

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.
LORI WALLACH, [email]
Director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, Wallach said today: "It is the height of cynicism for President Obama to couple the worthy goal of rebuilding American manufacturing with a call for more of the same NAFTA-style trade-deficit boosting, job-killing FTAs [free trade agreements] -- especially the 11-nation TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership]. ... Since the implementation of these agreements, 50,000 U.S. manufacturing facilities have been shuttered and we have lost five million manufacturing jobs -- fully one quarter of the American industrial jobs that existed before these agreements. U.S. exports to countries that are not FTA partners has exceeded U.S. export growth to countries that are FTA partners by 44 percent over the last decade. The aggregate U.S. trade deficit with FTA partners increased by more than $151 billion (inflation-adjusted) since the FTAs were implemented."
GWENDOLYN MINK, [email]
Mink is co-editor of the two-volume Poverty in the United States: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics and Policy and author of Welfare's End. She said today: "The President reiterated his cramped vision of equity and economic well-being in a speech that should set off alarm bells for anyone concerned with improving policies to assure economic security and advance equality. Instead of spelling out ways to strengthen and improve Medicare and Social Security to benefit program participants, the President continued to wave the banner of 'entitlement reform,' inviting unspecified policy changes in the name of deficit reduction. Instead of challenging America to end economic vulnerability and poverty by addressing root causes -- such as race and gender inequality, the wage structure, and the extra-economic status of caregiving -- the President offered an anemic rise in the minimum wage and repackaged old solutions that hang women's economic security on their linkage to men through marriage and fatherhood. While the President did repeat his support for the Paycheck Fairness Act, he looked no further than this important but narrow measure to advance wage equity for women. The Paycheck Fairness Act would correct and strengthen interpretations of the Equal Pay Act to improve wage equality prospects for women who do 'substantially equal' (the same) work as men. But what about the 40 percent of women who work in jobs primarily staffed by women, which are also the jobs that receive less pay? Or the millions of women, especially of color, who are held to the lowest paying jobs? A President who wants to be perceived as an advocate for women needs to present brave and informed ideas to correct structures and practices that perpetuate injustice. One place to begin would be by uttering the word 'union' -- when government abdicates, unions are still the best guarantee of an improved wage structure for women."
KEVIN GRAY, [email]
Author of The Decline of Black Politics: From Malcolm X to Barack Obama, Gray said today: "Doubtless, his call to raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour should be applauded. He's right that 'in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty...' A minor miracle was finally hearing Obama say the word 'poverty' in a speech. Even so, the President's speech wasn't even a glass half full. It was three quarters empty.
"Little was said about helping those in the black community suffering from double-digit unemployment. Or providing job training and economic reintegration to those locked out of the economy because of the drug war and other factors. Or dealing with a continuing housing-mortgage foreclosure crisis in communities of color and, how to force the banks to help those most in need. And while his 'Fix It First' jobs and infrastructure program may be - if enacted - a boon to a few select contractors, its impact on creating jobs where they are needed the most is sketchy at best.
"Obama touted the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan as though making people work until they die was the solution to the nation's debt problem as opposed to ceasing to pay for wars with social security funds. People of color should be outraged at his support of such a backwards plan. He touted his and Arne Duncan's 'Race to the Top' charter school scheme that is nothing more than turning over the schools to Wall Street and the corporations."
MICHAEL DORSEY, [email]
Visiting fellow and professor at Wesleyan University, College of the Environment, Dorsey said today: , Dorsey said today: "What he could have said: 'We must choose to end our dependence on fossil fuels in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.'
"The content of the president's state of the union regarding climate was un-presidential. Trying to resuscitate broken carbon markets that have not worked in a decade since they began in Europe is a recipe for climate catastrophe. The failure to assemble the growing litany of oil and energy executives that are already doing more than the President proposed reveals the lackluster quality of his advisors -- that are in desperate need of being replaced. The President could have reclaimed and built upon the admission of his predecessor, that we are addicted to oil. Who could have plotted a path to break our addiction to oil -- not by taxing oil, but by giving us a pathway to shifting subsidies away from all fossil fuels and into viable renewables, like wind and solar. ...
"It seems the only way forward on climate will be the coming non-violent civil disobedience -- backed by both the NAACP and the Sierra Club, amongst others. These marches on the White House shall start this weekend and continue for the next 100 days to Earth Day, and possibly beyond, until we see presidential action for climate justice."
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.
Israel is seeking to invalidate the ICC's arrest warrants for fugitive Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Appellate judges at the embattled International Criminal Court on Monday rejected Israel's attempt to block an investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes committed during the Gaza genocide.
The ICC Appeals Chamber dismissed an Israeli challenge to the assertion that the October 7, 2023, attacks and subsequent war on Gaza were part of the same ongoing "situation" under investigation by the Hague-based tribunal since 2021. Israel argued they were separate matters that required new notice; however, the ICC panel found that the initial probe encompasses events on and after October 7.
The ruling—which focuses on but one of several Israeli legal challenges to the ICC—comes amid the tribunal's investigation into an Israeli war and siege that have left at least 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing and 2 million more displaced, starved, or sickened.
The probe led to last year's ICC arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhau and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder and forced starvation. The ICC also issued warrants for the arrest of three Hamas commanders—all of whom have since been killed by Israel.
Israel and the United States, neither of which are party to the Rome Statute governing the ICC, vehemently reject the tribunal's investigation. In the US—which has provided Israel with more than $21 billion in armed aid as well as diplomatic cover throughout the genocide—the Trump administration has sanctioned nine ICC jurists, leaving them and their families "wiped out socially and financially."
The other Hague-based global tribunal, the International Court of Justice, is currently weighing a genocide case against Israel filed in December 2023 by South Africa and backed by more than a dozen nations, as well as regional blocs representing dozens of countries.
University of Copenhagen international law professor Kevin Jon Heller—who is also a special adviser to the ICC prosecutor on war crimes—told Courthouse News Service that “the real importance of the decision is that it strongly implies Israel will lose its far more important challenge to the court’s jurisdiction over Israeli actions in Palestine."
Although Israel is not an ICC member and does not recognize its jurisdiction, Palestine is a state party to the Rome Statute, under which individuals from non-signatory nations can be held liable for crimes committed in the territory of a member state.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry condemned Monday's decision, calling it "yet another example of the ongoing politicization of the ICC and its blatant disregard for the sovereign rights of non-party states, as well as its own obligations under the Rome Statute."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Washington, DC-based advocacy group, welcomed the ICC decision.
“This ruling by the International Criminal Court affirms that no state is above the law and that war crimes must be fully and independently investigated," CAIR said in a statement. "Accountability is essential for justice, for the victims, and survivors, and for deterring future crimes against humanity.”
"Wales and Sanger must be stopped from trying to censor the Wikipedia ‘Gaza genocide’ entry that clearly documents Israel’s horrifying crime against humanity.”
More than 40 advocacy groups on Monday called on Wikipedia editors and the Wikimedia board of trustees to reject efforts by the web-based encyclopedia's co-founders to censor the site's entry on the Gaza genocide.
After months of internal debate, editors of the Wikipedia article titled “Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza” renamed the entry "Gaza genocide" in July 2024, reflecting experts' growing acknowledgement that Israel's annihilation and siege of the Palestinian exclave met the legal definition of the ultimate crime. The entry also notes that the Gaza genocide is not settled legal fact—an International Court of Justice case on the matter is ongoing—and that numerous experts refute the claim that Israel's war is genocidal.
The move, and the subsequent addition of Gaza to Wikipedia's article listing cases of genocide, sparked heated "edit wars" on the community-edited site—which has long been a target of pro-Israeli public relations efforts. In the United States, a pair of House Republicans launched an investigation to reveal the identities of the anonymous Wikipedia editors who posted negative facts about Israel.
"Israeli officials and pro-Israel organizations are attempting to hide the horrifying reality... by putting pressure on institutions like Wikipedia to engage in genocide denial."
Wikipedia co-founders Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger have intervened in the dispute, with Wales—a self-described "strong supporter of Israel"—publicly stating that the Gaza genocide entry lacked neutrality, failed to meet Wikipedia's "high standards," and required "immediate attention" after an editor blocked changes to the article.
"Wales and Sanger are using their roles as Wikipedia founders to bypass the normal editing and review process and introduce their
own ideological biases into an entry that has already undergone exhaustive vetting and review by Wikipedia editors, including thousands of edits and comments," the 42 advocacy groups said in a letter to Wikimedia's board and site editors.
"Their efforts deny the documented reality of Israel’s genocide in Gaza and contradict the broad consensus among genocide scholars, international human rights organizations, UN experts, and both Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations," the groups continue. "In doing so, Wales and Sanger are engaging in attempted censorship and genocide denial."
The letters' signers include the American Friends Service Committee, Artists Against Apartheid, Brave New Films, CodePink, Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), Doctors Against Genocide, MPower Change Action Fund, Peace Action, and United Methodists for Kairos Response.
Since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack, Israel's retaliatory obliteration and siege on Gaza—for which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes—have left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing. Around 2 million other Palestinians have been forcibly displaced, sickened, or starved in what hunger experts say is an entirely human-caused famine.
"The simple reality is that Israeli officials and pro-Israel organizations are attempting to hide the horrifying reality of Israel’s genocide in Gaza by pretending that there is a substantive debate and by putting pressure on institutions like Wikipedia to engage in genocide denial," the groups' letter asserts.
"Wales’ 'both sides' framework for denying the Gaza genocide," the groups warned, "could also be used to legitimize Holocaust denial, denial of the Armenian genocide, or to platform 'flat-earthers' who deny the Earth’s spherical shape."
"Healthcare is a human right. That’s why we need Medicare for All," said one senator. "And the American people agree!"
In Maine, only one of the top two candidates in the Democratic US Senate primary has expressed support for the specific healthcare reform proposal that continues to be treated by the political establishment as radical—but which is supported by not only a sizable majority of Mainers but also most Americans surveyed in several recent polls.
Graham Platner, a veteran and oyster farmer who was a political novice when he launched his campaign in August and has polled well ahead of Gov. Janet Mills in several recent surveys, and a poll that asked Mainers about healthcare on Saturday showed he is in lockstep with many people in the state.
As the advocacy group Maine AllCare reported, the Pan Atlantic 67th Omnibus poll found that 63% of Mainers support Medicare for All, the proposal to transition the US to a system like that of other wealthy countries, with the government expanding the existing Medicare program and guaranteeing health coverage to all.
Those results bolster the findings of More Perfect Union in October, which found 72% of Mainers backing Medicare for All, and of Data for Progress, which found last month that 65% of all Americans—including 78% of Democratic voters—support a "national health insurance program... that would cover all Americans and replace most private health insurance plans.”
Even more recently, a Pew Research survey released last week found that 66% of respondents nationwide said the government should guarantee health coverage.
Platner has spoken out forcefully in support of Medicare for All, saying unequivocally last month that the proposal "is the answer" to numerous healthcare crises including the loss of primary care providers in many parts of the country and skyrocketing healthcare costs.
He made the comments soon after Mills said at a healthcare roundtable that "it is time" for a universal healthcare system, but did not explicitly endorse Medicare for All.
Maine AllCare noted that the latest polling on Medicare for All in the state comes as Maine "is on the verge of a multi-pronged healthcare crisis" due to Republican federal lawmakers' refusal to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies—which is projected to significantly raise monthly premiums for many Maine families as well as millions of people across the country. People in Maine and other states are also bracing for changes to Medicaid, including eligibility requirements.
Those changes "alongside long-standing affordability and access gaps, are projected to cost Maine billions and trigger deep operating losses in already strained hospitals," said Maine AllCare.
The group emphasized that that the Republican budget reconciliation law that President Donald Trump signed in July is projected to have a range of economic impacts on Maine, including a $450 million decline in statewide economic output, the loss of 4,300 state jobs, and the loss of $700 million in revenue at the state's hospitals due to Medicaid cuts.
“Maine needs a sustainable and universal healthcare system now. Poll after poll show people want Medicare for All. Our leaders can let the current health system continue collapsing—harming families, communities, and the economy of our state—or they can meet the moment and fight like hell to enact change that protects both the people and the future of the state," said David Jolly, a Maine AllCare board member. "That is the work Mainers elected them to do and that is what they must do now.”
Despite the broad popularity of the proposal to expand the Medicare program to everyone in the US—a system that would cost less than the current for-profit health insurance system does, according to numerous studies—supporters, including the 17 cosponsors of the Medicare for All bill in the US Senate and the 110 cosponsors in the US House, continue to face attacks from establishment politicians regarding the cost and feasibility of the proposal.
On Monday, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) explained to Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo how the Affordable Care Act that was passed by the Democratic Party is "not the solution" to the country's healthcare crisis, because it keeps in place the for-profit health insurance industry.
"The solution, as everyone knows, in my view, who has studied this, is Medicare for All," said Khanna. "People should have national health insurance. Healthcare is a human right. You should not be subject to these private insurance companies that have 18% admin costs, that are making billions of dollars in profits."
I made the case for Medicare for All on @MorningsMaria with @MariaBartiromo with facts and basic economics. https://t.co/ExZpCNQT7B pic.twitter.com/F226Kutv16
— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) December 15, 2025
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) also spoke out in favor of the proposal, pointing to the recent Data for Progress poll that showed 65% of Americans and 78% of Democrats backing Medicare for All.
"Healthcare is a human right. That’s why we need Medicare for All," said Merkley. "We need to simplify our system and make sure folks can get the care they need, when they need it. And the American people agree!"