

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.

A pledge for a united future of welcome in the United States was published today by Amnesty International USA and partners the Haitian Bridge Alliance and RAICES, titled the "Welcome Pledge". It was signed by advocates, attorneys, and artists as President Joe Biden reached the milestone of 100 days in office. Signatories of the pledge include over thirty creatives, including Angelique Kidjo and George Takei.
A video narrated by actor and activist George Takei opens with Takei speaking to his childhood experience being detained in Japanese internment camps that to this day people can hardly believe existed in the United States. Despite being imprisoned simply because of his ethnicity, George Takei still has faith that the United States will do the work of recognizing everyone's shared humanity.
"When our country views any group as "other," we risk dehumanizing whole communities, which can then lead to egregious wrongs," said George Takei. "My own family and I lived through such a wrong during the Japanese American internment. Today, it is our immigration policies, made all the more painful by the prior administration, that have cast our neighbors to our south as "other" and led to immense suffering and division. Now, we have a rare opportunity to correct this ongoing wrong, and I am proud to be a part of a collective effort to forge a different, humane path."
As a candidate for President, Joe Biden created a plan for "Securing Our Values as a Nation of Immigrants" in which he committed to a fair and humane immigration system. This published pledge recognizes Biden's commitment over the past 100 days to people on the move and people seeking safety--asylum-seekers, immigrants, refugees, migrants, people who are displaced, including people who are undocumented--and it seeks to manifest a future that can be realized in the next 100 days and beyond.
The signatories of the pledge commit to a future where everyone has the right to be treated with dignity, respect, and fairness, no matter their immigration status, and everyone has the right to seek safety in the United States.
Beninese-American singer-songwriter and activist Angelique Kidjo, said: "This pledge is foremost about dignity. I see new generations treat each other with dignity and treat others as they'd like to be treated. This is the story we must now tell about ourselves: a story of how embracing our very best we can finally stop inflicting suffering on one another."
The pledge is aimed at speaking not only to the current President and administration, but to future administrations, lawmakers who are elected by the people, and all of us who are invested in a shared future.
The pledge utilizes nudge theory, encouraging people to sign on to a pledge that would make them more likely to take action and follow through on the issue.
The executive director of Amnesty International USA, Paul O'Brien said: "The Amnesty International movement, which campaigns on behalf of people's human rights around the world, was founded 60 years ago with a candle as a symbol of hope and a powerful tool to shine a light on injustice. With this pledge, we share this candle with everyone to shed light on our long history of immigration. Together we can bring reform to make this country a new place of welcome, community, and diversity."
Guerline M. Jozef Co-founder and executive director of the Haitian Bridge Alliance said: "A movement that celebrates and welcomes all people with dignity--whether it is our Blackness, our resilience, our queerness, our magic, our contributions, our love, our full selves--is a movement that cannot be stopped. If we rise up for one another, no more will we see peoples' very lives placed in unnecessary danger. We will hold president Biden and his administration accountable to the promises made to our communities ---Anpil men, chay pa lou!"
Jonathan Ryan, the Executive Director of the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), said: "President Joe Biden should use every tool at his administration's disposal to give our communities in the United States the freedom to work with dignity and respect and to live free--from detention and from deportation. The President made a promise to our communities and we will work tirelessly to make sure that promise is fulfilled."
For sixty years, Amnesty International has investigated and exposed human rights abuses, educated and mobilized the public, and worked with communities wherever justice, freedom, truth, and dignity are denied. Amnesty International has stood alongside refugees and asylum-seekers for decades--documenting the conditions they're fleeing, ensuring that individuals know their rights, and campaigning to change policies so that more people can rebuild their lives in safety. Amnesty conducts research that shines a light on why people are fleeing and what they experience trying to find safety. This research helps lawyers win individual cases and helps spark legislative reform. The organization also campaigns on behalf of individuals and asylum-seekers worldwide in their search for safety, equality, and freedom, and mobilizes grassroots activists to change policies and laws in the United States.
Amnesty International is a global movement of millions of people demanding human rights for all people - no matter who they are or where they are. We are the world's largest grassroots human rights organization.
(212) 807-8400"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."