

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.

Sarah Crozier, Main Street Alliance, press@mainstreetalliance.org
The Senate's failure to agree to even start the debate on the Freedom to Vote Act is another alarming indication of further anti-democracy efforts underway in states across the country. In addition to the grave risks this presents to the integrity and stability of our democracy, denying the freedom to vote threatens the economic interests of American businesses.
The Senate's failure to agree to even start the debate on the Freedom to Vote Act is another alarming indication of further anti-democracy efforts underway in states across the country. In addition to the grave risks this presents to the integrity and stability of our democracy, denying the freedom to vote threatens the economic interests of American businesses.
Since January 1, 2021, at least 18 states enacted more than 30 laws establishing deliberate barriers to casting ballots freely, safely, and equally. Polling has revealed that entrepreneurs, especially those of color, feel disadvantaged within the political system and want equitable access to the lawmakers and votes that impact their livelihoods.
To avert this disastrous disenfranchising impact on our democracy and harm to our economy, leading small business organizations collectively representing nearly 400,000 of our country's small businesses - American Sustainable Business Council, Main Street Alliance, and Small Business Majority - today called for a carveout within filibuster rules, as proposed by Representative James Clyburn, to start the debate on our right to vote and then pass the Freedom to Vote Act. All Americans deserve equal access to the vote, and a healthy democracy and economy are predicated on allowing all voices to impact the political process.
"The right to vote is the cornerstone of democracy and the foundation upon which all other rights are built," said Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, U.S. House of Representatives. "My mother was a small business owner. I understand how critical small businesses and entrepreneurs are to our nation's economy. I applaud the support of small business owners in the fight to protect access to the ballot to ensure that voting remains a fundamental right of every American citizen and the touchstone of the greatest democracy the world has ever known. Nothing else will matter if we lose the right to vote."
"A sustainable and just economy needs a strong democracy in which all Americans are able to participate with their votes and their voices. However, American Democracy is under attack in many states across the country," said Thomas Oppel, American Sustainable Business Council Executive Vice President. "Congress has a duty under Section 1 of the Constitution to protect every American's right to vote, but the current Senate filibuster rules clearly stand in the way of Congress protecting our rights. On behalf of the 250,000 businesses we represent, ASBC has been an outspoken advocate on behalf of the Freedom to Vote Act, For the People Act (S.1) and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. We commend House and Senate leadership on this and support a 'carve out' of the filibuster in which the Senate rules would be changed to permit Constitutional issues, such as voting rights, to pass with a simple 51-vote majority. We call on the U.S. Senate to take the needed actions to enable it to be faithful to our Constitution."
"As a Black woman growing up in the south, I understand the power of the vote! Small business voices are critical and must be protected," said Chanda Causer, Co-Executive Director of Main Street Alliance. "The Freedom to Vote Act reflects our shared values as Americans, but politics have once again blocked even having a debate on the bill. We need lasting, structural change to reassure small businesses that our democracy is healthy so that we can get to the business of resilient economic recovery. The Senate must do whatever it takes to pass the Freedom to Vote Act."
"Today's failed vote by the U.S. Senate to allow the debate to even start on the Freedom to Vote Act is disappointing news for entrepreneurs," said John Arensmeyer, Founder & CEO of Small Business Majority. "Protecting the right to vote for all Americans, especially those who have been marginalized, is critical to creating an equitable path to entrepreneurship and an inclusive economy. Congress must do all that it can to ensure a fair and transparent political system that will give all citizens equal access to voting and give small businesses an opportunity to impact the political process. This means creating a carve-out to the filibuster rule to advance critical voting rights legislation."
"Small businesses play a unique role in American life and as a critical part of their local communities, they can leverage their voice on the issue of access to the ballot box," said Ashleigh R. Wilson, Legislative Director and Counsel to Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, U.S. House of Representatives. "We need small business owners to fully engage in voting rights advocacy because voting is a fundamental constitutional right. Access to the political process is important and runs parallel to access to a thriving economy. In order to build both a stronger democracy and economy, we must recognize that having the ability to participate in the democratic process is imperative. Every American should have a say in how the future of our country is shaped."
"The Senate Rule change that first created the opportunity to filibuster was an oversight," said Mel Barnes, Staff Counsel for Law Forward and coauthor of "Filibuster Reform is Coming-- Here's How. Seven Ideas for Change. "It has since evolved into a tool used to slow and potentially stop important legislation, such as the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, from advancing. Currently the government and the people are frustrated with how the filibuster is being used in the Senate. We must take an active step to shore up our democracy. Voting rights legislation is needed at a national level to guarantee equal access to the ballot across the states. Americans are very proud of, and invested in, our democracy. We must push forward with democracy reconciliation and open the door to prioritizing the critical changes needed to shore up voting rights for all Americans."
On September 8, 2021, small business owners and community organizations participated in a special event with House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn to discuss the need to prevent laws suppressing Americans' voting rights across the country, discuss why voting rights are essential to democracy and entrepreneurship, and learn about the history of the filibuster. To listen to the recording of the September 8 event visit https://tinyurl.com/4w86j7xz.
The Main Street Alliance (MSA) is a national network of small business coalitions working to build a new voice for small businesses on important public policy issues. Main Street Alliance members are working throughout the country to build policies that work for business owners, their employees, and the communities they serve.
"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."