mike Lawler of New York—revolted against the GOP leadership and signed onto a Democratic discharge petition aimed at forcing a floor vote on a proposed three-year extension of the enhanced ACA subsidies.
"The only policy that is worse than a clean three-year extension without any reforms, is a policy of complete expiration without any bridge," Fitzpatrick said in a statement. "Unfortunately, it is House leadership themselves that have forced this outcome."
It's unclear when the House will vote on the extension, as lawmakers are leaving town for a two-week holiday recess on Friday. The House is set to return to session on January 6, 2026—after the official expiration of the ACA subsidies.
“While Congress heads home for the holidays, it’s leaving millions of families behind to wonder how they will make ends meet in the new year,” Ailen Arreaza, executive director of the advocacy group ParentsTogether, said in a statement Wednesday. “By refusing to fix this healthcare crisis, Republicans are choosing political games over families’ health and financial security."
"These subsidies have been a lifeline for millions, and letting them expire will force millions to make impossible choices or even go without coverage altogether," said Arreaza. "Make no mistake: Families around the country will pay the price for Congress’ inaction."
"Alfred Nobel's endowment for peace cannot be spent on the promotion of war."
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Wednesday filed a complaint against the Nobel Foundation to stop its planned payouts to Venezuelan opposition leader and 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado, who has backed US President Donald Trump's campaign of military aggression against her own country.
According to a press release that WikiLeaks posted to X, Assange's lawsuit seeks to block Machado from obtaining over USD $1 million she's due to receive from the Nobel Foundation as winner of this year's Peace Prize.
The complaint notes that Alfred Nobel's will states that the Peace Prize named after him should only be awarded to those who have "conferred the greatest benefit to humankind” by doing “the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
In an interview that aired on Sunday on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” Machado praised Trump’s policies of tightening economic sanctions and seizing Venezuelan oil tankers, acts of aggression that appear to go against Nobel's stated declaration that the Peace Prize winner must promote "fraternity between nations."
“Look, I absolutely support President Trump’s strategy, and we, the Venezuelan people, are very grateful to him and to his administration, because I believe he is a champion of freedom in this hemisphere,” Machado told CBS News.
Trump’s campaign against Venezuela has not only included sanctions and the seizing of an oil tanker, but a series of bombings of purported drug trafficking vessels that many legal experts consider to be acts of murder.
In his complaint, Assange claims that Machado's gushing praise of Trump in the wake of his illegal boat-bombing campaign is enough to justify the Nobel Foundation freezing its disbursements to the Venezuelan politician.
"Alfred Nobel's endowment for peace cannot be spent on the promotion of war," Assange states, adding that "Machado has continued to incite the Trump Administration to pursue its escalatory path" against her own country.
The complaint also argues that there's a risk that funds awarded to Machado will be "diverted from their charitable purpose to facilitate aggression, crimes against humanity, and war crimes."
Were this to happen, the complaint alleges, it would violate Sweden's obligations under Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute, which states that anyone who "aids, abets, or otherwise assists" in the commission of a war crime shall be subject to prosecution under the International Criminal Court.
Trump in recent days has ramped up his aggressive actions against Venezuela, and on Tuesday night he announced a "total and complete blockade" of all "sanctioned oil tankers" seeking to enter and leave the country.
“Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. “It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before.”
"I will give," said the Republican mega-donor with a smile.
Billionaire Miram Adelson on Tuesday night suggested the legal obstacles for President Donald Trump to serve an additional term in office after 2028 are not insurmountable as the far-right Republican megadonor vowed another $250 million to bolster a run that experts say would be unlawful and unconstitutional on its face.
Adelson, a hardline Zionist who, along with her now deceased husband, Sheldon Adelson, has given hundreds of millions to US lawmakers who back a strong relationship between the US and Israeli governments, was sharing the podium with Trump during a Hanukkah candlelighting event at the White House when she made the remarks.
With a reference to Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, Adelson said they had discussed "the legal thing of four more years"—something Trump has repeatedly gestured toward and many of his backers have called for—and told Trump, “So, we can do it, think about it.”
A chant in the crowd then broke out for "For four more years!" as Adelson whispered something in Trump's ear.
“She said, ‘Think about it, I’ll give you another $250 million,’” Trump then said into the microphone. "I will give," Adelson said with a smile.
Watch the exchange:
Adelson: I met Alan Dershowitz.. he said.. four more years. We can do it. Think about it.
Crowd: *chants four more years*
Trump: She said think about it, I’ll give you another 250 million pic.twitter.com/eOc7Zazyns
— Acyn (@Acyn) December 17, 2025
For Trump's 2024 presidential campaign alone, Adelson gave at least $100 million to support the Republican candidate with Super PAC she established, according to federal filings.
In his remarks on Tuesday, Trump credited Adelson with providing him $250 million overall—"directly and indirectly"—during his 2024 bid.
"When someone can you $250 million, I think that we should give her the opportunity to say hello," Trump said, when introducing her. "And Miriam, make it quick, because $250 million is not what it used to be."