A Country With Two Pro-War Parties Passes An Obscene War Budget-- Biggest Ever

Tuesday evening Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus was one of 43 Democrats with the guts to vote against the bloated $740 billion National Defense Authorization Act. She was one of the champions of the bicameral amendment that would have cut the budget by 10 percent-- reinvesting the $74 billion into communities across the country-- but the amendment, which garnered 93 votes, failed.

"We are simply spending far too much on the Pentagon," she told her Seattle constituents, "and have been for far too long-- while at the same time, cutting the budgets of the State Department, EPA, Department of Education and Department of Housing. This is completely upside down. Instead of investing in going to war all around the world, we should be investing in strengthening communities all around this country. We are in the midst of a global pandemic with more than 3.8 million Americans falling ill to COVID-19 and 141,000 losing their lives-- more American lives lost than during World War I or the Vietnam War, and in just a short five months. More than 48 million Americans have filed for unemployment. At least 27 million people have lost health care during the pandemic, joining the 87 million who were already uninsured or underinsured. And this is all happening as the Administration refuses to acknowledge the scale of the crisis, and continues to cut funding for education, housing, transportation, infrastructure and public health. We must redefine and reimagine what it means to be strong. Being strong is not funding a bloated Pentagon budget that is larger than the military budgets of the next 11 countries combined. Being strong means an end to endless wars. It means investing in diplomacy, international development and coalition building. It means guaranteeing health care for everyone in this country. It means investing in our communities-- putting more resources towards public health, affordable housing, universal child care, renewable energy, public transit, infrastructure, public education and giving educators a raise. I was proud to champion an effort to cut the Pentagon’s budget by 10 percent because there are so many ways we could invest that $74 billion, which is greater than the budgets of the CDC, EPA, Department of Housing, and National Parks Services combined. But what we should not do is give it away to corrupt defense contractors who relentlessly lobby for and profit off of our country’s excessive military budget. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what this legislation would do. I won’t support it."

The amendment failed in the House 93-324, all the Republicans and the Democratic Party's immensely dominant Military Industrial Complex wing-- led by Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer-- firmly behind the Pentagon waste and bloat... and the immense bribes that flow to members of Congress who back it. It was no surprise to see most of the members of the most disappointing freshmen class in history-- your Joe Cunninghams, Anthony Brindisis, Jared Goldens, Mikie Sherrills, David Trones, Max Roses, Kendra Horns, Harley Roudas, Cindy Axnes, Abigail Spanbergers, Gil Cisneroses-- join with the corrupt Democrats like Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ), Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL), Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN), Cedric Richmond (New Dem-LA), Pete Aguilar (New Dem-CA), Raja Krishnamoorthi (Senate wannabe-IL), Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL), Val Demings (New Dem-FL), Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL), Eliot Engel (New Dem-NY) and the GOP to vote down the amendment.

The only freshmen with the courage and conviction to back the amendment were AOC D-NY), Andy Levin (D-MI), Katie Porter (D-CA), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Chuy García (D-IL), Jahana Hayes (D-CT), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Kweisi Mfume (D-MD), Lori Trahan (D-MA) and Joe Neguse (D-CO). And only one of them-- Katie Porter-- was among the freshmen dubbed a "majority maker" by the corrupted Pelosi-Hoyer-DCCC fraction of the Democratic Party. Many people were shocked to see establishment conservatives Richie Neal (MA), Lacy Clay (MO), Stephen Lynch (MA), and Emanuel Cleaver (MO) vote with progressives for the 10% reduction... but each has a primary coming up in the next few weeks, and it was a cheap ploy to make.

When it came to approving the Pentagon budget itself-- without the 10% reduction-- 43 Democrats, 81 Republicans and independent Justin Amash voted no. Watching which Dems who voted for the amendment then voted for the budget anyway, tells you a lot about those members and their motivations, among them... Richie Neal, Lacy Clay, Stephen Lynch and Emanuel Cleaver. Oh, that's a familiar little list!

Liam O'Mara, progressive Democrat running for a congressional seat held by Trump puppet Ken Calvert in Riverside County, wasn't surprised that Calvert voted against the 10% cut and for the bloated Pentagon budget. "As usual," he told me after the vote, "Crooked Ken Calvert is all too happy to put the needs of his donors in the defense industry above the needs of the American people. That anyone tolerates this level of corruption in a so-called 'Representative' is unfortunate. Calvert couldn't care less that people are losing their income, losing their homes, losing their healthcare, or even that we have veterans sleeping outdoors-- all he cares about is shoveling taxpayer dollars into Lockheed Martin's waiting cash-bag."

Arizona progressive Eva Putzova favored the amendment and told me that her opponent, Blue Dog "Tom O'Halleran tweeted about his vote to pass the NDAA, saying he did so to 'strengthen our national defense' and 'protect the A-10 Warthog & the KC-135.' Meanwhile,  he takes thousands from the top five profiteers of the War in Yemen-- Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and General Electric. He profits by protecting the military industrial complex, all while staying quiet on bold legislation to solve the many crises within our borders, including COVID-19. I will do what he chooses not to-- put people first. I will fight to end all wars of choice and cut the bloated Pentagon budget to reinvest in our communities.

The next day, the Senate took up the same amendment, which had been written by Bernie. It failed-- dismally, 77-23, every single Republican voting against it-- as well as Kamala Harris, probably to please the Biden VP search team, and all the conservative fake Dems like Joe Manchin (WV), Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Mark Warner (VA), Michael Bennet (CO), Tom Carper (DE), Doug Jones (AL), Jackie Rosen (NV), Tammy Duckworth (IL)... all the usual suspects + Sherrod Brown (who, no doubt will eventually apologize to his progressive supporters).

Cutting The Pentagon Budget-- By 10%

I caught those above two minutes Wednesday night on MSNBC of Ali Velshi interviewing Bernie about his amendment to cut the Pentagon budget by 10% and repurpose the funds for America's most economically hard-pressed communities. What's a mere 10% you might ask and how can that help anyone? How about $74 billion with a "b?" The proposed Pentagon Budget is $740.5 billion and Bernie and his allies in this battle-- Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (R-OR), Ron Wyden (R-OR) and, believe it or not, normally reflexive war-monger Chuck Schumer who may be nervous about a prospective upcoming primary challenge from AOC, in the Senate and Barbara Lee (D-CA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Mark Pocan (D-WI) in the House-- would like to see that money go towards healthcare, housing and childcare in communities with a poverty rate of over 25%.

The amendment is to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2021 by far right Oklahoma Republican Jim Inhofe-- and it's one of over 700 amendments offered in the Senate alone! That includes another one by Bernie-- along with Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Mike Lee (R-UT)-- to force a Pentagon audit and one by Bernie, "Reduction in Amount Authorized to be Appropriated for Fiscal Year 2021 by this Act" that would amount to a 14% spending cut across all DoD agencies (excluding personnel, research and healthcare).

Most of the 700+ amendments will never be voted on. This one will. In a letter of support from dozens of organizations across the country other members were urged to sign on as cosponsors. "We urge you to co-sponsor Amendment 1788 introduced by Senators Sanders and Markey, and vote in support should it reach the Senate floor."

Our militarism budget is out of control. In 2019, the United States spent more money on our military than the next nine countries combined. The Department of Defense's budget eclipses that of federal courts, education, the State Department, local economic development, public health, and environmental protection combined, yet the Pentagon is incapable of passing a basic audit.

Multiple analyses have determined that U.S. and collective security would not suffer, and in fact would improve by, cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from the runaway Pentagon budget through common-sense steps, like eliminating redundant and unusable weapons systems, ending wars, ceasing reliance on expensive contractors, and rejecting new nuclear weapons development. These overdue steps would instead allow us to properly focus our investments on our most urgent and pressing human needs. Polling demonstrates that this is a popular idea, and most American voters want to see money redirected from the Pentagon to invest in human security.

The jarring recent images of police with weapons of war in our streets is a stark reminder of how militarism and white supremacy drive misplaced spending priorities both at home and abroad. Meanwhile, all over the country, millions have lost their jobs and access to healthcare as the novel coronavirus pandemic rages on. The current moment should force us to confront the reality that, for too long, we have invested in the wrong priorities, the wrong tools, and the wrong solutions.

As a point of comparison: last year, the Centers for Disease Control budget was $7 billion, just 7 percent of the national policing budget, and less than 1 percent of the Pentagon budget. Those three figures alone tell a tragic story about what and who this country prioritizes and values.

We should no longer tolerate unchecked spending on systems that fuel violence and corporate greed at the expense of the basic needs of our people. This amendment is a crucial step toward a federal budget that actually aligns with our values. We strongly urge you to support it.

This amendment is going to be voted on in both houses of Congress by the end of the month. I'll remember to tell you who votes for it and who votes against it. Will you remember to not support Democrats who oppose it? I know Eva Putzova, Cathy Kunkel and Liam O'Mara are, in great part, motivated to run for Congress because of a genuine yearning for peace on earth. I asked each how they feel about the amendment. Eva told me that "It always comes down to the institutionalized, legalized corruption. Those who take money from corporate interests benefiting from the military-industrial complex like my opponent vote for expansion of the DoD budget every single time. Finally, we have a bill that can divert resources from wasteful and inhumane war economy to programs and services we desperately need. I doubt Congressman O'Halleran will have the political courage to do what's right but hope these will be among the last bills he would cast his votes for."

"My opponent, Congressman Mooney, recently cosponsored a bill to claw money back from the CARES Act-- money for low-income legal aid, public transit and the Peace Corps, among others," said West Virginia progressive Cathy Kunkel. "Rather than cutting programs with direct benefit to West Virginians (and millions of other Americans), the real question is what benefit are Americans really deriving from our oversized military budget, especially when the Department of Defense is incapable of passing an audit to even account for these expenditures? If I were in Congress today, I would be supporting efforts to redirect military spending towards basic economic needs, like healthcare and education."

Liam O'Mara, the progressive Democrat running for the last GOP hold in Riverside County, reminded me that "We were warned, repeatedly, and most famously in 1961 by Eisenhower, that the defence establishment gaining influence over Congress would be disastrous for our way of life and system of government. We ignored those warnings, and have sent people back to Congress again and again who are fully bought and paid for by the military-industrial complex. Ken Calvert is one such swamp-creature-- a so-called Representative who refuses to meet his constituents and is 98% funded by corporate interests, the largest share of which are defence contractors. Maybe if we stopped electing people who are there just to serve the stock price of big corporations, and whose loyalty is only to the almighty dollar, we wouldn't be spending such an obscene amount of money on tools of destruction, or using them to bomb eight countries. It's time to wake up, stop shovelling blood and treasure into that yawning void that is the stock market, and get this country working for ordinary people again. And the way to do that is to fire spineless lackeys like Calvert who'll spend any amount of our money to make his owners richer."

New must-watch video from Brave New Films:

Ever Wonder Where Trump's-- And His Followers'-- Contempt For The Constitution Is Leading Us?

Jamie Raskin (D-MD), is the guy people turn to when they want the sharpest insight into how the Constitution was meant to work and how it really does work. He's pretty much acknowledged the smartest constitutional scholar in any room. "The president just impeached by the House of Representatives for contorting U.S. foreign policy to advance his reelection," he told us yesterday, "now usurps the war powers of Congress to make assassination of strategic (not operational) military personnel an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. This is a perilous new provocation and political distraction by the impetuous, lawless and ungovernable Donald Trump. No one will miss the blood-soaked General Soleimani, but that is not the question. The constitutional question is whether the President can order killings of ‘bad guys’ anywhere in the world without a declaration of war and without even  consultation of Congress. The policy question is what America will do now as the Iraqi Parliament seeks to kick all U.S. forces out of their country and an inflamed Iranian regime, bolstered by popular backlash against Trump, threatens 'severe revenge' against the  American people, American businesses and American allies. The master of official law-breaking and monarchical arrogance, President Trump has now unleashed a new descent into chaos in the Middle East. After the decades-long nightmares of the trillion-dollar Afghan and Iraqi Wars, which cost thousands of American and allied forces’ lives, in addition to thousands of civilians in those countries, the president has brought us to the brink of another brutal and endless war. We are all much less safe today because of the President’s recent outbreak of lawless impetuosity."

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that some Bolton cronies have indicated that his testimony would likely be damning to Señor Trumpanzee and "put additional pressure on moderate Republicans to consider convicting him." The Times speculated that "That could fundamentally change the dynamics around the impeachment trial in the Senate, where a two-thirds vote-- 67 senators-- is needed to remove Mr. Trump. Democrats, the minority party, control 45 seats." There aren't 22 "moderate" Republicans in the Senate

A little later on today, foreign policy expert Reese Erlich will give us his back-of-the-envelope version of what happened in regard to the Trump assassinations against Iran in Baghdad. By the weekend, I expect a much fuller analysis from him. I was especially struck by his comparison of the meaning of Soleimani to the Iranian people to how Americans would have viewed the assassination of Eisenhower during World War II. Damned, I hope someone is telling the Iranians to retaliate against Trump’s own property and not against the American people. Most of us hate him as much as they do.

He wants to be a war president

Over this past weekend, The Atlantic published an essay by Yale law professor Oona Hathaway, The Soleimani Strike Defied The U.S. Constitution, warning that “if Congress fails to respond effectively, the constitutional order will be broken beyond repair, and the president will be left with the unmitigated power to take the country to war on his own-- anywhere, anytime, for any reason.” Did no one tell Hathaway that that seems to be exactly what the transpartisan DC establishment has been aiming at for decades? A complete abrogation of responsibility that the Constitution invested in the Congress.

Hathaway wrote that “Any significant military action requires legal authority under both domestic and international law. Normally, domestic law would require the president to seek the approval of Congress, usually through a law authorizing the use of military force (after all, the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to ‘declare war’). International law would also require him to seek the approval of the United Nations Security Council before resorting to force, unless the host state consents (which it did not) or the action qualifies for the express, but narrow, self-defense exception. Trump did not seek approval in either forum.” Does anyone assume that Trump has any feelings other than complete contempt for the Constitution and constitutional norms? AM I missing something?

National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien told reporters that the killing was justified under the 2002 law Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, which was passed to permit the president to act to address threats posed by Iraq. Relying on the law would require a conclusion that the threat from Soleimani, an Iranian government official, was posed by Iraq. In other words, relying on the law is as good as admitting there is no legal basis. Vice President Mike Pence also asserted a false connection between Soleimani and the 9/11 attacks, perhaps in an effort to suggest that the strike could fall under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. Those claims have been widely discredited, and several members of the Senate earlier expressed skepticism that the 2001 law authorized action against Iran.

Without any more solid legal authority to cite, the Trump administration seems to have turned to the claim that it was acting in self-defense. Though the administration has yet to provide any clear explanation for the legality of the strikes, it has offered various clues that the central justification is the president’s right to engage in self-defense on behalf of the United States. The Department of Defense issued a short statement suggesting that the attack was justified as an act of defense “aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo later more forcefully claimed that the strike was aimed at disrupting an “imminent attack.”

This claim-- were it true-- could solve the administration’s domestic and international legal problems at once. Both the U.S. Constitution and the UN charter include an exception for self-defense. Under Article II of the Constitution, the president may act to respond to imminent threats to the nation. The original idea was that there may be times when it is impractical or impossible to convene Congress-- something that was especially true when communication and travel could take weeks. In such cases, the president would not be prevented from taking necessary action to defend the nation until Congress could be convened. The UN charter, which prohibits a state from unilaterally resorting to the use of force against another state, also allows for an exception in cases where the state has been the subject of an armed attack or, most experts agree, will imminently be subject to such an attack. In both cases, the exception is narrow: The threat must be so extreme and imminent that it would be unreasonable to seek the necessary approvals before taking action to defend the country.

New reporting from the New York Times, however, concludes that “the evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is ‘razor thin.’” A U.S. government official reportedly described the claim that Soleimani was planning an attack “that could kill hundreds” as “an illogical leap.” In short, it does not seem there was any imminent threat justifying unilateral action by the president.

…Though presidents have pushed the boundaries of their unilateral authority before, this action by President Trump is arguably unprecedented. When President Barack Obama participated in the NATO strikes in Libya, at least the operation was undertaken with allies and approved by the United Nations Security Council. (He later stated that the operation was the worst mistake of his presidency.) When President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, his international support was tenuous, but he had clear congressional authorization. In fact, the closest recent precedent for the current operation is President Trump’s own earlier decisions to strike Syrian-government targets in April 2017 and again in April 2018-- without either congressional or international support. But those strikes were relatively minor in comparison and did not risk setting off a new regional war.

In 1973, after discovering President Richard Nixon’s secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, Congress took steps to reclaim its power by passing the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to report to Congress whenever armed forces are introduced “into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated,” and to terminate any hostilities after 60 days unless authorized by Congress. The effectiveness of the resolution has since been undermined by, among other things, fights over the meaning of “hostilities.” Congress must now act again not only to reject the illegal use of force represented by the decision to kill Soleimani, but also to reassert its constitutional role in the decision-making process that takes the nation to war. If Congress fails to effectively press back against this unconstitutional assertion of unilateral authority, it will set a precedent that will put the greatest destructive power the world has ever known in the hands of a single man.

There have been just a tiny handful of members of Congress-- a few outlier Republicans and a few dozen (mostly) progressive Democrats-- who have stood up against this slide away from congressional authority and responsibility. At least Barbara Lee isn’t the only one any longer. The most prominent leaders against it, along with her, have certainly not been Pelosi or Hoyer or any of that claque. It’s been Ro Khanna (D-CA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), AOC (D-NY), Justin Amash (I-MI), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Andy Levin (D-MI), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Ayanna Pressley… a pitifully few others.

And all the DCCC’s crappy “majority-maker” 2018 freshmen? Not a single one! Michigander Andy Levin is a freshman but because he won a blue district he isn't considered a "majority maker." Over the weekend he sent out an email to his supporters making his feelings clear about the way Trump has been screwing up the Middle East. He wrote that after "Trump's airstrike on an Iranian General without notifying Congress, I am very concerned that he is on the precipice of starting an unauthorized war with Iran. Last year, I introduced the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Clarification Act to make crystal clear that the president does not have Congressional authorization to initiate a war with Iran. If President Trump believes he needs that authority, he must follow the Constitution, come to Congress, and make his argument. Iran is obviously a dangerous actor on the world stage, and Qasem Soleimani was an enemy of the United States. But this president is reckless-- all impulse and no strategy. We have yet to see a plan in which the U.S. avoids another disastrous war in the Middle East. In the wake of the strike on Thursday night, our top priority must be to protect Americans at home and abroad. That is my goal: To return to Washington and pass the AUMF Clarification Act to save America from another costly war.

War And Peace Doesn't Just Happen To Happen

Alan Grayson: "We don’t let children play with guns, or even knives. So why would we let Donald Trump play with drones, missiles and nuclear weapons?"

Mike Pompeo's bullshit about people dancing in the streets after Trump had Iranian leader Qassim Suleimani assassinated apparently didn't include members of the Iraqi Parliament. On Sunday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Iraq's parliament unanimously voted to demand that Prime Minister Adel-Abdul Mahdi, who initiated the resolution himself, end the U.S. military presence in the country. Trump had talked with Mahdi on the phone before the drone attack on Suleimani's convoy at the Baghdad airport, but neglected to let him know about what was about to happen.

Also not dancing in the streets: progressive candidates running for Congress. This is a list of 2020 House candidates, 16 progressive Democrats endorsed by Blue America, along with their opponents. Each of the opponents voted in favor of the NDAA that gives Trump a free hand to start wars on a whim, like the one he’s ginning up against Iran right now. The Blue America-endorsed opponents have all said they would have voted against the NDAA.

• Shaniyat Chowdhury v Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
• Kara Eastman v Donald Bacon (NE-02)
• Kathy Ellis v Jason Smith (MO-08)
• Robert Emmons v Bobby Rush (IL-01)
• Mark Gamba v Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
• Morgan Harper v Joyce Beatty (OH-03)
• Marie Newman v Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
• Liam O’Mara v Ken Calvert (CA-42)
• Michael Owens v David Scott (GA-13)
• Rebecca Parson v Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
• Eva Putzova v Tom O’Halleran (AZ-01)
• J.D. Scholten v Steve King (IA-04)
• Mike Siegel v Michael McCaul (TX-10)
• Rachel Ventura v Bill Foster (IL-11)
• Kim Williams v Jim Costa (CA-16)
• Brianna Wu v Stephen Lynch (MA-08)

These Republicans and conservative Democrats should not be reelected and I want to ask you to help support the challengers. When you hear the phrase Bernie wants to send your children to college and Trump wants to send them to war, remember that it isn’t only Trump, it’s also Republican stooges like Michael McCaul, Ken Calvert and Steve King and reactionary Democrats like Tom O’Halleran, Jim Costa and Kurt Schrader. It’s time to take a stand. Eva Putzova sure has. She's running for the Arizona seat occupied by Blue Dog Tom O'Halleran, an "ex"-Republican legislator who voted for Trump's Pentagon budget. Eva has been completely clear that should would have voted NO. "Only Congress has the power to declare war," she told us yesterday, "and responsibility of oversight of and accountability for our use of military force. Yet Congress has increasingly enabled the reckless abuse of the AUMF by turning a blind eye to Executive overreach and by giving the Office of President ever-increasing military budget. As a member of Congress, my opponent has been complacent with the abuse of military power and bears responsibility for countless lives lost. His latest votes, failing to limit Trump's war-making ability and giving him the resources to start a war, are in conflict with the interests of his constituents, this country, and the entire global community."

Kim Williams, a former U.S. diplomat when Obama was president, is also running for a congressional seat held by a reactionary Blue Dog, Jim Costa (CA-16). "Last July," she told us, "Mitch McConnell rebuffed attempts to amend the NDAA by stating that Democrats were politicizing the process. He added that they would not be doing this if there were a Democratic president. But this argument fails to acknowledge a number of political realities. One, Congress should never have written a blank check to any President. Two, Republicans don’t win elections. The last two lost the popular vote by significant margins and neither showed the temperament nor the intellect to make life or death decisions. A functioning democracy should save us from the impulses of a single, flawed individual, and I can not understand how Members of Congress can argue that we should take slow, 'common sense' steps to address issues that cost real American lives like our failing healthcare system, air pollution, and poverty, but then fast track decisions around war. The fact that this President has a history of playing with decoys is even more troubling. Would he have made the same order if he wasn’t facing impeachment? I don’t think so. Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna have now introduced legislation that would block Pentagon funding for any unilateral actions taken by President Trump. If I am elected, they will have my full support."

Virtually all of the candidates we’ve endorsed have been bringing up Ro Khanna as a member of Congress they want to work with to preserve peace. Some say it in very simple terms and others have written long essays already! Last night Dr. Michael Owens, the progressive Democrat challenging Blue Dog warmonger David Scott in the suburbs south and west of Atlanta (GA-13) told me that “House Democrats should not cede any ground to this president when it comes to allowing him to use his judgement and executive branch authority. I would not have voted for the NDAA… mainly because we needed to have the amendments in the bill that Rep. Ro Khanna and Rep. Barbara Lee put forth. Amendments to block funding for a war with Iran barring congressional approval and the amendment to repeal 2001’s ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists’ (AUMF) could’ve possibly reigned in President Trump’s reckless actions and questionable reasoning for the U.S. drone strike he authorized against the high-ranking Iranian officials.”

Rachel Ventura, the progressive Will County Board member challenging New Dem Bill Foster (IL-11), noted that when she is elected she "will exercise my role as congresswoman to keep any president-- Democrat or Republican-- in check. That is the job of the United States House of Representatives and I will do my job. Just last December, many members of Congress disregarded that job they had to do by passing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a blank check that allowed the president to use government funding to conduct the very strike that landed us in our current position. They could have supported Ro Khanna's amendment and any number of other measures that would have limited Trump's ability to continue destabilizing the world. Instead, they gave an unstable president a blank check to destabilize an already unstable region. So to all the members of Congress who voted to pass this funding bill, including my opponent Bill Foster, you can't give an 'unhinged' president a check in December and then criticize the same man for using that check a month later. It is hypocritical to criticize Donald Trump's wrongful assassination of a senior Iranian General after shirking your responsibility to keep the president in check. I will not be a part of the caucus that simply goes along to get along. I will be joining the courageous members of Congress in the progressive caucus who had the foresight to predict this nightmare."

Rachel's neighbor in Chicagoland-- they sometimes hold joint events-- Robert Emmons, who’s taking on Bobby Rush, put it much more succinctly: "War will cost us trillions of dollars. War will end thousands of lives. Reparations, ending everyday gun violence, universal pre-k, Medicare for All, universal transportation, and a Green New Deal will save lives. I choose pro-peace." Pretty straight to the point. And Marie Newman, a third Chicagoland progressive taking on a reactionary pro-war Dem (Dan Lipinski) told us "My opponent voted for the NDAA and that says it all. He believes this president should have full power to start wars whenever he wishes."

Rebecca Parson, the Democratic Socialist challenging northwest Washington New Dem Derek Kilmer, was even more succinct! "Derek Kilmer voted for Trump’s war budget and now Trump is stoking war with Iran. We need principled progressives in Congress, not corporate tools of the war machine."

One state down, Mark Gamba, the progressive mayor of Milwaukie, Oregon, is running for the congressional seat held by Blue Dog war-monger Kurt Schrader, who, needless to say, voted for the NDAA a couple of weeks ago. Mark told me today that "We go to war to make rich people richer. We do it both to secure access to other countries resources for our corporations and simply to enrich the military industrial complex. We allow our young people to be maimed, psychologically ravaged or be killed in order to enrich Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and dozens of others. Never mind the fact that we kill millions of innocent civilians in other countries in the process. I believe in a strong national defense. But we were already spending more than the next 10 largest militaries in the world combined before the terrible vote by 188 house Democrats to increase it. Yet the only real threat we face goes completely unaddressed, simply because no defense contractor will make billions fighting climate change. No big surprise that Kurt Schrader was one of the Dems that took that bad vote. It’s long past time to replace corporate dems with people who are not beholden the Military Industrial Complex and who actually give a damn about our young people. It’s time to spend this kind of money solving the actual threat of climate change rather than the Trumped up threats from other countries. It may also be high time to preemptively launch antiwar protests. I’ll see you on the streets."

Liam O’Mara is the progressive running for the Riverside County congressional seat that lockstep Trump toadie Ken Calvert occupies. There are few districts in California where the contrast between the two candidates is as great. Yesterday, Liam, a history professor, told us that "Trump just made another massive blunder in the Middle East-- another in a long line of blunders that we keep making there. We violated Iraqi sovereignty, broke international law, committed an act of war against Iran, and may also have violated U.S. law-- and for what? To keep feeding the war machine, to get more troops sent overseas and keep up the endless waste of taxpayer dollars and lives? I think that the U.S. deserves better from its leaders. I think that it deserves investment in its citizens, in their quality of life, not in constant wars for oil and defense-contractor dollars. We should be building houses and hospitals, roads and bridges, factories and farms… not bombing ten countries, wasting trillions on unwinnable wars, and assassinating foreign leaders. It’s time to think about what kind of country we want-- a moral exemplar, devoted to the rule of law, or a rogue state, concerned only for power and greed. I know where I stand on that, and where Ken Calvert stands."





Yesterday, Pelosi sent out this letter to all the Democrats in Congress, announcing that the House would vote on a war powers resolution to prevent Trump from going to war with Iran on a whim. Note it is being carried for her by a conservative Democrat, Elissa Slotkin, rather than by one of the progressives who would be a natural-- like Barbara Lee or Ro Khanna. I suppose Pelosi thinks that will help her lock up votes on the right for the Democratic Party more easily.

Dear Democratic Colleague,

Last week, the Trump Administration conducted a provocative and disproportionate military airstrike targeting high-level Iranian military officials. This action endangered our servicemembers, diplomats and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with Iran.

As Members of Congress, our first responsibility is to keep the American people safe. For this reason, we are concerned that the Administration took this action without the consultation of Congress and without respect for Congress’s war powers granted to it by the Constitution.

This week, the House will introduce and vote on a War Powers Resolution to limit the President’s military actions regarding Iran. This resolution is similar to the resolution introduced by Senator Tim Kaine in the Senate. It reasserts Congress’s long-established oversight responsibilities by mandating that if no further Congressional action is taken, the Administration’s military hostilities with regard to Iran cease within 30 days.

The House Resolution will be led by Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin.  Congresswoman Slotkin is a former CIA and Department of Defense analyst specializing in Shia militias. She served multiple tours in the region under both Democratic and Republican Administrations.

I greatly appreciate the solemnity with which all of our Members are working to honor our responsibility to protect American lives and values.

Thank you for your patriotic leadership during this difficult time.

When Ro Khanna Speaks, It Matters-- We Need More Members Of Congress Like Him, Not Pointless Backbenchers

Ro Khanna's grandfather was arrested during the Indian independence movement and wound up sharing a British prison cell with Mahatma Gandhi. No doubt, that's from whom Khanna got the moxie to stand up yesterday in front of Congress and make this absolutely incredible speech opposing the NDAA-- which would be better named "the endless War and Corruption bill." I implore you to listen to what Khanna had to say. It's less than 2 minutes but it has enough in it to be worth an hour to every single American. In fact, please spread it around to your friends and relatives.

In the end, this miserable bill-- pushed by both Pelosi and McCarthy, an example of the pathetic leadership on both sides of the aisle-- passed 377-48. Only 41 Democrats voted NO, including Ro Khanna (CA), AOC (NY), Barbara Lee (CA), Rashida Tlaib (MI), Ilhan Omar (MN), Jamie Raskin (MD), Ayanna Pressely (MA), Pramila Jayapal (WA), Raul Grijalva (AZ), Andy Levin (MI), Joe Neguse (CO), Judy Chu (CA), Jan Schakowsky (IL), Steve Cohen (TN), Tulsi (HI), Bonnie Watson-Coleman (NJ), Jerry Nadler (NY), Chuy Garcia (IL)... So where were all the freshmen the DCCC elected last year? Voting with the GOP, of course. (By the way, there would have been 42 Democrats but Ted Lieu was recuperating in the hospital and unable to cast a vote.)

Hopefully, Austin progressive Mike Siegel will be #43 next time the NDAA comes up for a vote. Endless war and corruption is like a middle name for his GOP opponent, Michael McCaul. Right after McCaul's vote, Mike told us that "I stand with Rep. Khanna and the members of Congress who are willing to take a stand and oppose a blank check for military spending. We are facing a climate crisis, but these same people who support the defense budget ask 'how will we pay' for a Green New Deal. We are in a health care crisis and rural hospitals are closing, but we ask 'how will we pay' for Medicare for All. This vote shows how disingenuous the 'PayGo' tactic can be. Here in TX-10, Rep. McCaul will support cuts to basic nutritional assistance for starving Americans, in service of fiscal austerity, but he can’t be bothered to oppose a $120B increase in military spending. 'The Blob' is a third rail in DC politics, decades after Eisenhower’s admonition about the military industrial complex. We need a progressive movement to stand up to this warmongering, that not only sabotages international diplomacy, but also comes at the cost of a real safety net at home."

Columbus Ohio progressive candidate Morgan Harper is running against a corrupt establishment Democrat, Joyce Beatty, who backed the horrific Pentagon Budget. Afterwards, Morgan sent me a short note: "Why I would have voted ‘no’ on the defense bill that just passed in the House: This bill effectively gives permission for the U.S. to continue its endless wars. It also does nothing to curb the continued abuse of power by the Office of the President to engage in war without congressional approval. Democrats are touting the success of the compromise bill by citing such achievements as extended paid parental leave. To achieve this ‘win’ they accepted the creation of a ‘space force,’ which is nothing more than political fodder for the President’s base. However, this is just another example of Democrats simply not understanding strategy and being out-negotiated, as the President’s circle already wanted extended parental leave. Finally, there is no mention of how this will be paid for. Not only is this in clear opposition to Republicans’ pretend platform of ‘fiscal responsibility’, but also if we’re in the mood to pass spending bills without accounting for how they will be paid for, let’s start by addressing issues of actual importance like housing the homeless. This bill is nothing more than business as usual for Republicans and further evidence that many elected Democrats are no better."

  Arizona progressive Eva Putzova is an admirer of Ro Khanna's politics and see's the Defense Budget the same way he does. Right after the House backed the bill-- including her Blue Dog opponent, Tom O'Halleran-- she told us "The vote by the House of Representatives to approve a new defense budget of $738 billion dollars is a disgrace. It is now $120 billion dollars more than President Obama's last defense budget. This money could have been used to fund free public college for all Americans and many other civilian priorities. The budget also continues funding U.S military aid to the brutal Saudi war in Yemen and failed to impose limitations on Trump's ability to go to war with Iran. And it gives Trump his 'Space Force' which increase the likelihood of armed conflict with Russia and China in space! When I am elected to congress I will not vote for more war spending and profits for arms contractors like my opponent does, but will prioritize spending on universal healthcare, free public college, renewable energy, universal childcare, affordable housing, expanded public access to the internet, and other crucial, popular priorities."

Liam O'Mara, the progressive Democrat running for the Riverside County seat occupied by corrupt Republican Ken Calvert, told us that "This vote shows once again that Republicans and Democrats alike will continue to waste taxpayer dollars on endless wars, in large part as a hand-out to defence contractors, and irrespective of the cost in lives and the destruction of our world. A vote for Calvert is a vote to funnel more cash from the wallets of hard-working Americans, and into the coffers of Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, etc. But it is also a vote to shift corrupt lobbyist cash from the defence industry into the hands of those same grasping Representatives. This is why there exists a bipartisan consensus on permanent war, and why we need a new progressive majority to end it."

Another California progressive Democrat, Kim Williams, a former U.S. diplomat, is running for the Central Valley seat occupied by hard core Blue Dog Jim Costa, a backer of the military industrial complex President Eisenhower warned the country about. Williams has other ideas. "While we are spending more than 60% of discretionary spending on war, roughly 3,000 Americans will die each year from a lack of healthcare, and half a million people will file bankruptcy because of medical debt. Nearly two decades of unending war has distracted the U.S. Government from other serious national security threats and diverted resources from domestic investments in education, healthcare and efforts to fight climate change-- all of which are essential to the health, safety, and well-being of everyone in the country. This is unsustainable and clearly not in our best interests."

Milwaukie, Oregon mayor Mark Gamba is running for a congressional seat held by one of the worst and most corrupt of all the Blue Dogs, Kurt Schrader, a cheerleader for the Republican agenda. "We are already spending more than the next 10 largest militaries in the world combined," said Gamba, "and yet, we are told it's crazy talk to consider providing secondary education for our population, or housing the homeless, or stopping climate chaos while lifting people out of poverty, because 'it will cost too much!!' We could completely accomplish the first two with the 120 billion difference between Obama's last military budget and this one, and we could take a hell of whack at solving climate chaos. I agree that our soldiers deserve a raise and I agree that our federal workers should have paid parental leave (although why that's attached to this bill is a completely different rant), but a Space Force? At what point do we stop funding endless wars and start paying for the real needs of Americans? I would have voted against the bill after the White House stripped out the bi partisan amendments that would end some of those endless wars."

Will County, Illinois progressive Rachel Ventura issued this statement right after the vote:

You have to wonder where the common sense was during the NDAA vote. It is unfathomable to me that Bill Foster voted “yes” for Donald Trump’s proposed space force that was included in the $738 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) legislation. I would have stood with the courageous Democrats who voted “no” on Donald Trump's space army and urged other members to stay focused on the real threat of climate change.



I can't believe that we are blowing billions of dollars on this hypothetical cartoon-like space war, and doing little to address the real crisis. The greatest threat to humanity right now is the climate crisis, and all of those lawmakers, including my opponent, are still funding perpetual war and now even an imaginary war.



Finally, it is sad that Democrats have lost their backbones and are bending to the whims of a man who is clearly unfit to lead this nation. They are undermining their own efforts at impeachment and legitimizing Donald Trump. It is embarrassing.

There Are No Syrian Moderate Terrorists But 300 Members Of Congress Voted To Give "Them" Billions Of Our Taxpayer Dollars

We live in a political system where Congress shirks it's clear and unambiguous responsibility to declare war. Instead we get military actions of dubious legality and with superficial public support, which often quickly sours. Thursday the House came as close as they do to debating and voting for war. Disguised as H.R. 3979-- "The Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act of 2014"-- the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was clearly meant to draw as little public attention as possible. It passed by a big margin, as always, only 87 Democrats and 32 Republicans with the guts too stand up to the outrageous excesses of the Military Industrial Complex. The final vote was 300-119. The Republicans seeded it with a few goodies for Democrats, like a half-assed crack-down against sexual assault, but many of the Members who care most about the issues weren't taken in and voted no anyway. Take Donna Edwards for example, a perfect target for that kind of appeal. But too smart to fall for it. She voted against it. Donna:

“This National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) extends the authority the Administration is using to justify military action in Syria for an additional two years without explicit Congressional approval or debate. I cannot support a foreign policy to train and equip Syrian rebels and fight ISIS over the long-term absent a full debate and vote by Congress-- that is our constitutional responsibility.

“I support provisions in this House-Senate agreement to help combat sexual assault in the military, and to provide a 1.0 percent pay increase and necessary resources for our service members and their families. Nonetheless, I could not vote for this NDAA. After more than a decade of war, it’s time for a debate in Congress to reassure the American people and our military community about the best path forward.”

Across the aisle, one of the most vocal-- and credible-- opponents of the bill was Walter Jones the conservative Republican whose district includes Camp LeJeune and who has dedicated his career to serving the interests of the men and women in the ranks (rather than the contractors and mercenary corporations). His website explains exactly why he bucked the Establishment and voted NO.

Today, Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3) voted against the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015, which cuts military benefits and provides billions of dollars in spending toward President Obama’s unconstitutional expansion of military force in Iraq and Syria.

The NDAA for FY 2015 cuts military benefits by requiring a $3 increase in certain pharmacy co-pays and a 1 percent decrease in the housing allowance for uniformed service members.

In addition to cuts in military benefits, the NDAA for FY 2015 also includes President Obama’s $5 billion request to fund Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq and Syria.  Of that $5 billion, $3.4 billion will be used for airstrikes against ISIS and $1.6 billion will be used for training Sunni tribes and forces in Iraq. Overall, the NDAA for FY 2015 authorizes $63.7 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere.

“I cannot vote for a bill that cuts military benefits while funding wars that Congress never declared,” said Congressman Jones. Congress repeatedly authorizes spending on undeclared wars that put our troops in danger and then has the audacity to cut the benefits of those they are unconstitutionally sending overseas to fight. It’s just not right.”

Justin Amash, one of the only Republicans in either House of Congress worth taking seriously sent out this tweet right after the vote:

Most of the House progressives voted no as well,Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Beto O'Rourke (D-TX), Judy Chu (D-CA), John Lewis (D-GA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Mike Honda (D-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Jared Polis (D-CO), etc. Most of the Democratic Leadership team voted yes, including Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn, Israel/Luján, Wasserman Schultz. And both freshmen who were already sworn in because of unexpired terms-- Alma Adams (D-NC) and NJ machine boss George Norcross' hopeless brother Donald Norcross both planted their flags on the side of the Military Industrial Complex. No one should have expected any more from either.

"Today," wrote Seatte Rep. Jim McDermott to his constituents, "I voted in opposition to H.R. 3979, the National Defense Authorization Act.

"I have said consistently that if President Obama was prepared to escalate military action against ISIS or to expand the arming and training of the ‘moderate’ Syrian opposition, he must come to Congress with a plan and ask for our support.

"And we, as Members of Congress, must take seriously our Constitutional responsibility when it comes to matters of war and peace. There is no question in my mind that ongoing operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria have become a full-fledged military campaign, which warrants a fresh Congressional debate on an authorization for the use of military force.

"And yet, this afternoon the House passed a gargantuan NDAA with only one hour of debate on the floor, a clear abdication of Congressional authority in deciding the conditions under which we send our men and women into conflict.

"I remember the last time Congress failed to thoroughly debate a plan for military action in the Middle East; it unleashed a Pandora’s Box in Iraq and the wider region that we struggling to contain even today.

"I appreciate the unenviable position the President faces in Iraq and I even sympathize with his reluctance to seek cooperation from a Congress that has done its upmost to stymie his legislative agenda for the past five years. Nevertheless, I will not vote to authorize billions of dollars toward a military campaign, as well as a clear military campaign by proxy, without the proper and robust debate such a grave action deserves."

A senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, California Democrat John Garamendi explains, in some detail, why he voted what what he saw as "an imperfect" bill. First and foremost: pork for his own district-- through Beale and Travis Air Force Bases:

While Congressman Garamendi disagrees with portions of this extensive legislation, it earned his support through the protection of vital missions at Beale and Travis Air Force Bases, improved transitional services for new veterans, and several important measures to reduce wasteful spending in the Pentagon budget.

“Throughout the committee process, I’ve worked to ensure that the NDAA treats our servicemembers and veterans with the respect they deserve. I’ve also done everything I can to preserve the vital Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) and Air Mobility missions at Beale and Travis Air Force Bases, missions that will only grow in importance as we continue to adapt to 21st century threats,” Garamendi said. “If I were the sole author of this bill, there would be some significant modifications to some of the language, but as a good faith compromise bill, it has earned my support.”

The NDAA prohibits the retirement of the U-2 and KC-10 fleets in 2015, protecting important missions at Beale and Travis, respectively.

“Military priorities change with time, and in the 3rd District, we are blessed to have two missions that will only grow with importance as America adapts and responds to modern threats: Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance at Beale and Air Mobility at Travis,” Garamendi said. “As we’re seeing with the rise of organizations like ISIL, extremist organizations are becoming an even bigger threat. We need to know what’s happening on the ground, and when necessary, quickly respond. That’s why it is very important to preserve the U-2 and KC-10 missions until the next generation technologies are ready.”

The NDAA includes a 1% pay raise for the troops and improved mental health screenings to earlier diagnose and treat post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and brain injuries that so often plague servicemembers when they return to civilian life.

The bill also includes several provisions to help veterans succeed in civilian life, including:

  •         Changes to the Transition Assistance Program that make it easier for transitioning service members to understand and use their benefits. In particular, the NDAA requires additional instruction and guidance on pursuing post-secondary education, including financial guidance and detailed instructions on how to use the Veterans’ Benefits Administration’s educational benefits such as the post-9/11 GI Bill;

•         Programs to make it easier for servicemembers to obtain professional credentials (professional accreditation, Federal occupational licenses, state professional licenses, and certifications) through their military training. For example, electrical maintenance training in the military could also be used to fulfill some of the requirements needed to obtain a state electrician license; and

•         A pilot program to establish connections between the Department of Defense and state veterans’ agencies. Under this program, the Department of Defense will supply essential information to state veterans’ agencies to make servicemembers’ transition from military service to civilian life easier. This is similar to the California Department of Veterans Affairs’ Operation Welcome Home.

“Imagine spending years of your life getting certified in a skilled trade, only to be told you need to go through a nearly identical certification process once you hang up your uniform. That’s the reality for thousands of servicemembers transitioning to civilian life,” Garamendi explained. “It’s a waste of taxpayer dollars, since we’re often subsidizing these private certification processes through financial aid programs, and it’s a waste of time and potential earnings and advancement for the new veteran looking to get a jumpstart on a civilian career. While there’s more to be done, I’m glad the NDAA is making progress on this front.”

The NDAA continues our nation’s slow but positive progress in addressing the issue of sexual assaults in the military.  This NDAA:

•         Requires the Secretary of Defense to consider the preference of sexual assault victims regarding whether offenses should be prosecuted by court-martial or in a civilian court;

•         Allows a victim of sexual assault, who believes that their rights were violated during the court martial process, the ability to petition the Court of Criminal Appeals to require the court martial to comply with the Military Rules of Evidence;

•         Provides an appeal process for individuals who were victims of a sex-related offense and were discharged from the military for what they believe is a side-effect of their assault, such as psychological struggles, or a failure to adjust; and

•         Requires the establishment of a Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces.

“I believe that if victims of sexual assault in the military want to pursue their complaints through an independent civilian process, they should be given that opportunity. This NDAA doesn’t go far enough, but we’re getting closer to a system that empowers and fairly treats the victims of sexual assault and deters these horrific crimes from ever occurring,” Garamendi said.

The NDAA rejects a Department of Defense proposal to substantially cut commissaries on military bases, which would have led to a de facto pay cut for servicemembers and military families. It also requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review, utilizing the services of an independent organization experienced in retail grocery analysis, of the defense commissary system to help determine the best way forward while still providing significant savings to patrons.

“I’m ever mindful of backdoor pay cuts to servicemembers and their families. Let’s be clear: the proposed commissary cut would have taken money out of the pockets of people defending our nation and the family members who support them at home. I’m sure there are reasonable savings we can find in the commissary program without increasing food prices, and I will review any such proposals as they’re presented to us, but of all the places to cut waste in the NDAA, commissaries are near the bottom of the list,” Garamendi added.

NDAA Split The House Democratic Caucus In Half-- Exactly In Half

As Nicole Belle explained in her thoughtful apologia at Crooks and Liars Sunday morning, political reality dictated that Obama sign the heinous National Defense Authorization Act. It's a political reality progressives shouldn't just sit and whine about, but do something to change. The bill passed the House on December 14 with a veto-proof majority, 283-136. 190 Republicans followed Boehner's and Cantor's instructions to vote for it, while 43 refused to go along. The Democrats were split in half, 93-93.

Generally speaking, progressive Democrats led by people like Raúl Grijalva, Keith Ellison, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, John Conyers, Donna Edwards, Jerry Nadler, Tammy Baldwin and Brad Miller voted no. Blue Dogs and conservative Democrats-- your Heath Shulers, Larry Kissells, Mike McIntyres, Joe Donnellys, Steve Israels, Steny Hoyers, Joe Crowleys, Ron Kinds, Jim Mathesons, Dennis Cardozas... that kind of dreck, voted with the Republicans, although some usually decent Democrats (including Pelosi and Waxman) joined them as well.

Despite bad votes from a smattering of usually good Democrats trying to make it easier for Obama to do what he had to do, the bill really was a line in the sand for committed progressives. I asked Brad Miller (D-NC), one of the most thoughtful Members of Congress, why he voted against it. He was very straightforward:

The indefinite detention provisions in NDAA made already bad law much worse. In fact, it’s a mess.

The law on taking prisoners of war was pretty easy: prisoners were taken on the battlefield, they were wearing the enemy’s uniform, and they were just held until the end of the war, which was usually two or three years max. They weren’t kept as prisoners to punish them for crimes, since they were fighting for their country the same way our guys were. We just wanted to keep them out of the fight until the war was over.

There was very rarely any question that the people taken prisoner were combatants for the other side, and we really didn’t need much legal process to hold them as prisoners. If we did want to punish a prisoner for a crime, then they got a trial.

But with the "war on terror," there is no battlefield, there are no uniforms, there is often real doubt about who the combatants are, there will probably not be an end to the war in our lifetimes, and it’s pretty clear that we really aren’t just keeping suspected terrorists out of the fight, we’re punishing them. In fact, we’re really giving them a life sentence. That should require a lot more legal protection than NDAA provides.

I’m glad that President Obama says he won’t use the indefinite detention provisions on American citizens. So what about the next president?”

I also posed the question to one of the Blue America candidates, Ken Aden, an 11-year combat vet (Iraq and Afghanistan) running against Arkansas plutocrat Steve Womack. Womack, of course, voted for the bill. Ken told me he would have voted against it and he told me why:

Needless to say, I am outraged at the National Defense Authorization Act and I would not have voted to support it had I been an elected member of Congress. As a matter of fact, when elected to represent the people of Northwest Arkansas, I will work hand in hand with my fellow progressive Democrats to repeal this. This particular bill does nothing more than take away our civil liberties, and I for one find it very very disturbing. It gives authority to the president to order the military to detain U.S. citizens without official charge or trial on the mere suspicion of being a terrorist. This will unfairly target members of our Muslim-American communities, and other hard working Americans as well. This bill does NOT strengthen us, it instead weakens us as a nation. If you don't think this to be the case, just look at all the instances where certain people are harassed across our country just for the color of their own skin by those who are supposed to protect us. Our country was founded on freedom, this bill will lead to a gross abuse of power and the result will be one that it is hard for Americans to fathom. What can we do as ordinary citizens to stop this? In 2012, we can for example occupy the ballot box and ensure that we put real representatives in place who have the best interest of the American people at heart. I served my country for eleven years in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I can say with loud clarity that the NDAA is wrong. I can also say that when elected to Congress I will scream out against this. I took an oath when 22 years of age to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Until you have proof that someone is involved with a terrorist organization then they are NOT a terrorist, and you have no right to detain them based upon that suspicion. We are the land of the FREE at least we are supposed to be.

President Obama isn't very popular in Arkansas's Third District, where Ken is challenging Womack. In fact it was one of Obama's weakest showings in the 2008 election. He took 34% against McCain, much worse than anywhere else in the state. The irony is that the conservative Establishment shill, Womack, is handing him the kind of power most voters fear, while the progressive, Ken, who is far more progressive than Obama, is clearly and loudly on the side of the people who live in the area. Both Brad and Ken have been endorsed by Blue America this year. Brad is one of our only incumbents, and Ken is one of our challengers we have faith in to help us change the political reality in Washington.