Gary Ackerman, Jason Altmire, Robert Andrews, Joe Baca, John Barrow, Shelley Berkley, Howard Berman, Sanford Bishop, Tim Bishop, Dan Boren, Leon Boswell, Bob Brady, Corrine Brown, Russ Carnahan, John Carney, Ben Chandler, Judy Chu, Gerald Connolly, Jim Cooper, Jim Costa, Joe Courtney, Mark Critz, Henry Cuellar, Elijah Cummings, Susan Davis, Norm Dicks, John Dingell, Lloyd Doggett, Joe Donnelly, Eliot Engel, Charles Gonzalez, Al Green, Gene Green, Colleen Hanabusa, Martin Heinrich, Brian Higgins, Ruben Hinojosa, Mazie Hirono, Kathy Hochul, Tim Holden, Steny Hoyer, Steve Israel, Sheila Jackson Lee, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Jim Jordan, Marcy Kaptur, Dale Kildee, Larry Kissell, James Langevin, John Larson, Sander Levin, Dan Lipinski, David Loebsack, Jim Matheson, Carolyn McCarthy, Carolyn McCarthy, Mike McIntyre, Jim McNerney, Gregory Meeks, Bill Owens, Ed Pastor, Ed Perlmutter, Collin Peterson, Silvestre Reyes, Laura Richardson, Mike Ross, Dutch Ruppersberger, Adam Schiff, David Scott, Terri Sewell, Brad Sherman, Heath Shuler, Albio Sires, Adam Smith, Betty Sutton, Ed Towns, Nikki Tsongas, Peter Visclosky, and Tim Walz

These are the names of the 77 Democrats in the House of Representatives who voted on Friday in favor of passing H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.

You may remember how, last year, Republicans in Congress pushed Democrats into what was called a “compromise”. The deal was that a Special Committee from the House and Senate would be authorized to come up with a plan for reducing the budget deficit, through increases in revenue or through reductions in spending. That committee had a deadline to come up with a plan, and if they didn’t meet that deadline, then there would be automatic spending reductions in programs like Medicare and the military.

There would be no new taxes if the deadline wasn’t met, though, so the Republicans on that Special Committee just sat there, with no intention to come up with any plan, happy to let the spending reductions go into place. This year, there were supposed to be automatic reductions in money for Medicare and for the military alike.

The cuts in Medicare are coming through, but with the version of the National Defense Authorization Act just passed by the House of Representatives, the cuts in military spending do not take place. A vote for this legislation, essentially, is a vote to allow cuts in Medicare without any counter-balancing cuts in military spending or tax increases. It’s a vote to put all the economic burden onto working Americans, while allowing the wealthy to keep their special tax loopholes.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 as passed by the House of Friday preserves spending on extravagant weapons program that the Pentagon says it doesn’t want. It keeps open redundant military bases that are not strategically necessary.

The money to pay for this wasteful military spending is being taken from older Americans, by reducing their health care benefits.

Who would vote for such a thing? Well, almost every Republican in the House of Representatives voted in favor of this unjust redistribution of wealth. It’s not just a Republican problem, though. The 77 Democrats listed above voted to approve this unjust arrangement as well.

These Democratic politicians don’t deserve to be re-elected. If you are represented by one of the Democrats listed above, give your representative a call through the congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Ask to be connected to your representative’s office, and leave a simple message with the aide who picks up the phone: I’m a liberal, and I won’t be voting for you in November, and it’s because you voted for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.

John Barrow
Sanford Bishop
Dan Boren
Ben Chandler
Henry Cuellar
Jim Matheson
Mike McIntyre
Gary Peters
Collin Peterson
Laura Richardson
Mike Ross
Heath Shuler

The Franks amendment eliminates funding for programs in which the United States cooperates with Russia to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The reason that Trent Franks, other congressional Republicans and these 12 Democrats gave for eliminating nuclear nonproliferation: Russia has given military aid to Syria.

I don’t know anyone who would argue that the Syrian government is a decent regime deserving of any kind of foreign support. However, Russian support for the Syrian government is a functionally separate issue. If nuclear weapons materials and technology from Russia go unprotected, and are taken by terrorists, mercenaries, or agents of another government, such an incident would do nothing to help overthrow the current Syrian regime. It would only create an additional foreign policy problem, and put the world in even greater risk of a nuclear holocaust.

The amount of spending required for the benefit of protection from nuclear weapons proliferation is minimal. If these dozen Democrats really wanted to save money, they could have voted for another proposed amendment to H.R. 4310, from Congressman Ed Markey. The Markey amendment would have saved a large amount of money by delaying the development of a new generation of bomber aircraft designed specifically to shoot nuclear missiles at foreign cities from a long range.

The Markey amendment was defeated. All but one (Gary Peters) of the dozen Democrats who voted in favor of ending nuclear nonproliferation voted against delaying the development of the expensive nuclear bomber.

The issue isn’t what’s happening in Syria at the moment. It isn’t cutting spending. The issue is nuclear weapons. Too many members of Congress favor the expansion of America’s nuclear weapons, and don’t care to even try to control the spread of nuclear weapons out of Russia.

Doesn’t this loose spending of government money contradict Republican claims that their political party is dedicated to fiscal responsibility? Not according to Congressman Joe Wilson. Yesterday, Representative Wilson rose to give a speech to his colleagues in Congress, telling them that military spending is somehow different than all other government spending. Representative Wilson declared that military spending “does not contribute to our growing national debt.”

How does that work? How could it be that dollar spent on schools for America’s kids increases the national debt, but a dollar spent on bombs and bullets used to kill people in America’s wars does not increase the national debt? Are there different economic rules that govern military spending and domestic spending?

Joe Wilson, you lie. A dollar of debt is a dollar of debt, regardless of the way that it’s spent. Republicans can’t expect us to believe that they’re against big government spending, after voting for a big government spending bill like H.R. 4310.

Arise, then, women of this day! Arise all women who have hearts, whether our baptism be that of water or of fears!

Say firmly: “We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies. Our husbands shall not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.

We women of one country will be too tender of those of another country to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs. From the bosom of the devastated earth a voice goes up with our own. It says “Disarm, Disarm! The sword of murder is not the balance of justice.”

Blood does not wipe our dishonor nor violence indicate possession. As men have often forsaken the plow and the anvil at the summons of war, let women now leave all that may be left of home for a great and earnest day of counsel. Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.

Let them then solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means whereby the great human family can live in peace, each bearing after their own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar, but of God.

In the name of womanhood and of humanity, I earnestly ask that a general congress of women without limit of nationality may be appointed and held at some place deemed most convenient and at the earliest period consistent with its objects, to promote the alliance of the different nationalities, the amicable settlement of international questions, the great and general interests of peace.

Julia Ward Howe
Boston
1870

Celebrate Mother’s Day. Put a stop to war.

Yet, last week Congressman Coffman said something that made a lot of sense. Coffman called for the withdrawal of American soldiers from Europe. In a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, Coffman said, “In January, the Pentagon announced that two U.S. Army combat brigade teams would be withdrawn from Europe. I don’t think that goes far enough. The current proposal is only a step in the right direction. We should retain only the headquarters and support infrastructure necessary for expeditionary capabilities, and we should withdraw all four combat brigades from Europe. In order for the U.S. military to modernize and move forward towards a more agile strategy, we must close bases in Europe. There is no longer a strategic reason to maintain nearly 80,000 troops in Europe.”

Coffman is right. It’s been almost 70 years since Adolph Hitler was a threat. The Soviet Union has been gone for an entire generation now. So, why should the American people keep paying to support a massive American military infrastructure on the European continent?

Europe won’t fall apart if the American military leaves, and back here at home, government support for schools and hospitals is being drastically reduced due to draconian budget legislation. It would be unforgivable for Congress to maintain our country’s outdated military presence in Europe while forcing people here in the USA to make sacrifices in order to support the extra expense.

If we could see more Republican legislation for cuts in military spending of the sort that Mike Coffman has offered, it would make the GOP claim of standing for fiscal responsibility a lot more believable.

During the same period, 65% of the members of Congress who uttered the phrase “civilian casualties” in the Congressional Record were Democrats, and 35% Republicans. The person who uttered the phrase “civilian casualties” the most during that time was Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy. Not one of the top five contributors to Pat Leahy this year is a military contractor.

Other guests, not invited by NATO, will also be meeting – out in the streets. Large numbers of people belonging to the Occupy Movement will be in Chicago protesting against NATO.

Why protest NATO? The reasons range from killing by NATO military drones to massive military spending. NatoProtest.org provides a long list of reasons Americans are upset with NATO.

Actually, Occupy activist projects associated with the upcoming NATO summit have already begun. Yesterday, Dr. Cornel West gave a lecture criticizing Barack Obama’s rather un-liberal policies at the University of Chicago. Tonight, there’s a training session in methods of nonviolent activism at DePaul University, and a meeting going over Occupy movement building ideas. Tomorrow, there’s another meeting organizing housing and food for all the Occupy activists coming to town.

This weekend, the The People’s Summit will be held by Occupy activists. This summit has a rather different purpose than the NATO summit: “To educate our communities about war, austerity, global capitalism, and corporatization in the 21st century, and what it means for the ways we live in this world.”

If you want to participate in the anti-NATO protests in Chicago, but don’t live in Chicago, 99% Solidarity can help. The organization is putting together free bus rides for Occupy activists from many cities to Chicago especially for this month’s protests. Non-violent activist training will be held on the buses en route.

Unfortunately, the right wing Democratic mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, is also planning. Mayor Emanuel has created a long list of new restrictions designed to confine and confound protesters, including the requirement that protest organizers pay large amounts of money to the city of Chicago in exchange for permission to protest. What’s more, although Emanuel initially promised that the restrictions on protest would only be temporary, lifted after the NATO summit, he has since reversed this promise, and declared that the anti-protest measures will now be permanent.

It’s been generations since wolves were hunted into near extinction in the United States. Yet, after all this time, people still haven’t come to grips with the idea of the wolf as a ravening, terrifying predator. The wolf still stands as an evil character in our imaginations, even though far more violence is inflicted upon human beings and livestock from domesticated dogs. Wolves, being wild, mostly steer clear of human territory.

This week, the state of Wyoming announced that it’s going to join the growing list of states that encourages the hunting of wolves. In some areas of the state of Wyoming, there won’t be any limit at all to the number of wolves that can be killed.

As hatred of wolves is growing, level headed Americans have a responsibility to encourage a more balanced view. We don’t need to deny that wolves kill and eat other animals to survive, but neither do we need to deny our own similar nature. Wolves may seem frightening, but if we can come to peace with that fear, we can become better masters of our own minds.

It’s with this idea in mind that I created this peace wolf tshirt design: A collection of wolves, captured in silhouette, gathered into the shape of a peace symbol. Rather than attempting to control every aspect of the natural world that disturbs our civilized sensibilities, we can allow some space for another kind of intelligence to roam free.

1. The USA has become habitually militaristic, spending far too much on outlandish military projects and fighting war too often and for too long.
2. The political system in the USA is controlled by a financial elite that has been so successful in creating a gap between itself and the working people of the country who create wealth that it has become out of touch with the difficult economic realities that the majority must deal with.

These two political problems will converge at 5:00 PM today, and the presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is scheduled to stand at the epicenter of their meeting. The Sunlight Foundation has come across an invitation for a Romney for President campaign fundraiser tonight — taking place at the Ritz-Carlton in Pentagon City.

For Mitt Romney to choose a hotel designed exclusively for wealthy visitors is hosting a campaign fundraiser right in the middle of the community that shamelessly serves as home base for corporate war profiteers exhibits a fearless embrace of the power of big money. Romney doesn’t seem at all bashful to be seen taking piles of cash from influence brokers. Instead, he seems to be advertising the fact, making it plain to all the powerful insiders that he’s the candidate who can be trusted to serve as their Corporate Consultant In Chief.

The invitation goes on to explain that no one will be allowed to participate in tonight’s “policy roundtable” without giving a minimum of $10,000 to the Romney presidential campaign. Those of us who can’t afford to make the ten-thousand-dollar bet that Mitt Romney can only sit on the outside, wondering what kind of deals are being made by the elites inside the pay-for-play pavilion.

Then there’s the latest trouble in the U.S. military. The reason for that scandal: Soldiers from the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division took body parts of their enemies and posed with them as trophies as a kind of war pornography. Soldiers justified their actions as a celebration.

Which is the bigger scandal?

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta seems to think that the really big scandal about the war dead trophy photographs was that the American people were allowed by the Los Angeles Times to see the photographs. Panetta complained that the photographs might trigger violence, and tried to squelch the LA Times article containing the pictures.

Maybe, instead of trying to control the American press with censorship, Leon Panetta ought to work on controlling the soldiers under his authority. This is just the latest in a long series of photographs and videos of American soldiers playing games with human corpses. If the U.S. military cannot be restrained from engaging in gruesome acts with people’s dead bodies, it’s time for the military to be taken off its violent playgrounds overseas.

Members of Congress in Washington D.C. are busy shouting that heads must roll at the GSA, but it looks like over in the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, heads are already rolling… literally. I would prefer to see the U.S. government pay for clowns to perform silly shows on stage than to see the U.S. military pay for soldiers to keep clowning around with human body parts.