Posts made in January 2024

New York Lawmaker Rises on ‘Moral and Legal Obligation’ Measure for Reparations

Rep. Jamaal Bowman, (D-NY) along with a handful of his democratic colleagues, have offered a $14 trillion pathway to finally reach a deal on the long standing issue of reparations.

The measure is calling on the federal government to be held accountable for slavery and the aftermath of it. The lawmaker cited the federal government’s response to the pandemic and the “space race” as examples that can make H.Res. 414 feasible. “When COVID was destroying us, we invested in the American people in a way that kept the economy afloat,” said Bowman. “The government can invest the same way in reparations without raising taxes on anyone.” “…Where did the money come from?” Bowman said. “We spent it into existence.”

Bowman is among nine sponsors of H.Res. 414, which seeks to establish that the US has “a moral and legal obligation to provide reparations for the enslavement of Africans and its lasting harm on the lives of millions of Black people in the United States.”

The measure would prompt the federal government to spend $14 trillion on a reparations program that would support descendants of enslaved Black people and people of African descent. Another measure to establish a federal commission on the impact of reparations was reintroduced this year and Bowman is a sponsor of it. The lawmakers say the bill must also address racial disparities in housing, mass incarceration, and education outcomes and “eliminate the racial wealth gap that currently exists between Black and White Americans.”

A recent report by David McKay Wilson in the Journal News provides this whitewashed summary on America’s long history with slavery:

“State-sanctioned slavery existed in what became the United States for 246 years. Ten of the nation’s first 12 presidents enslaved Black people, including one who engaged in slave trading from the Oval Office. Enslaved people — both in the North and the South — helped build our nation and were a foundation of the 18th and 19th century economies. The Hudson Valley’s Philipse family, with a mansion in Yonkers and a mill up the river at Philipsburg Manor, made a portion of their fortune through the slave trade.

New York’s gradual emancipation in 1799 subjected current slaves to lifelong bondage but granted freedom to those born after 1799 by 1827. National emancipation came in 1865, but freedom for the former slaves did not bring prosperity or the rights enjoyed by other Americans.”

Another important historical fact shared on X by Equal Justice Initiative states that on January 18, 1771, North Carolina approved payments of nearly 1,000 pounds, or the equivalent of $230,000 today, to “reimburse” white “owners” for enslaved Black people executed by the state.  Dr. Kind said “the time is always right to do the right thing,” especially when it comes to this long and arduous battle to bring about economic justice for Black people who built America under the brutality of slave labor, and creating the richest nation the world has ever known. In his famous I Have A Dream speech, he said, “We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and security of justice. We have also come to his hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now.” America must now go beyond honoring Dr. King’s legacy and deliver this check to repair what remains broken.

World Report 2024: The Human Rights System Is Under Threat

A call to action to turn the tide of human rights around the world.

Tirana Hassan, Executive Director at Human Rights Watch in a keynote address on the state of human rights.

 Download the easy-to-read version of the keynote essay

We only have to look at the human rights challenges of 2023 to tell us what we need to do differently in 2024. It was a formidable year not only for human rights suppression and wartime atrocities but also for selective government outrage and transactional diplomacy that carried profound costs for the rights of those not in on the deal. Yet amid the gloom, we saw signs of hope showing the possibility of a different path.

Renewed hostilities between Israel and Hamas and in Sudan caused tremendous suffering, as did ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, Myanmar, Ethiopia, and the Sahel. Governments struggled to deal with the hottest year on record and the onslaught of wildfires, drought, and storms that wreaked havoc on millions of people in Bangladesh, Libya, and Canada. Economic inequality rose around the world, as did anger about the policy decisions that have left many people struggling to survive. The rights of women and girls and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people faced harsh backlashes in many places, exemplified by the Taliban’s gender persecution in Afghanistan.

The drivers of these human rights crises and their consequences often transcend borders and cannot be solved by governments acting alone. Understanding and responding to these threats needs to be rooted in universal principles of international human rights and the rule of law. These ideas built on shared human histories agreed upon by nations across all regions 75 years ago in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the basis for all contemporary human rights conventions and treaties.

This foundation is needed now more than ever. But this very system we rely on to protect the human rights of people everywhere is under threat. Every time a government overlooks or rejects these universal and globally accepted principles, someone pays a price – in freedoms and liberties, in their health or livelihood, and at times their lives.

The complete human rights watch world report 2024 can be found HERE.

Do Scientists and Big Pharma Want to Find a Cure for Cancer?

No, they don’t. That’s according to rock legend Rodger Daltrey of The Who and longstanding patron of the Teenage Cancer Trust.

Over $100 billion is spent worldwide every year in the quest to cure cancer. However, despite this exhaustive effort, the number of cancer cases is estimated to increase by 70% over the next two decades, and is expected to reach 25 million new cases per year by 2030. Is there a prospect of stopping, or even slowing the spread of this debilitating disease? In a recent interview with Daltrey – by Fraser Lewry – it seems the odds are against those waiting for a cure.

“I don’t think they’ll ever find a cure for cancer. I don’t think they want to find a cure,” Roger Daltrey said questioning Big Pharma as he nears the end of his time at the Teenage Cancer Trust. 

The Who’s Roger Daltrey is signing off his 24-year patronage of the Teenage Cancer Trust with a final run of charity shows.

Roger Daltrey is coming to the end of his hugely successful 24-year stewardship of the Teenage Cancer Trust’s annual charity shows, and his latest round of press interviews find him in typically skeptical form. Speaking with The Times about his tenure in charge of the Trust, Daltrey – whose sister died from breast cancer aged just 32 – expresses reservations about the scientific establishment’s approach to finding a cure for the disease.

“I don’t think they’ll ever find a cure for cancer,” says Daltrey. “I don’t think they want to find a cure. I’m being cynical here, but scientists look after the science but they also look after themselves. You do imagine if they did find a cure tomorrow it would be fabulous for the country, but there’d be an awful lot of scientists out of work. You might think I’m being cynical, but I do think that.”

Daltrey goes on to reiterate that so-called ‘Big Pharma’ has more to lose than it does to gain by finding a cure. “It’s just human nature, isn’t it?,” he says. “You’re not going to invent something that’s going to put you out of work.”

Elsewhere in the interview, Daltrey reveals that he’s looking for an actor to play late Who drummer Keith Moon in a forthcoming biopic. Daltrey has co-written the script for the film with Nigel Hinton, author of the Buddy trilogy for teenage readers, and the Beaver Towers stories for younger children.

“It will be a psychological film about the guy who I thought was one of the funniest people I ever met,” says Daltrey. “But yes, he was also an addict and addiction is a waste of a life.” Joining The Who at Daltrey’s final Teenage Cancer Trust shows at London’s Royal Albert Hall in March will be Robert Plant with Saving Grace, Eddie Vedder, Noel Gallagher, The Chemical Brothers and more. Full details below.

Teenage Cancer Trust: 2024 Royal Albert Hall Schedule

Mar 18: The Who with Orchestra, with special guests Squeeze
Mar 19: Evening Of Comedy – line-up tba
Mar 20: The Who with Orchestra, with very special guests Squeeze
Mar 21: Noel Gallagher’s High Flying Birds, with very special guests Blossoms
Mar 22: Young Fathers plus special guests
Mar 23: The Chemical Brothers
Mar 24: Ovation – A Celebration of 24 Years of Gigs For Teenage Cancer Trust’ with Roger Daltrey, Kelly Jones, Robert Plant with Saving Grace, Pete Townshend, Eddie Vedder, Paul Weller

Biden Administration Sued For Actively Supporting Israel’s Genocide of Palestinians

The UN’s top legal body —  the International Court of Justice (ICJ) —  that heard two days of powerful legal argument from South Africa against Israel on the crime of all crimes: genocide, is not the only legal body hearing a case of genocide. The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is suing the Biden administration in federal court for its complicity in the war in Gaza by supporting Israel, a state that stands accused of an attempt to “destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part,” as defined by the 1948 Convention on Genocide.

This report by Caira Piriano, first published in Medium, tells the full story that many are not aware of.

Biden Administration Lawsuit

If you follow news about Palestine (and if you watch something other than mainstream US news), you’ll know about South Africa’s ICJ case. However, you may not be aware that the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) has sued the Biden administration in US federal court for violating the genocide convention by failing to prevent genocide and instead actively supporting it.

Let’s take – a quick look at this case.

👉 Who are the plaintiffs?

The CCR is suing on behalf of a group of Palestinian individuals and organizations, including Palestinian Americans and people in Gaza. The organizations include Defense for Children International — Palestine and Al Haq, and the individuals include Ahmed Abu Artema, who started the 2019–2019 Great March of Return protest movement. All of the individuals have had family members killed in Israeli attacks.

👉 Who are the defendants?

The lawsuit accuses President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Austin, in their official capacities.

👉 What is the dispute about?

The plaintiffs say that the Biden administration has enabled Israel to commit genocide, in violation of international customary law and US law, causing direct harm to the plaintiffs and their families. Actually, in its most recent filing, the CCR says that one of their plaintiffs themselves may have been killed in Gaza since the case was filed. The Biden administration has moved for dismissal, saying that this issue is a political question and cannot be decided by the courts.

👉 What law does the CCR say the Biden admin is breaking?

The complaint is that the defendants have “violated their duty under customary international law, as part of federal common law, to take all measures within their power to prevent Israel from committing genocide.” Confused? Stick with me.

The US is a common law system, meaning that the law isn’t just the statutes in the US code; what’s more important is the precedent of past legal decisions and established legal principles. All this precedent and tradition together is called common law.

Customary international law is defined as “international obligations arising from established international practices”; prohibition of genocide and failure to prevent genocide, as one such established practice, was also codified in the UN Genocide Convention. Customary international law is part of common law and can be enforced in federal courts.

👉 What is CCR asking the court for?

The “relief” (action) requested by the plaintiffs is basically just that the defendants stop supporting genocide in Gaza through diplomatic, military, and financial assistance. They are also seeking injunctive relief, which is basically the equivalent of the ICJ’s “provisional measures — Biden et al. must stop their violation of international law immediately while the case is pending, because allowing the attacks to continue for years while the case is decided is too risky.

👉 How has Biden responded? 

The Biden administration’s lawyers have moved for the case to be dismissed because they say the court can’t act on political issues. Their response doesn’t address the genocide claims at all and uses only procedural arguments.

You can access all the case files in a very well-organized page on the CCR’s website. https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/defense-children-international-palestine-v-biden

Annual MLK Holiday DC Peace Walk & Parade “Bending Toward Peace, Truth and Justice”

DMV residents braved a snowy Monday morning to celebrate the birthday and legacy of Civil Rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. with the Annual MLK Holiday DC Peace Walk & Parade.

Today marks 45 years of the memorial parade, held after the assassination of Dr. King on April 4, 1968. Participants carried political signs demanding change, an end to violence and accountability in service to the American people, keeping in step with the legacy of the Civil Rights giant. The event also featured local performance groups of all ages.

Regina Pixley, community activist served as this year’s grand marshals and was joined by retired 7News DC Bureau Chief Sam Ford, Lourdes Robinson, DC Youth Mayor; Tyrone Parker, founder, Alliance of Concerned Men; Reverend Wanda Thompson, pastor of Ambassador Baptist Church. The Annual MLK Holiday parade is a strong tradition in the District.

Click the link to watch the parade: https://wjla.com/watch

The parade is part of a full week of activities honoring King, hosted by the 19th Annual MLK Observance Week. This year’s theme is “Bending Toward Peace, Truth and Justice.” The 19th Annual MLK Observance Week 2024 committee is led by Washington Informer Publisher Denise Rolark Barnes and community activist Stuart Anderson.

Additional details about the annual event, its history and the community organizers who help make it all happen can be found HERE.

March for Gaza: Thousands Rally in DC for Global Day of Action

Thousands rallied at Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C., Saturday as part of a global day of action calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war that started on Oct. 7 after Hamas militants launched an attack on Israel killing about 1,300 people.

Since the start of the war, Israel has launched an aggressive bombardment of Gaza and other parts of Palestine in response, sending shockwaves across the world. More than 23,350 people have been killed – mostly children and women – during its retaliatory attacks on Gaza, according to the Palestinian health ministry. 

Last week South Africa brought a case against Israel accusing it of committing the “crime of all crimes: genocide.”

Judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are to decide whether Israel, in its war in Gaza, is guilty of an attempt to “destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part,” as defined by the 1948 Convention on Genocide.

Freedom Plaza overflowed onto Pennsylvania Avenue with marchers chanting the popular “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” as they waved a sea of flags in support of the Palestinian people who remain under siege.

Some marchers prayed on mats in the crowd, and outside the FBI building. Some of the speakers shared stories of losing hundred of people in their families and waiting helplessly for word on relatives surviving the night. The Biden administration has not called for a ceasefire in spite the urging of the international community, including the United Nations.

Biden Faces Criticism for Bypassing Congress to Engage in Mideast Warfare

The U.S. and Britain have started carrying out strikes against the Houthis in Yemen, according to multiple news reports.  And the decision to engage in warfare is not being taken lightly by some members of Congress, including Rep. Ro Khanna who tweeted, “The President needs to come to Congress before launching a strike against the Houthis in Yemen and involving us in another middle east conflict. That is Article I of the Constitution. I will stand up for that regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House.” … “Section 2C of the War Powers Act is clear: POTUS may only introduce the US into hostilities after Congressional authorization or in a national emergency when the U.S. is under imminent attack,” the California Democrat went on. “Reporting is not a substitute. This is a retaliatory, offensive strike.”

Conservatives have used the president’s own statement – that didn’t age well – against him, when he attacked former President Donald Trump in 2020 to declare that he did not have the “authority” to launch a strike in Iran.  On January 6, 2020, Biden tweeted, “Let’s be clear: Donald Trump does not have the authority to take us into war with Iran without Congressional approval. A president should never take this nation to war without the informed consent of the American people.”

Emulating Khanna, Rep. Val Hoyle (D-Ore.) tweeted, “These airstrikes have NOT been authorized by Congress. The Constitution is clear: Congress has the sole authority to authorize military involvement in overseas conflicts. Every president must first come to Congress and ask for military authorization, regardless of party.”

Hoyle followed up on pushback and social media disagreement with this statement, “Presidents of both parties have abused the War Powers Act. It’s my job as a member of Congress to be a check within the balance of power even when it means speaking out against members of my own party.” 

Adding some clarity to the debate on whether the president violated the Constitution by bypassing Congress is former Congressman Justin Amash who provided this statement via X:

One of the most frequently misrepresented federal statutes—often falsely used to justify unconstitutional presidential war powers—is the War Powers Resolution (or Act) (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1550). If only more people would read it. Contrary to what you may have heard about the War Powers Resolution, it does not allow the president to take military action for any reason for 60-90 days without congressional approval so long as the president notifies Congress within 48 hours. Section 1541(c) of the War Powers Resolution states clearly: “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.Of the three cited authorities, not one indicates a presidential power to take unilateral (without Congress’s approval) offensive military action.

The first two authorities allow the president to take offensive military action but only with Congress’s express approval (Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war). The third authority allows the president to take defensive military action without Congress’s approval in the event of a specific type of national emergency, a sudden unforeseen attack on the United States (happening too quickly for Congress to meet) necessitating immediate action to protect Americans. It’s for this last situation (or for situations in which the president introduces forces into hostilities unlawfully) that the War Powers Resolution provides for the oft-mentioned 48-hour report to Congress (§ 1543) and 60-day (up to 90-day) timeline (§ 1544). If there’s an attack in progress on the United States (i.e., currently happening), we expect the president to respond swiftly to neutralize the attack and protect Americans—and then we will hold the president to account. The Framers of the Constitution agreed at the debates in the federal convention of 1787 that the president should have the “power to repel sudden attacks” but not the power to otherwise introduce forces into hostilities without congressional approval. The War Powers Resolution does not confer any new authority on the president to take offensive military action without congressional approval—nor could it under our Constitution. It instead checks the president when, as the Framers contemplated, the president introduces our Armed Forces into hostilities to repel a sudden attack.

Adding additional substance to the debate is Classical Liberal Caucus with the X handle, @LP_CLC with the following post:

“Jefferson and Madison both got Congressional approval before attacking pirates in 1805 and 1815. That is the precedent Biden ignores. (Madison sought a declaration of war. He didn’t get it.)”

Amash continued his criticism on X, stating “If President Biden had enough time to form a multinational coalition to plan and conduct strikes in Yemen, then he had enough time to seek and obtain an authorization from Congress as our Constitution requires. Without this authorization, any nondefensive military action is unconstitutional and unlawful.”

Regardless of the technicalities of engaging the United States in nonstop warfare, there will be a price to pay. And if history is worth its weight, it is The People who will carry the heavy burden of our elected leaders’ war games.

Why Another Luxury Brand Doesn’t Deserve BIPOC Money

The founder of the high-end athletic wear brand makes no secret about how he feels about DEI.

Maya Angelou told ya’ll: When someone shows you who they are, believe them. When it comes to Lululemon, you don’t even have to read between the lines. The high-end athletic apparel brand, which rose to popularity in the early 2000s with yoga-loving yuppies, has had more bad press than good. Even its naming has a shady racist backstory: In a 2004 interview with National Post Business Magazine, Lululemon founder and former CEO Chip Wilson said inspiration for the company’s name came from an observation that people of Japanese descent have difficulty pronouncing words with the English letter “L” in them. Seriously.

“L is not in their vocabulary. It’s a tough pronunciation for them. So I thought, next time I have a company, I’ll make a name with three Ls and see if I can get three times the money,” he said. “It’s kind of exotic for them. I was playing with Ls and I came up with Lululemon. It’s funny to watch them try to say it.” Wilson stepped down from his position as CEO in 2013 after he came under fire for controversial comments he made about women’s bodies in response to criticism of the quality of the fabric used to make Lululemon yoga pants. “Frankly, some women’s bodies just don’t actually work for [the pants],” he said at the time. “It’s really about the rubbing through the thighs, how much pressure is there over a period of time, how much they use it.”

Wilson’s comments didn’t stop customers from shelling out their hard-earned dough for their $100 leggings. Still, Lululemon has tried to distance itself from Wilson and his words and present itself as a brand for every body. In 2020, the company tried to right some of its past wrongs by rolling out a new Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Action (IDEA) initiative to increase staff diversity, improve communication between underrepresented staff and company leadership; and advocate for change. A quick look at the retail website shows models of color featured prominently on the page.

But according to recent reporting from Business of Fashion, current and former Lululemon employees say the IDEA initiative isn’t what it seems and allege Lululemon has “a company culture that is unwelcoming of Black people.”

“[Lululemon] makes you feel like it’s going to be supportive and you’re not going to be a part of the history of micro aggressive behavior, and it just isn’t the case,” said Kenosha Armstrong, a store operations lead. In a recent interview with Forbes, Chip Wilson said he’s not really down with all of that diversity and inclusion stuff the company is on these days. “[Lululemon is] trying to become like the Gap, everything to everybody,” he said. “And I think the definition of a brand is that you’re not everything to everybody. You’ve got to be clear that you don’t want certain customers coming in.”

Lululemon is doing damage control, having released a statement denouncing Wilson’s words. “Chip Wilson does not speak for Lululemon, and his comments do not reflect our company views or beliefs,” the brand said in a statement. “Chip has not been involved with the company since his resignation from the board in 2015, and we are a very different company today.”

But as @DAGHE so eloquently inquired on X, why would we give our hard-earned cash to a brand that has historically not embraced us?

Editors Note: Article first reported in The Root by Angela Johnson

Harvard’s History Guided Resignation of First Black President

The first Black president and the 30th president of Harvard, Dr. Claudine Gay began her office in July 2023. She will remain at Harvard as a tenured faculty member, and will be succeeded by interim president Alan Garber, the university’s provost and chief academic officer.

Here is the full resignation letter,  Harvard’s Office of the President.

Editors note: Contributing comment from Shannon Frison, Judge at Massachusetts Superior Court | U.S. Marine | Speaker | DEI Expert

“Harvard is my alma mater. In all my time and studies there, I never learned this part of the school’s history. When we say that the history of race in this country is not adequately taught, this is what we mean. When we say that history of atrocities is not that old, this is what we mean.

As reported by the Harvard Crimson itself:

J. Max Bond Jr. ’55 entered Harvard at the age of 16, (1 of 15 Black students in his class). As his freshman spring semester began, two other Harvard freshmen erected a wooden cross facing that corner of the Yard, formed by Stoughton and Holworthy Halls. And around midnight on Feb. 5, 1952, the students lit the cross on fire. The photo below shows Harvard KKK members proudly showing off their regalia on graduation day 1924.”

Here is another perspective from The Root, titled, Black People To Claudine Gay: ‘Why Didn’t You Consult Your Black Chat Group Before Making That Testimony’ Black people everywhere are wondering if Claudine Gay had Black friends to warn her from making that unforgivable testimony.

Claudine Gay received the call that ended her six-month tenure as Harvard University’s first Black president two days after Christmas while on vacation in Rome, per the New York Times. Gay’s congressional testimony about antisemitism on college campuses, along with plagiarism allegations, sparked mounting controversy. Harvard has denied that Gay committed any “research misconduct.”

U.S. Border Crisis: A Political Strategy or Failure of Leadership?

Depending on which talking head you listen to, the illegal immigration issue in America is either a good political and humane strategy, or a complete disaster and failure of leadership. Nonetheless, the crisis at America’s southern borders and across the country is in plain sight.

Editor’s note: Here is a look at VOA immigration-related news around the U.S. 

Justice Department Sues Texas, Says Immigration Law Unconstitutional

The Justice Department on Wednesday sued Texas over a new law that would allow police to arrest migrants who enter the U.S. illegally, taking Republican Governor Greg Abbott to court again over his escalating response to border crossers arriving from Mexico. The Associated Press reports.

Chinese Migration Up at Border as US Marks Anniversary of Repeal of Exclusion Act

As the U.S marks the 80th anniversary of the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act, thousands of Chinese immigrants are crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, mostly for the same reasons as their countrymen did more than a century ago. VOA’s immigration reporter Aline Barros has more.

Huge Number of Migrants Highlights Border Crisis

U.S. officials processed an estimated 300,000 people at the U.S. border with Mexico in December, which would be the highest number ever recorded, according to multiple news organizations. VOA’s Rob Garver reports.

US, Mexico Discuss Options to Slow Surge of Migrants at Border

U.S. and Mexican officials met December 27 in Mexico City to discuss how to slow the surge of migrants at their shared border, where there have been as many as 10,000 illegal crossings into the United States daily in December. The two sides, led by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, met for about two hours. VOANews reports.

US Reopens Border Crossings as Illegal Immigration Drops

The U.S. is resuming operations at an international bridge in Eagle Pass, Texas, two crossings in Arizona and another near San Diego, California. U.S. Customs and Border Protection said in a news release that it will continue to prioritize border security “as necessary.” Reuters reports.

Democratic Mayors Renew Pleas for Federal Help Over Migrant Crisis

The mayors of Chicago, New York City and Denver last week renewed pleas for more federal help and coordination with Texas over the growing number of asylum-seekers arriving in their cities by bus and plane. The Associated Press reports.

Remittances from Nicaraguan Migrants Mark New Record, Passing $4 Billion

Nicaraguan migrants sent relatives back home record remittances this year through November, data from the country’s central bank showed, fueled by massive waves of migration leaving the Central American nation in recent years. In a statement, the bank noted a record of about $4.24 billion in remittances for the 11-month period, 47% more than the amount sent home during the same period last year. Reuters reports.

California Expands Health Care for Low-Income Immigrants in 2024

More than 700,000 immigrants living illegally in California gained access to free health care on January 1 under one of the state’s most ambitious coverage expansions in a decade. It’s an effort that will eventually cost the state about $3.1 billion per year and inches California closer to Democrats’ goal of providing universal health care to its roughly 39 million residents. The Associated Press reports.

House Speaker Wants US ‘Border Closed’ Before Passing Ukraine, Israel Aid

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson led about 60 fellow Republicans in Congress on a visit Wednesday to the Mexican border to demand hard-line immigration policies in exchange for backing President Joe Biden’s emergency wartime funding request for Ukraine. The Associated Press reports.

Immigrants Add Twist to Traditional US Christmas Dinner

The United States broke free from Britain more than two centuries ago — except, maybe, when it comes to the traditional Christmas dinner.