All Good Stuff Except Rand Paul Wants To Prevent Lynching From Being A Hate Crime Because He Can Get Away With It

I missed "The Seven Last Words of the Unarmed" when it debuted a month after Señor Trumpanzee was sworn in. Composed by Joel Thompson, it featured a guest appearance by the University of Michigan Men’s Glee Club. It was meant to honor the lives of Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Oscar Grant, Eric Garner, Kenneth Chamberlain, Amadou Diallo, and John Crawford.

Obviously, it is very much needed once again. While you listen (above), keep in mind that a trio of Fox News polls released yesterday show Trump losing must-win Ohio, Wisconsin and Arizona. That follows Fox News polls showing Trump losing Florida and Michigan. And today's North Carolina poll.

You might also take comfort in knowing that a conservative Virginia governor, Ralph Northam (D), announced today that the state will remove "an iconic statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee from Richmond’s prominent Monument Avenue. Overcome with emotion, Norfolk Del. Jay Jones said the massive statue "is a symbol for so many people, black and otherwise of a time gone by of hate and oppression and being made to feel less."

One step forward... Kentucky racist pig Rand Paul was exposed as the senator blocking an anti-lynching bill that would make lynching a hate crime.

National Journal's Zach Cohen reported that "The fact that Congress is still struggling to respond to the past atrocities of lynching black people highlights how difficult it will be for Washington to deal with misuse of police force and outrage over police officers killing unarmed black Americans. Everyone seems to agree lynching is terrible and must be condemned and outlawed, but not specifically on how to do it." Umm... but not everybody. All Paul's arguments are baseless; he just wants to kill the bill to please his KKK supporters back home.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

Yes. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (he claims to be a doctor but has no active certification and none is needed in backwards Kentucky), voted against emergency aid funding to combat the coronavirus! A doctor! Oh, that's right. He's a Republican doctor. That's different! So much for that "I solemnly consecrate my life to the service of humanity" oath.

Republican $enators and House members often balk at providing aid to their fellow Americans in times of dire need. It's who they are. It's bad enough when they react to floods, fires, and hurricanes by trying to ignore the needs of Americans but that's part of the often well-exhibited republican psychopathy and this is a pandemic. Like Paul did, they offer excuses that the money for such aid should be taken from other needs. Hey, I know, why not take the money from Congress's salary, healthcare, and security?

Of course, it's every bit as sick that so many Americans tolerate being victimized twice, once by mother nature and once by Washington. People actually vote for psychos like Rand Paul. They might as well pay someone to beat them with a crowbar.

I assume, of course, that if Rand Paul comes down with the virus, he will refuse all treatment.

Anti-Science Republicans Playing Dangerous Games With Coronavirus Outbreak

Last Wednesday, the House passed H.R. 6074, the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, by a lopsided bipartisan vote-- 415-2. Two far right sociopaths, Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Ken Buck (R-CO), voted against it, whining about the high cost. Several other Republicans were also whining about the cost but in the end they feared their constituents and voted for the $8.3 billion package. Crackpot Matt Gaetz, who is now in quarantine and also opposed the bill but voted for it in the end, caused a kerfuffle when he showed up to vote and make light of the pandemic in with an absurd gas-mask (a couple of days before one of his constituents died of COVID-19).

No one wants to sit near Panhandle crackpot Matt Gaetz

This is the complete bill:

This bill provides $8.3 billion in emergency funding for federal agencies to respond to the coronavirus outbreak. Within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the bill provides FY2020 supplemental appropriations for

• the Food and Drug Administration,
• the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention,
• the National Institutes of Health, and
• the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund.

In addition, the bill provides supplemental appropriations for

• the Small Business Administration,
• the Department of State, and
• the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The supplemental appropriations are designated as emergency spending, which is exempt from discretionary spending limits.

The programs funded by the bill address issues such as

• developing, manufacturing, and procuring vaccines and other medical supplies;
• grants for state, local, and tribal public health agencies and organizations;
• loans for affected small businesses;
• evacuations and emergency preparedness activities at U.S. embassies and other State Department facilities; and
• humanitarian assistance and support for health systems in the affected countries.

The bill also allows HHS to temporarily waive certain Medicare restrictions and requirements regarding telehealth services during the coronavirus public health emergency.

And then Pelosi sent it over to the Senate, Trump saying he would sign it if the Senate passed it. Rand Paul (R-KY) offered an amendment that would take the $8.3 billion from foreign ad. Not many people thought that was a good idea and it was defeated 81-15. The 15 were all Republicans, of course:

• Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
• Mike Braun (R-IN)
• Mike Crapo (R-ID)
• Ted Cruz (R-TX)-- currently quarantined
• Steve Daines (R-MT)
• Joni Ernst (R-IA)
• Ron Johnson (R-WI)
• John Kennedy (R-LA)
• James Lankford (R-OK)
• Mike Lee (R-UT)
• Kelly Loeffler (R-GA)
• Rand Paul (R-KY)
• Sonny Perdue (R-GA)
• James Risch (R-ID)
• Pat Toomey (R-PA)

When the House bill authorizing the $8.3 billion, only one person voted no, Rand Paul.

Meanwhile, Pelosi and Schumer issued a joint statement yesterday that goes even further. "We are hoping to work with the administration on a coordinated, government-wide plan to respond to the coronavirus. However, President Trump continues to manufacture needless chaos within his administration, and it is hampering the government’s response to the coronavirus outbreak... The administration must move more quickly and seriously to address the severe impacts of the coronavirus on the financial security of America’s families." What they're asking for is pretty straight-forward-- paid sick leave, a temporary increase in unemployment insurance and "widespread and free" testing for the coronavirus.

How are Republicans responding to all this? Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy went on Fox's Sunday Morning Futures yesterday and told Maria Bartiromo that Pelosi didn't bring up the bill fast enough and that, in fact, she intentionally delayed it so Democrats could run Super Tuesday ads. "We should have had this bill a week earlier. The Democrats actually held this bill, so Congresswoman Bustos, who runs the DCCC, could run ads against Republicans."

The ads McCarthy was angry about noted that "The Trump administration would rather pad the pockets of drug manufacturers than provide access to an affordable coronavirus vaccine." The Democratic response to McCarthy's accusations, which he had made earlier on Laura Ingraham's show, was pretty good:

"Leader McCarthy should be embarrassed that he cares more about his political fortunes than ensuring working Americans can afford an eventual coronavirus vaccine. Washington Republicans are already blocking bipartisan House-passed legislation to bring down the cost of prescription drugs. It’s disgraceful that their obedience to drug manufacturers is holding up the government’s response to a virus that threatens millions of Americans."

Rand Paul Loves The Prince Of Peace Trump While Lindsey Graham Loves The Big Macho Ass-Kicker Trump

Last week-- on Fox News, no less-- Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (R) said Trump should never have pulled out of the Iran nuclear agreement and that the assassination of Qassem Soleimani was a mistake, the two blunders together making the U.S. "less safe." A poll by Ipsos since then shows that most Americans agree that Trump's botched approach to Iran has made the country less safe. Only 25% of Americans belief what Trump has done made the U.S. safer. This caused the Senate's most notorious closet case to pull his head out of Trump's butt to hiss some anti-Rand assertions before reinsertion. The AP's Ben Tobin reported that Lindsey Graham mocked Paul's constitutional knowledge: "If I had an eye problem, I would go to him. If I had a constitutional question, he would be the last guy I would pick."

Maybe Lindsey should take his problems with the Constitution to constitutional law professor and Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin, certainly the most knowledgeable member of either House when it comes to the U.S. Constitution. "Gee," he said this morning, "you think the people who pretend to be constitutional 'textualists' and 'originalists' would at least bother to read the Constitution, research its history and spend 5 minutes thinking seriously about it. The reason the Framers gave Congress the exclusive power to declare war, raise armies and make military appropriations is because the Kings and princes constantly plunged their populations into wars of vanity, political advantage and distraction, all at the great expense of human life and national treasure. Our Founders didn’t want presidents to have that awesome and easily exploited power and that’s why it’s the representatives of the people who, under Article I, must debate and deliberate the benefits, costs and consequences of going to war against other nations. Our passage of a War Powers Resolution on Iran last week is the beginning of restoration of Congressional warmaking powers that have been usurped by the President and abdicated by prior Congresses for far too long."




Graham was all in a dither because Paul criticized Trump's decision to authorize Soleimani's assassination while he was in Iraq without consulting Congress. "Trust me, I'm going to let people know that at this moment in time to play this game with the war powers act ... whether you mean to or not, you're empowering the enemy," Graham told reporters on Wednesday, referring to Republican senators Paul and Lee.

After receiving a briefing with fellow senators on Wednesday, Paul called the Trump administration's justification for killing Soleimani "absurd" and "an insult" to Congress.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, made similar comments, leading Graham to say his two Republican colleagues were "overreacting." The South Carolina Republican also attacked Paul and Lee for supporting the Democratic House's war powers resolution, a measure that passed Thursday evening to limit Trump's powers with respect to military action with Iran.

...Paul fired back during an interview later Wednesday on CNN, claiming Graham was invoking a "fake sort of drape of patriotism."

"I love my country as much as the next guy, but for him to insult and say that somehow we're not as patriotic as he is, he hasn't even read the history of the Constitution," Paul said. "He insults the Constitution, our Founding Fathers and what we do stand for in this republic by making light of it and accusing people of lacking patriotism. I think that's a low, gutter type of response."

Will John Bolton Testify? by Nancy Ohanian

Yesterday, Paul was on Meet The Press, still on the attack against the Trump regime's Iran bungling. The first thing Chuck Todd asked him was if he thought he had gotten "enough information to make you feel comfortable with what President Trump did?" Paul said he hadn't-- and that the information he got, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was "contradictory... We've heard that the-- from the Secretary of State that they don't know where or when but it was imminent. That to me does seem inconsistent. He thinks he can square the circle, but to me it seems pretty inconsistent. To me there's a bigger question too, though. This is what really infuriated me about the briefing: Is they maintain both in private and in public that a vote by Congress in 2003 or 2002 to go after Saddam Hussein was a vote that now allows them to still be in Iraq and do whatever they want, including killing a foreign general from Iran. And I don't think that's what Congress meant in 2002, nor do I think one generation can bind another generation. So my point in being for this war powers debate is that we really need to have a debate about whether we should still be in Iraq or in Afghanistan. There needs to be authorization from Congress... I think presidents of both parties have been trying to usurp the authority. But our Founding Fathers wanted it to remain in Congress. They wanted to make it difficult to go to war. And I think we've been drifting away from that for a long time. But that's why I'm willing to stand up. Not because I distrust President Trump. I actually think he has shown remarkable restraint. But I'm willing to stand up even against a president of my party, because we need to stand up and take back the power. We also need to debate whether or not we're going to keep sending kids forever to Afghanistan and Iraq. And I, frankly, think we ought to end those wars."

TODD: Are you concerned? I mean look, the numbers tell the story. It does feel as if we've sent more troops to the Middle East, look at what's happening in Saudi Arabia, which I know you've been against, then we're bringing them home. What kind of message does that send to the American people?

PAUL: Well, I think it's a mixed message. I think President Trump has been very consistent saying he doesn't want perpetual war. But I have pushed back and I've said, "If you keep sending more troops, you will have perpetual war." The troops are merely targets. I'm going to be having a hearing in the next couple weeks about the Afghan Papers. It troubles me that in private commanders and generals have been saying for more than a decade that there's no mission in Afghanistan. We had two young men die this week. You know, I have friends who will be sending their kids there in the next six months. I don't want to send these young men and women to war if there is no mission and if the generals are privately saying it can't be won.

TODD: Is there a way... it's my understanding during the briefing, according to George Will's reporting, that Senator Chris Coons multiple times asked whether, whether they would seek congressional approval to deal with Iran if Iran got a nuclear weapon, to deal with Iran in a military way. And they just kept dodging the question. How important do you think it is to get that, essentially, on paper?

PAUL: I think it's incredibly important. Throughout the whole briefing they were dismissive of Congress. They , in the end, said they didn't have time to come back. We only had about eight senators ask questions and they said, "Oh, we don't have time. We're busy" about coming back to brief the rest of us or take questions from the rest of us. So it was very dismissive. But it's also arrogant to say that a vote from Congress, 16, 17 years ago, that that vote now binds another generation and another generation to war in Iraq. It was against Saddam Hussein, for goodness sakes. This is a completely different government. This is not even the Iraqi government we're now fighting. It's Iranian generals that happen to be in Iraq. But here's the great irony of the Iraq War, and this is something Trump gets incredibly right. And that is that since the Iraq War we now have an Iraq that is more aligned with Iran than us. We're trying to force them to keep our troops. The irony of that is glaring. And I think we really need to have a full throated debate in Congress. The majority of American people want to come home. They don't understand why we're still there. I want to have that debate and I want to bring our kids home.

TODD: You know, it's interesting. You have-- and I think in some ways you believe President Trump's instincts comport with your instincts when it comes to national security and foreign policy. But his advisers are in a different place. How much do you think that-- does that bothers you? Or is that healthy?

PAUL: I'll give you an example. You know I'm on the Foreign Relations Committee and all of his nominees come before me. And I even warned some of them in private, "I'm going to ask you, 'Do you agree with President Trump that the Iraq War was a mistake?'" You know what? Most of them don't agree with him. He keeps appointing people to represent him that think the Iraq War was just great. They loved Dick Cheney's position and they still don't admit it was a mistake. So that's why he keeps getting policy that isn't his policy. I do think his instincts are pure. He's been saying it since -- for 20, 30 years. He's been saying it for a long time that the wars have drained our treasury and that he's not in favor of these wars. But then they convince him if we leave, we'll look weak. I actually think this is a time of strength right now. Soleimani's dead. The leader of a lot of the mayhem is dead. This will be the time to come home. The Iraqi government, the democratically elected government, wants us to come home. We should come home. And the only way...

TODD: I was just going to say you think the President should take them up on this offer? You want us out? Let's do it.

PAUL: Absolutely. And the only way people become stronger is when they stand up for themselves. In Afghanistan when the government, and the soldiers, and the police finally fight the Taliban, they'll do better. When Iraq says, "Oh my goodness. Iran is overrunning us," or they see that the Sunni extremists are overrunning us, they have to stand up and fight. If they can't fight for their country, why are we always the patsy sending our kids there?

Iran-- Which Way Now, While Trump Is Still Occupying The White House?

An hour before Trump addressed the country yesterday, The Atlantic published a column by David Frum, Americans Aren't Rallying to Trump-- A president who writes off half the country can't expect to garner support from a crisis of his own making. Iran had to do something after Trump assassinated Soleimani but their leaders are smart enough to not do something suicidal. So they launched some noisy missiles at a couple of Iraqi bases housing Americans that didn't really target Americans. "But imagine," suggested Frum, "that Iran had gotten luckier (or unluckier) with its missile aiming. Or that the Iranian regime had chosen-- or still chooses-- a more lethal response to the killing of Qassem Soleimani. Where would we be then?"

The Trump administration and its supporters seem to have hoped for a “rally around the flag” effect from the killing of Soleimani. This did not happen. The fundamental geology of Donald Trump’s presidency remains unchanged: A large majority of Americans do not trust him, do not support him, and will not follow him. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has complained that European allies do not support the Trump administration’s actions. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell laments that Democrats in Congress will not support the president either.

The first poll after the killing of Soleimani shows 53 percent of Americans disapproving of Trump’s handing of Iran, a number similar to what other polling registered in September and October. What has changed is that 39 percent “strongly disapprove” of Trump’s policy—a number up 10 points since before the Soleimani killing. Americans do not want war with Iran, and they do not trust Trump to lead such a war if it erupts.

Trump’s governance itself is legally in question right now. The president has been impeached. Unlike the Clinton impeachment of 1998–99, this process commands the approval of a majority of Americans. On average, more than 50 percent believe the Senate should remove Trump from office. That’s not sufficient to force the Senate to respond, especially not a Senate majority that itself was elected with the support of only a minority of Americans. But it’s certainly sufficient to deprive the president of the legitimacy to lead the nation to war.

The United States finds itself in the dangerous situation of having a president in power but without authority.

He is the least trusted president in the history of polling. Two-thirds of Americans regard him as dishonest. Sixty-one percent say he does not respect democracy.

With the departure of Secretary of Defense James Mattis at the end of 2018, there is no figure left in the administration who does command broad respect from the public, Congress, or American allies-- who can credibly step forward and say, “This time, the president is not lying.”

Even the White House press secretary has given up. Unlike her two predecessors, who lied to the media’s face, the current holder of the office, Stephanie Grisham, has abandoned press briefings entirely.

The president, any president, is both the leader of his party and a representative of the entire nation. As the nation polarizes, it becomes harder and harder to combine those roles. But unlike his predecessors, Trump has never tried to do the second job. Even as he sought support from Democrats in Congress, the president retweeted one of his most provocative supporters equating Democrats in Congress to Iranian terrorists. Former Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, ever more brazenly campaigning to replace Vice President Mike Pence on the Republican 2020 ticket, gave an interview on Sean Hannity’s radio show in which she said nobody except Democratic Party leaders and presidential candidates mourned the death of Qassem Soleimani. (Meanwhile, one of the president’s strongest supporters in the Senate, Rand Paul, and one of Trump’s favorite TV hosts, Tucker Carlson, actually spoke out in opposition to the strike.)

Trump supporters are trying to re-create the atmosphere of 2003, to claim the high ground of patriotism and defense of the nation. That can never work for them, because at every turn they and the country confront the weird hold Russia’s Vladimir Putin seems to hold over the U.S. president. Trump defenders angrily denounce the facts of the Trump-Putin connection as a “hoax,” but the country does not believe them. As of mid-summer 2019, only 35 percent of voters accepted the president’s claims of “exoneration.” A majority believe that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump; a plurality believe that Trump colluded with that effort.

A president regarded by so many Americans as Putin’s puppet cannot plausibly wave the flag against domestic opponents.

Trump himself seems to intuit the danger-- which is why he always flinches from foreign-policy confrontations at the last minute, first with North Korea and now with Iran. When you know you’re driving a stolen car, you want to avoid collisions.

But Trump’s supporters in Congress and on TV have not kept up with the times as well as their boss. They imagine it’s still 2003-- or maybe 1969. But that history has passed by. When Fox talkers call on all Americans to unite behind the president, they have to carve out mental exceptions for close to half the country. Not New York State or New York City: President Trump has said he hates them “even more than I should.” Not the state of California, home to one out of every eight Americans: “a disgrace to our country.” Not the city of Chicago: “embarrassing to us as a nation.” Not the city of Baltimore: “a rat and rodent infested mess.” Not the city of Atlanta: “in horrible shape and falling apart.”

Trump has never aspired to the job of president of all the United States. He does not understand the job. He cannot do the job. And now the job needs to be done.

Earlier in the Trump administration, it was said that the president was fortunate to have never encountered a crisis not of his own making. Over three years, however, he has contrived to make a great many crises: a trade war with China, a betrayal in Kurdistan, a diplomatic debacle on the Korean peninsula, the ongoing thralldom of Trump to Putin, and now the approach to war with Iran. National crises become no less dangerous for being the fault of the U.S. president rather than some foreign aggressor. Happily, the Iran crisis is paused, at least for the moment. None of these national self-harms will be resolved, however, until this sham president leaves office.

Just before Trump spoke Congressional Progressive co-chairs Pramila Jayapal and Mark Pocan released a caucus statement calling on Congress to reassert it's constitutional responsibility for declaring war:

The horrific escalation towards war with Iran was devastatingly predictable, brought on by Trump’s reckless military brinksmanship in assassinating General Soleimani and, before that, destroying decades of diplomacy by pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal and asserting a ‘maximum pressure’ strategy. Last night’s attacks by Iran were a warning shot, showing clearly that President Trump’s actions have made the United States and the world far less safe than it was one week ago. While we do not yet know the full toll of last night’s attacks, there’s no question this escalation has put our troops and Iraqis in danger-- a traumatic and completely avoidable result of the President’s reckless actions. 
Now, it is even more urgent than ever that Congress act to immediately pull us back from the brink of catastrophe and prevent a completely avoidable war with Iran. To protect American lives and global stability, Congress must reassert our Constitutional authority by passing a strong War Powers Resolution to ensure Congressional authorization for any military action; repealing the 2002 Authorization of Use of Military Force; and ensuring that Congress provides no funds for war with Iran without authorization.

We must not continue down this destructive military path-- we must choose de-escalation and diplomacy. Let’s be clear: If we close the door on diplomacy, that decision will haunt our nation for generations. Further retaliation will not lead to peace-- it will only entangle us in a crisis with no military solution and endanger countless lives.

The American people don’t want another war without end. Congress must act swiftly to end this cycle of violence and pursue peace before it’s too late.

One of the hottest congressional races in the country is for a gerrymandered central Texas seat-- TX-10-- that stretches, incongruously, from Austin to the suburbs of Houston. With no help from the DCCC in 2018, progressive Democrat Mike Siegel nearly beat right-wing Republican incumbent, multimillionaire Michael McCaul. This year the DCCC is panic-stricken that a progressive-- Siegel is running again-- could win a seat in Texas so they worked with EMILY's List to find a Texas version of Jeff Van Drew to run against him. She has had nothing to say about the Iran debacle. Mike sure has-- reminding voters that he's "running to replace a Trump Toadie, Michael McCaul, who fashions himself a 'national security expert' but in reality is just a follower of the Blob. To wit: last night he issued a statement condemning the Iranian missile attack, while days earlier he praised the assassination of Suleimani, but where is the recognition of cause and effect? Trump's escalation with Iran makes the United States, and the world, decidedly less safe, and makes no sense from a tactical perspective. But being a Republican means surrendering objective thinking and rational discourse, so McCaul in practice is just another empty suit. Bigger picture, we need to call out the violation of the War Powers Act and the failure of the drone assassination program. Congress has the power to declare war so that the people's representatives can determine the true public interest. Half of America is at the poverty line or just outside of it; tens of millions lack health insurance; we have a homelessness crisis and a climate crisis and failing public infrastructure. If Congress is going to take action to save American lives, there is a lot we can do with domestic programs that will be far more effective than the assasination of a foreign leader. Which leads me to the drone program: unfortunately, the U.S. populace has become numb to a program that authorizes extrajudicial killings in violation of international law. The killing of Suleimani violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, and is part of a failed foreign policy that prioritizes 'taking out bad guys' over diplomacy. Each time the President orders one of these killings, we create more enemies than we eliminate, and we further undermine any moral standing we have in the world. It will be a long road back, from the United States as a rogue 'judge, jury and executioner' to a member in good standing of the international community. But we must walk this road, not only to advance the cause of peace, but to confront the climate crisis and other global challenges that require the collective participation of every nation."

Jennifer Christie, the progressive candidate for the open seat north of Indianapolis, agreed entirely, noting that "In this moment, Congress must take back the Constitutional power to make decisions about war on behalf of the People. In this moment, we must show leadership by deescalating the rising tensions between Iran and the USA. It’s time to be the adult in the room. In the middle of his impeachment, Trump assassinated Suleimani and we have yet to hear detailed or compelling reasons for his decision to act without consulting Congress nor our allies. An endless war with Iran is not in the interest of the people of America, Iran, nor of the world. It is time for cool heads and forward thinking."

We're just starting to get to know Robin Wilt, the progressive Democrat challenging Rochester New Dem Joe Morelle (NY-25). Morelle's only critique of Trump's assassination of Qassem Soleimani was that Congress was not fully briefed beforehand. Robin believes we need strong moral positions against war, not just a procedural ones. Since Morelle was one of the Democrats to support the NRAA, I asked her how they differ on Trump's moves regarding Iran. "I oppose war with Iran," she responded clearly. "I have a brother who graduated from the U.S. Military Academy West Point in 2002-- the year George W Bush articulated his doctrine of preemptive strike. My brother was later grievously injured in Iraq by an IED and is an amputee. I also have a son who is currently a junior at West Point (Class of ’21). For me, the issue of military adventurism is intensely personal. I believe the best way to support our military is to never put them in harm’s way injudiciously. I oppose the military industrial complex perpetuating war and threatening our national security and troops. I believe we should treat our troops like the valuable resource that they are by using them only as a last resort."

Trump was all hopped up on Adderall when he made his silly address to the nation yesterday. His Regime didn't do any better when they attempted to mollify Congress with closed briefings explaining why they assassinated Qasem Soleimani. On the House side, Virginia Democrat Gerry Connolly called the briefing "sophomoric and utterly unconvincing" and added that he is "utterly unpersuaded" that the assassination was justified. It was no better in the Senate, where arch-conservative Utah Senator Mike Lee (R) was one of many who were angered by the Trumpists' asinine excuse-making. Lee went on Fox News and said the briefing was "probably the worst briefing at least on a military issue I’ve seen" and said that the Trumpist Regime was "insulting and demeaning" the Senate by telling them not to debate merits of taking military action. Fox News cut Lee off and went to a commercial. Rand Paul (R) was just as angry as Lee was and added that using the 2002 AUMF to gin up a war with Iran was bullshit. "I see no way in the world you could logically argue that an authorization to have war with Saddam Hussein has anything to with having war with people currently in Iraq" and said using it to murder Soleimani was "absurd" and an "insult" (to Congress). "Let's have the debate, and let's have some senators stand up," he said. Maybe he should mention it to fellow Kentuckian, Moscow Mitch, who will not permit any debate without Trump's OK.

CNN reported that Senator Paul is criticizing Trumpanzee's actions toward Iran, saying his decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement and last week's drone strike that killed the country's top military general have made the US less safe. "The Iran agreement wasn't perfect-- and I was a critic of the Iran agreement-- however, I think it was a big mistake to pull out of the Iran agreement. We should have tried to build upon the Iran agreement. We've now killed one of their major generals. I think it is the death of diplomacy and I see no way to get it back started until the revenge of the Iranian people is somehow sated... I hate this. I hate that this is where we are going. I have been someone who has been for engagement, but there was much less killing, there was much less violence after the Iran agreement. In fact, there was a lull, a period in which I think we were headed towards a much more stable situation with Iran, and now I think that's gone. And I think it may be gone for a lifetime... Nobody in their right mind would actually think that would lead to negotiation."

Rand Paul vs Liz Cheney

For the last few days, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) have been bashing each other on Twitter. Yesterday their Twitter feud spilled over to the press and even TV... at least in Wyoming, where Paul called into KTWO to slap Liz around a little (video above). Paul: "I really think that the Western Republicans, the ones that I’ve met in Wyoming and the ones I’ve met throughout the West, are very, very independent. They’re tired of spending $50 billion a year in Afghanistan. They’re tired of building roads in Afghanistan. They’re tired of $45 million gas stations in Afghanistan and $90 million hotels. I think a lot of people in Wyoming would rather see that money spent at home."

So... what's this all about? Cheney is one of the most despised politicians in Washington, a truculent asshole very much like her parents. She chairs the the House Republican Conference, the third-highest position in GOP House leadership and has reinterpreted the job to "vicious Republican attack dog." Mike Mike Enzi retiring next year, she's been threatening to give up her at-large House seat and move over to the Senate. That primary is already starting to look like a real circus, featuring former far right crazy Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis, crackpot billionaire Foster Friess, and every Republican politician from the most right-wing state who doesn't have a job at the moment. Republican senators would rather she stay in the House, although no one is especially enthusiastic about anyone lining up to replace the popular and well-liked Enzi, who also detests Cheney.

This brouhaha between Paul and Cheney started in midweek when he called her and her father warmongers and she responded by tweeting that he puts "terrorists first, America second." He's already endorsed her probable Senate opponent, Lummis. Friday morning Politico reporter Melanie Zanona penned a column, Liz Cheney throws lighter fluid on feud with Rand Paul, so that everyone in DC who wasn't already following this now can. Yesterday, at the GOP House retreat she noted that "There are issues surrounding whether you put America first, as Trump does, or if you blame America first, as Rand Paul does and has for years."

Not to be outdone, Paul on Friday afternoon tweeted: "Few people have been as wrong on foreign policy over the last few years as the neocons and @Liz_Cheney. The Twitter exchange represents a real and significant debate on the future of our foreign policy between realists like myself and #NeverTrumper neoconservatives like Cheney."

The spat comes days after the ouster of Trump’s hawkish national security adviser John Bolton, which has prompted a round of jockeying among the GOP’s hawks and doves to bend the president’s ear on foreign policy. And it also comes after Trump said last weekend he canceled secret peace talks with the Taliban that were planned for Camp David.

Paul, a libertarian senator from Kentucky, fired the first shot, sharing an article criticizing Cheney and asking why “neocons continue to advocate for endless wars.” Cheney, an interventionist-minded member of the Armed Services Committee, hit back, saying, “I stand with @realDonaldTrump and our men and women in uniform who will never surrender to terrorists, unlike @RandPaul, who seems to have forgotten that today is 9/11.”

The fight then devolved, with Cheney jabbing Paul about being a "big loser" in the 2016 primary and Paul's top aide stepping in to call Cheney a "chickenhawk." And Paul himself trolled Cheney with a thread highlighting all the times Cheney has split with Trump, an effort seen by some of Cheney’s allies aimed at damaging her prospects in a potential Senate bid.

...The feud between Cheney and Paul runs deep. Their fathers-- former Vice President Dick Cheney and failed presidential candidate and former Rep. Ron Paul-- served alongside each other in the House and disagreed over foreign policy issues.

Do You Think The Worst Presidency In The History Of The U.S. Will End Without A War?

It increasingly looks like Trump is ginning up a war with Iran to get peoples' minds off the Mueller Report and the myriad other problems that are spinning out of control and drowning his presidency and his hopes for reelection. Maybe Venezuela? Yeah, there's always that... but the Saudis and Israelis are both really pushing for the U.S. to attack Iran.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was testifying at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing when Rand Paul (R-KY) reminded him that "Only Congress can declare war. You do not have our permission to go to war with Iran." What brought that on, you wonder? Paul asked Pompeo if the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force-- which still technically allows a president to send troops to fight anyone "responsible for the 9/11 attacks." Pompeo ducked the question, as though he were being questioned by a Democrat. He said that it would be something for "the lawyers" to decide but that there is "there is no question there is a connection between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Al Qaeda. Full Stop."

That worried Paul-- and rightfully so-- who said, "I can tell you, you have not been given power or authority by Congress to have war with Iran. So my hope is, I'm not arguing if IRGC is terrorists, my argument is you do not have permission Congress to go to war with Iran. It's the way the constitution was written. You want it, you have to come to us."

On Monday, the Trump administration accused the group, formed by an order of Ayatollah Khomeini as a branch of Iran's Armed Forces founded after the 1979 Iranian revolution, of not only facilitating, but perpetrating, terrorism. President Trump declared the designation an "unprecedented step" that "recognizes the reality that Iran is not only a State Sponsor of Terrorism, but that the IRGC actively participates in, finances, and promotes terrorism as a tool of statecraft."

The designation marks the first time that the U.S. has said a part of another government is a terrorist organization, according to the White House, and will expand the scope and scale of the administration's maximum pressure campaign on the Iranian regime. The White House emphasized the action "sends a clear message to Tehran that its support for terrorism has serious consequences."

If Trump decides to go ahead with a war against Iran anyway, do you think Congress would stand up to him? McConnell? Schumer? McCarthy? Pelosi? Rand Paul and Barbara Lee aren't going to be able to stop it alone.

And speaking of Pelosi, Shahid Buttar is the progressive Democrat challenging her this cycle. I asked him that very question. Here's what he told me this morning: "The military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us to fear has unfortunately co-opted both of the major corporate political parties in the United States, which continue to march in lockstep with our criminal president despite the empty words of leaders mouthing resistance. And with so many Americans ignorant of our own nation's history, the parties have come together to drag We the American people, military families, and overlooked foreign communities from one neo-imperial war to another. Few remember how the U.S. effectively created the right wing theocracy in Iran, by installing and supporting a dictator for decades who inspired a populist backlash. If we merely walked our own talk of supporting democracy abroad, we would advance U.S. national security far more reliably than through any number of military interventions."

I also asked the same question to our old friend Doug Applegate, a strategic thinker, former congressional candidate and ex-Marine colonel. He didn't seem sanguine. "Given the ease of that the Bush Cheney cabal served up the fraud and misrepresentations to invade Iraq, Trump will have no hesitation to lie and misrepresent his way to a war with Iran. But the draft dodger will find out quickly that the Iranians will draw far more U.S. blood and treasure while yielding no prize. But the bigger question will be whether or not the Democrats can stop them given the way the Democrats play chess."

Alan Grayson added, sorrowfully, that "Because no one was held accountable for the last time that we were lied into a war (WMD), or the time before that (the Tonkin Gulf incident) or the time before that (Remember the Maine?) it very well might happen again."

Rand Paul And Justin Amash-- Sticking It To Trump?

Rand Paul frequently makes constitutional arguments against Trump's behavior and huffs and puffs about voting against them... but in the end, he's a pretty dependable Trump enabler. Murkowski and Collins have bigger balls than he does. Yesterday the Bowling Green Daily News in his home state that reported that Paul announced at the Southern Kentucky Lincoln Day Dinner that he "can’t vote to give extra-Constitutional powers to the president."

In a speech that started off praising Trump's supposed accomplishments to the crowd of nearly 200 Republican officeholders and supporters, Paul surprised the room by interjecting his opinion that Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the Mexican border is a dangerous precedent. He said "I can’t vote to give the president the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress. We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing."

Since Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) have already announced they're voting for the Resolution of Disapproval, Paul's vote would pass it-- as long as Schumer can force Arizona Democratic Trump ally Kyrsten Sinema to vote with the Democrats for a change.

Justin Amash (R-MI) already voted for the same bill in the House, one of just 13 Republicans who did:

• Justin Amash (R-MI)
• Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
• Mike Gallagher (R-WI)
• Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA)
• Will Hurd (R-TX)
• Dusty Johnson (R-SD)
• Tom Massie (R-KY)
• Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)
• Tom Rooney (R-FL)
• Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
• Elise Stefanik (R-NY)
• Fred Upton (R-MI)
• Greg Walden (R-OR)

Amash is a pretty strict constitutionalist. On State of the Union, Jake Tapper asked him if there's a national security crisis on the border, which is what Trump is claiming.

Amash: I think there's a fair debate that there are big problems on the border. Some people would call it a crisis.

But that has to go through Congress. So, we have a legislative branch, Congress, that handles these issues. And the president doesn't get to decide that he can override Congress simply because Congress doesn't do what he wants.

I know that there are a lot of people in the country who agree with the president, and that's why we have Congress, so we can debate these issues. And if there were an emergency in the sense that the president is describing, there would be a lot more consensus.

When a house is on fire, nobody is debating whether they should go into save people or whether they should put out the fire. Everyone understands that's an emergency.

The fact that there's a debate going on here, and there is not consensus, indicates it's not an emergency in the sense that the president is describing, and he can't just go around Congress.

Tapper: You tweeted this week-- quote-- "If you think my job is to support the president 100 percent, then you don't understand what it means to be a representative in Congress. My job is to support the Constitution 100 percent" -- unquote.

Do you think that Republicans who are supporting this national emergency are abdicating their responsibilities to the Constitution?

Amash: I think so, yes.

I don't think that they are all intending to do that. I think many of them are making arguments. They're trying to make legal arguments. They say, well, Congress has passed legislation giving the president this power. So I don't think that they are thinking to themselves, oh, I just want the president to violate the Constitution.

But I think the president is violating our constitutional system. And I don't think Congress can grant legislative powers to the president by statute. You can't just pass a statute that says, the president now has appropriations power and bypass Congress.

I don't think that's-- that's allowed under our constitutional system. And the best check on the president's action is Congress. It's not the courts. Our system is not designed so that the courts are going to resolve these disputes all the time between the legislative branch the executive branch.

We have to protect our own power. And that's what I'm doing. And I'm hopeful many Republican senators will agree.

Don't Pay Any Mind To Drama Queen Rand Paul-- He's Full Of Crap

Rand Paul isn't the only publicity hog in the Senate. He's just the worst. Every time something controversial comes up, he grabs some quick national headlines by pretending he might do something contrary to what everyone knows he will do (and always does do). So, no, there is exactly no chance-- none whatsoever-- that Rand Paul is wavering on voting to confirm extremist Trump nominee Brett Kavanaugh. It's always a nice fantasy that Paul will break away from his rote support for this kind of thing but it's nothing more than a publicity stunt for Paul. And, of course, he got the ink he was looking for from Politico yesterday.

If just one Republican votes NO, the nominee Trump picked because he says he believes presidents are above the law and can't he questioned or indicted, Kavanaugh's rushed nomination fails. Reporter Burgess Everett wrote that "Paul is again inviting fellow senators to play the will-he-or-won’t-he guessing game when it comes to his decision-- expressing grave concerns about Kavanaugh’s approach to personal privacy while insisting his vote could go either way, depending on what the judge says in the coming weeks and months." What a joke! There is no one in Washington playing any kind of will-he-or-won’t-he guessing game over puffed up Rand Paul. If he was an actual civil libertarian, say, Justin Amash-- the real deal-- maybe people would... but Rand Paul? Give me a break. This scam only works so many times before you become a sad joke.

“I am honestly undecided. I am very concerned about his position on privacy and the Fourth Amendment. This is not a small deal for me. This is a big deal,” Paul said in an interview last week. “Kavanaugh’s position is basically that national security trumps privacy. And he said it very strongly and explicitly. And that worries me.”

The calculation, of course, isn’t that straightforward. GOP senators and strategists are skeptical that Paul would be willing to buck President Donald Trump, with whom he’s close, on such a monumental vote. For senators, it doesn’t get much bigger than a vote to confirm or reject a Supreme Court justice in waiting.

With Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) absent from the Senate, Paul could tank Kavanaugh if he joins with all Democrats in opposing him. And Paul has been more publicly critical of Kavanaugh than moderate Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, two other pivotal GOP votes.

Brett Kavanaugh by Nancy Ohanian

Paul must also reckon with the possibility that if Kavanaugh’s nomination fails, Republicans could lose the Senate this fall and with it the ability to confirm Trump’s nominees unilaterally.

Yet the civil libertarian community is bashing Kavanaugh. And Paul is still the de facto leader of that wing of his party given his views on privacy, torture and non-interventionism.

The GOP senator has not come out as strongly against Kavanaugh as he did against Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, for whom he eventually voted, and CIA Director Gina Haspel, who he followed through in opposing. Other like-minded Republicans have been more adamant.

“There are many potential nominees with a conservative record on abortion, guns, and regulations,” Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), the most outspoken of them, wrote on Twitter. “The only question is will the Senate confirm one who is really bad on the #4thAmendment, when so much is at stake in upcoming digital privacy battles.”

Paul understands this is not a black-and-white call, and that political considerations will come into play. He has pointedly left himself some wiggle room to be convinced that the nominee understands where he’s coming from.

“Wouldn’t you rather have Kavanaugh than Ruth Bader Ginsburg? He’s probably good on economic liberty and overzealous regulation and things like that. So I don’t want to have it sort of in a vacuum,” Paul said. “I’ll have to weigh that versus other aspects that he may be a lot better than a Clinton appointee.”

A handful of red-state Democrats might end up backing Kavanaugh and take pressure off of Paul as potentially the deciding vote. But those Democrats are expected to withhold their opinions until all Republican senators have stated their intentions. That means Paul could be headed for a familiar routine during his tenure: fellow Republicans pleading with him to be a team player and resist his impulses to go his own way. Many GOP senators have already come out in support of Kavanaugh before he’s even had his hearing, and some are beginning to gently prod Paul.

Green Wave Democrats-- Standing Up To Jeff Sessions On Marijuana Re-Criminalization

-by Jasper Ward

"It’s funny-- but not actually funny-- that states’ rights matter to the Trump Administration and Republicans only when it’s politically expedient. AG Session’s vendetta against democratically legalized marijuana is a humongous waste of federal resources and has proven to be unpopular at the state and national level."
-Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA)

Campaigns are what candidates make them about. The double edged sword for Democratic candidates in 2018 is that there are so, so many awful things going on that there are too many things campaigns can be about. The common denominator, of course, is Trump and the Republicans have set the train ablaze and aimed it right at the 99% of Americans tied to the tracks. Trump is insanely and angrily opening the throttle to full speed, and the GOP is standing off safely to the side counting their money and watching it happen. Democratic elected officials have only half-heartedly and occasionally thrown themselves in front of the train (the Senate confirmed Christopher Wray as FBI Director overwhelmingly after Trump admitted he fired Comey to stop the Russia investigation!!) and have repeatedly helped the GOP fund the government in exchange for saving some (hugely important) hostages, but still only a few.

The people who are really going to save America (and maybe the world?) are the challengers out there in red districts and against horrible Democrats like Dan Lipinski and Debbie Wassermann Schultz. They are the ones who are not only going to rush the cabin and stop the train, but because they are not infected by the last two decades of greyscale that has touched everyone in Washington-- including Democrats-- they are going to chart a new path forward for the 2020s.

This week gave us a perfect example of the dichotomy of Establishment DC Dems not doing enough to save the country and Progressive Challenger Dems stepping up to chart the new way forward. When Jeff Sessions announced he was suspending the Justice Department memo that prevented US Attorneys from going after the marijuana industry in legal states, the reactions of most Establishment DC Dems showed why Democrats are in the mess we are in.

Sure, there were a few progressive stalwarts like Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-TX) who were willing to take Sessions on directly. Beto: "After our country has spent more than $1 trillion on the war on drugs, leading the world in the size of our prison population and seeing marijuana just as available today as it was at the start of the war on drugs-- and just as the majority of Americans have come to the conclusion that we must end the federal prohibition on marijuana, and most states have followed suit-- I can't understand how the Trump administration would take us back to the dark ages of the drug war. Attorney General Jeff Sessions' decision yesterday to stop states from being able to set more humane and rational policies around marijuana is a big step in the wrong direction. Called ‘The New Jim Crow’ for the disparity in arrests and sentencing that disproportionately affect communities of color, the war on drugs has become a war on people. And from the front lines of this war, I co-authored a book that describes the carnage and wasted potential that are a result of our failed drug policies. Who will be the last kid in Ciudad Juarez to die for the privilege of crossing marijuana into a country where more than half the states have already legalized or decriminalized it? Who will be the last Texan to rot in prison for a non-violent marijuana possession? I am a co-sponsor of a bipartisan bill, introduced by a Republican colleague who is a former prosecutor, to end the federal prohibition on marijuana. That bill, once it becomes law, will do more than anything else to keep marijuana out of the hands of kids, marijuana proceeds out of the hands of criminals and cartels, and allow us to focus on real threats like the growing opioid crisis in this country."

And Barbara Lee, who represents Oakland and Berkley: "By now you may have heard that Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced his plan to reverse Obama-era rules that allow states to implement marijuana laws without the federal government interfering. Let me be perfectly clear: Jeff Sessions and the entire Trump administration are on the wrong side of history. The war on drugs has failed on almost every measure while causing irreparable damage to communities of color who bear the burden of overzealous policing and mass incarceration. Jeff Sessions is ignoring the facts to promote Trump’s misguided "law and order" agenda, but it won't work. My colleagues and I are going to continue to fight back and do our jobs, and we're going to need your support to keep the Trump administration from reviving the failed, racist war on drugs.

"No. We are not going to let Jeff Sessions use the Justice Department as a tool to promote racial and economic control over communities of color. No. We are not going to let the Trump administration revive a policy that directly contributed to the tragic mass incarceration crisis we have in this country. No. We are not going to let Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump roll back the progress we’ve made to end the failed war on drugs." But most Democrats in Congress... crickets. From Huffington Post

But criticizing Sessions’ move is one thing. Turning his marijuana crackdown into an election-year political cudgel-- in stump speeches, campaign literature and ads-- is something else entirely.

And when asked whether Democrats planned to use the marijuana crackdown against Republicans in the November elections, some of the same Democrats keen to clobber Sessions were noncommittal.

“It’s way too early to predict that,” Warner said.

Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Senate campaign arm, said, “Every Democratic member of the Senate will have to decide what’s best in their states.”

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), who also expressed her displeasure with Sessions’ decision, argued that Democrats ought to run on kitchen-table economic issues rather than marijuana.

“There are so many other things to run on, like the tax bill that just passed that does not help working families at all,” she said in an interview.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee did not respond to multiple email requests for comment on the political salience of Sessions’ move. The DSCC referred HuffPost back to Van Hollen’s remarks.

When asked about making marijuana an election issue, Democratic National Committee spokesman Michael Tyler provided a statement indicting Sessions’ “morally bankrupt and economically stupid” decision without commenting on the potential political effect.

Bleck! As we have posted again and again, this is an extremely popular political issue that is also good policy because of how many ways it would transform American life for the better for the 99% of Americans currently tied to the tracks. Talking about this a frame is something legitimately new and will help Democrats talk about jobs, opioids, civil rights, immigration, and every other issue relevant to voters in a way that voters won’t automatically tune out Democrats. Everyone knew Trump wanted to Make America Great Again, and that was enough for them to elect that madman President of the United States. If everyone knew Democrats wanted to legalize marijuana nationwide to create jobs, fight opioids and expand civil rights, that should be enough in a Congressional race. Let’s not overthink this.

Luckily, we have Progressive Challenger Democrats who are not infected with Washington Greyscale and get it. First, Dan Canon (IN) and Kendra Fershee (WV) had been out front on this, releasing these ads weeks before the Sessions announcement,

Then, after the Sessions announcement, multiple candidates stepped up with personal, direct to camera appeals to legalize nationwide.

• Dayna Steele (TX)
• Kaniela Ing (HI)
• Beto O'Rourke (TX)

There are more candidates who have come out in support, but we want to do our part to make sure candidates don’t just support this and move on.

That’s why Howie has graciously agreed to put a Green Wave Democrats fundraising drive on the Blue America page (that thermometer on the right will take you to it). Show candidates that this issue moves donors across the country just as much as it helps them in their district to talk about jobs, opioids, civil rights and racial inequality, and not governing from a place of fear and rot like the DC Democratic party will likely do when we get back the majority.

I have done my part: I have pledged to max out (and have already maxed out) to any candidate who puts up an ad like Dan and Kendra’s ads above so that they can move these from beyond the web to television in their districts. I am working to secure other pledges from people who will do this.

But people don’t need to max out to get these candidates’ attention. The volume of small dollar contributors motived by Green Wave Democrats will leave an indelible mark, and will make the difference.

There is huge, huge value in the nomination of one of our two major political parties to any office. Just ask Senator Doug Jones and President Donald Trump about that. We have tons of qualified candidates across the country in primaries, and the candidates who realize that the primary is the ball game are the ones who are going to have an advantage. The power of this issue is that it appeals just as much to voters you need in November as you need in the primary, and there will be a huge first mover advantage over the next couple of months.

For example, the progressive candidate in the Illinois race to replace reactionary Republican incumbent Rodney Davis, Dr. David Gill, an emergency room physician told us that he’s “amazed by the gall of politicians like Jeff Sessions, who adhere to the concept of 'States' Rights' only when it suits their needs and desires. Mr. Sessions is a complete and utter hypocrite. The war on drugs has failed to decrease drug use and has cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Current policy also disproportionately impacts communities of color. It is finally time to legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana. Legalization of marijuana has proven to successfully stimulate the economy in Colorado. This policy will generate billions of dollars in tax revenue and reduce the huge financial burden posed by incarcerating non-violent offenders. As an emergency medicine physician, I rarely see adverse events related to marijuana; in contrast, trauma caused by legal alcohol always keeps my Emergency Room busy."

And Derrick Crowe is the progressive Democrat running in the Austin/San Antonio district where science denier Lamar Smith is retiring. "Marijuana should be legal," he told us, "and Jeff Sessions' obsession with destroying families and communities by jailing people for marijuana offenses is inhumane and puritanical. At the same time that Trump and the GOP are trying to cut people off from their health coverage under the ACA, Sessions is working to end folks' ability to use marijuana to alleviate terrible pain in states that allow medical marijuana. And, at a time when African Americans are almost four times as likely than Whites to be jailed for marijuana use despite similar usage rates, it's a racial justice and criminal justice reform issue. It's clear that there's no level of pain too great or injustice to deep to get in the way of Republicans' efforts to please their donors."

  Let’s provide positive reinforcement for these candidates. Let’s make sure the people driving the train are a new generation of leaders who are not afraid to take a principled stand that is contrary to DC Savvy Democrats who assure us this issue is meaningless (and therefore will not make it a priority when we take back the majority). Let’s support Green Wave Democrats.

Right now there are 15 co-sponsors on Virginia Republican Tom Garrett’s Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017 (H.R. 1227):

• Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)
• Scott Taylor (R-VA)
• Jared Polis (D-CO)
• Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
• Don Young (R-AK)
• Justin Amash (R-MI)
• Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
• Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
• Steve Cohen (D-TN)
• Jamie Raskin (D-MD)
• Ed Perlmutter (D-CO)
• Beto O’Rourke (D-TX)
• Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
• Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)
• Ro Khanna (D-CA)

Trump crony and long-time advisor Roger Stone is running a TV ad unfriendly to Sessions’ attack on states’ marijuana policies:



And libertarian hero Ron Paul is calling for Trump to fire Sessions as Attorney General  something Trump already wants to do... although for reasons that are unrelated to marijuana. Trump wants Sessions gone so that the Department of Justice will end the Mueller Putin-Gate investigation.