

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.
Suyapa Portillo, 323-637-7812; Armando Carmona, NDLON, 323-250-3018, armando@ndlon.org
Immigrant Rights Organizations condemn the Trump administration's policies, that threaten stability in Honduras and harm US immigrants. Trump's State Department advanced military aid to Honduras on November 28, 2017, even as the Central American country faced political chaos and instability in Honduras due to fraudulent activity in its national election. US State Department support for Honduras, including unfounded praise for its human rights record, has emboldened the current regime.
Immigrant Rights Organizations condemn the Trump administration's policies, that threaten stability in Honduras and harm US immigrants. Trump's State Department advanced military aid to Honduras on November 28, 2017, even as the Central American country faced political chaos and instability in Honduras due to fraudulent activity in its national election. US State Department support for Honduras, including unfounded praise for its human rights record, has emboldened the current regime. Experts and advocates warn that the tacit US endorsement of the tainted election and continued support for the illegitimate President Juan Orlando Hernandez will generate instability and chaos in Honduras, driving more Hondurans to seek refuge across their borders.
Within the United States, Trump's anti-immigration policies also generate uncertainty for hundreds of thousands of Central Americans, including vast numbers of Honduran children and families who have migrated here for reasons of safety to the US in recent years. Among other anti-immigrant policies, the imminent threat of cancellation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) after July 2018 jeopardizes an essential protection for tens of thousands of Hondurans and their families who have been her for twenty years or more and who cannot and should not be forced to return to a chaotic and unstable, illegal and unconstitutional governmental regime.
Yesterday, December 17th, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) declared current president Juan Orlando Hernandez the winner, amid reports of rampant voting problems and ballot-counting irregularities, including charges of fraud on behalf of the incumbent. The Honduran TSE has operated behind closed doors and refused independent auditing of election results. The Organization of American States and international election observers have decried the lack of transparency of the TSE and have called for an annulment and for elections to be held again. The major opposition party has filed complaints with the TSE and OAS, charging fraud, such as tampering with vote tally sheets. Protests erupted throughout the country, as citizens defied the President's military curfew and claimed their vote was stolen. Peaceful protesters were met with armed military police and military units shooting real bullets at the crowd. To date, there are 24 dead from confrontations with military police and over 1500 arrested.
Immigrant rights groups, CARECEN, NDLON, Familia TQLM, Coalicion Trans Latina, Human Rights Alliance for Child Refugees and Families, and Hondurans dealing with TPS and uncertainty in the US and Latin American scholars call for sanctions of the Honduran government and demand an extension of TPS and asylum for women, children and LGBTQ and Transgender women in ICE detention.
Under the now-ended presidential term of Juan Orlando Hernandez, a mass exodus of Hondurans came to the United States seeking safety and stability. In 2014, of the over 67,000 children at the US Mexico border, 27% were Honduran. Los Angeles is home to over 42,901 Hondurans. An estimated 791,000 live in the US.
Angela Sanbrano, Board President of CARECEN, states, "Central American migrants to the US are a part of the fabric of our community. The Trump administration's broadsided attack on immigrants has caused fear and uncertainty for us all. His inept foreign policies combined with his domestic neglect must not become the norm."
Joe Berra, Clinical Director at UCLA School of Law, states: "Honduras is in the midst of the latest in a series of coups against democracy and constitutional order. The first occurred in 2009 against the democratically elected President Mel Zelaya; the second occurred shortly thereafter against the judiciary when, as President of the National Congress, Juan Orlando illegally removed and hand-picked the majority of the Supreme Court Justices. We are witnessing the third coup, this one against the popular vote rejecting Hernandez' unconstitutional attempt at re-election. We remain hopeful because the honduran people remain steadfast in protecting their democracy and defending human rights. The US should be supporting them."
Pablo Alvarado of National Bay Laborer Organizing Network states: "As we fight to save TPS for Hondurans in the US, we must not forget that humble people in Honduras are fighting for democracy and for human rights and they are being repressed, tortured and killed. These are the relatives of TPS holders. Therefore, we must stand together to call for fair treatment and respect for communities here in the US and in our home countries. We call on Washington to extend TPS for all Central Americans and an end to US interference in the future of Honduran democracy. That is for the Honduran people to decide. We call on the powerful in Honduras to hold new internationally supervised elections as the OAS suggests. If this happens, la Alianza por la democracia en Honduras will send international observers."
Bamby Salcedo of TransLatin@ Coalition states: "Instability in Honduras has caused devastation to the most vulnerable, and the JOH administration has done nothing to protect them. According to CATTRACHAS, between 2012-2017 there have been 57 Transgender murders registered and only 9 have been brought to a court of law."
Jorge Gutierrez, Exec. Dir., Familia Trans Queer Liberation Movement: "Transgender youth migration from Central America and particularly from Honduras is at an all-time high, with youth often migrating with little money, threats to their lives and a discriminatory immigration court system in the US. If they are deported they will face certain death in Honduras, particularly under this repressive regime."
Suyapa Portillo, Assistant Professor at Pitzer College, a native Honduran, states: "The current US posture toward Honduras is a continuation of its policy of favoring corrupt elites over the will of the Honduran people, a direct legacy of the US failures going back to the 1980s and before. From the 2009 coup d'etat, to the murder of Berta Caceres, and the inordinate murders of human rights defenders and others, the US has shown that anything goes as long as it favors rich corporate interests and the very wealthy on both sides of our borders. Not surprisingly, Trump and his cronies are continuing this approach."
Advancement Project is a next generation, multi-racial civil rights organization. Rooted in the great human rights struggles for equality and justice, we exist to fulfill America's promise of a caring, inclusive and just democracy. We use innovative tools and strategies to strengthen social movements and achieve high impact policy change.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."