SEN BERNIE SANDERS' FIGHT OLIGARCHY TOUR, DICKIES ARENA, FT WORTH, TX 22JUN25

Bernie Sanders 

sdSrneopto790719m131905mfm4l7iiml553h4ll1727f3030a1t86tt27ai  · THIS is from facebook, a post by Bernie Sanders' Fight Oligarchy rally at Dickies Arena in 

Ft Worth, TX. The arena holds 14,000 and it seems to be full!

Thank you to the people of Fort Worth for the incredible turnout. The American people are saying loudly and clearly: NO to oligarchy, NO to authoritarianism, NO to kleptocracy and NO WAR WITH IRAN.

All reactions:

50KYou and 50K others

2.5K

4.7K

Like

Comment

Share

War Is Not the Answer 11SEP14

WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER, and there is a better way to deal with the terrorism of isis and a host of other groups and organizations in the Middle East, Maghreb and Arabian peninsula. Here is My representative's (Rep Gerry Connolly D VA) inadequate response to my e mail to him opposing expanding US Military involvement in Iraq and Syria. He voted to support Pres Obama's war, to support the military-industrial complex and other war profiteers. He voted to sacrifice American lives and our tax dollars. He deliberately lies when he says his isis and the other terrorist groups are a real threat to the security of the U.S. The are a threat to corporate America's profit margins from the business they conduct with the brutal, dictatorial, undemocratic regimes of our false "allies" in these regions. This is followed by Jim Wallis' post on +Sojourners against this march to war.....

September 19, 2014

Thank you for contacting me regarding the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and similarly violent terrorist groups. I appreciate your interest in this issue, and your views are important to me.

The President has laid out a bold and decisive strategy to lead a multilateral operation designed to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL, and I believe Congress has a constructive and collaborative role to play in this effort. This is a threat the United States must address. ISIL's program of genocide is undermining the stability of Iraq, threatening our partners in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region, and reversing gains made by moderate forces in Syria against a brutal dictator.

In response to the President's consultation with Congress on the deepening crisis in Syria, almost one year ago to the day, I introduced a resolution authorizing the President to carry out airstrikes against the Assad regime. In that instance, Congress demurred. I believe the President will now find bipartisan support in Congress for airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. This tactic has thus far effectively bolstered our partners on the ground, protected American assets, and facilitated humanitarian missions.

I expect a robust debate regarding the plan to arm opposition forces in Syria. It may prove to be the most challenging task we face, moving forward. As the President stated, we must remain vigilant against terrorist threats to America and its allies. As a senior member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, I will be monitoring this issue closely to ensure that actions taken by the United States are in the best interest of our national security.  

Once again, thank you for expressing your concern on this very important issue. I appreciate hearing from you. For more information on my views on other issues, please feel free to visit my website at http://connolly.house.gov. I also encourage you to visit the website to sign up for my e-newsletter.

Sincerely,

Gerald E. Connolly
Member of Congress
11th District, Virginia

War Is Not the Answer

by Jim Wallis 09-11-2014 | 5:04pm

That was a bumper sticker Sojourners published at the outset of the Iraq war more than a decade ago. American church leaders had not only opposed the war but offered an alternative: "An Alternative to War for Defeating Saddam Hussein, A Religious Initiative." We not only presented it to Colin Powell’s personal council and Tony Blair, but also printed full-page ads in every major British newspaper the day before their Parliamentary debate and vote on the war. The U.K.’s Secretary of State for International Affairs, Clair Short, told me the only real alternative on the table in their Cabinet meetings was “The American church leaders’ plan,” which, she said, was seriously discussed. U.S. and U.K. leaders showed they were drawn to an alternative plan to war that would remove any weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein might have had (which he did not) and even to ultimately remove him from power but without going to war. Pope John Paul II was also opposed to the potential war. Both the Vatican and the American church leaders warned that the potential costs of a war in Iraq could include increasing the scope and threats of international terrorism. ISIS is that sad prophecy come true; the habit of war prevailed.

Sojourners magazine Jan.-Feb. 2003 cover

I have always believed that any alternative to war must still address the very real problems at hand — just in a more effective way. To say that “war is not the answer” is not only a moral statement but also is a serious critique of what doesn’t work; wars often fail to solve the problems and ultimately make them worse. War has to answer to metrics, just as more peaceful alternatives do. The war in Iraq was a complete failure with enormous human and financial costs; ISIS is now one of the consequences.
Yesterday I spoke at a very creative non-partisan conference at the American Enterprise Institute on finding a new approach to end poverty. I was pleasantly surprised when I saw all the press cameras — until I realized they were only there to cover Dick Cheney’s news conference on how America should respond to ISIS in the room next door. Dana Milbank in The Washington Post said:

“It was just like the good old days. Scooter Libby was in the front row. Paul Wolfowitz was in the second. And on the stage was Dick Cheney, beating the drums of war.”

Yet again, Cheney railed against President Obama in a “pre-buttal” to the president’s speech coming that night. Cheney’s strategy, along with others like John McCain and Bill Kristol, calls for serial American invasions and continued occupations in every Middle Eastern country where there is conflict — one after another. Milbank concluded, “In summary: War, war and more war.”
I agree with Pope Francis when he said it is legitimate to stop an unjust aggressor:

"I underscore the verb 'to stop'. I am not saying 'bomb' or 'make war', but 'stop him.' The means by which he can be stopped must be evaluated. Stopping the unjust aggressor is legitimate."

This morning, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski agreed, saying the war 10 years ago “was a monumental disaster for which we are still paying.”
President Obama spoke to the “unique brutality” of ISIS, destroying all who are in their path, including children; turning women into sex slaves; perpetrating genocide against religious minorities, including Christians; beheading their enemies,; and turning foreigners into hardened fighters who could bring their terror back to other countries around the world. ISIS clearly revels in its own brutality by eagerly putting it all up on YouTube. I would add religious “blasphemy” to the crimes of ISIS, doing their proud brutal deeds in the name of God — which is an utter offense to all people of faith.
That the world, including the United States, needs to respond decisively to the real threats of ISIS is beyond dispute, but the practical and moral question is — how? Let’s remember the principle that alternatives to war must answer the questions that war promises to answer — but in a better way.
I give President Obama credit for wanting to respond in a “different way” than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His strategy will focus on air strikes but also relies on supporting and training Middle East partners on the ground, which will be necessary to defeat a force already as powerful as ISIS.
But who those partners will be is still a huge question at this point. All our potential allies are on one side or the other of the 1,400-year-old Sunni-Shia sectarian conflict, which produces very different visions for the future of the Middle East. Air strikes will always kill innocent civilians, which will fuel the hatred of the outside superpower and be used to recruit more terrorists. And the 1,600 American troops who will soon be in Iraq will have to stand with their “boots” someplace, which will be more likely “on the ground” than in hotel rooms and offices.
To forge solutions to conflict that are an alternative to the endless and failed habits of war demands a much stronger set of other strategies — which the White House has yet to fully understand or embrace. I applaud the president for seeking a multi-national coalition and a more international approach. But that could have begun with the United Nations, where the U.S. will chair the Security Council in just two weeks — rather than taking the American plan to the U.N. for support. Strong U.N. leadership could both recruit more Middle East partners and help take the United States out of the role of the most hated target of Islamic fundamentalism.
Aggressive diplomacy and the willingness to impose crippling economic sanctions are both necessary if we are ever to find alternatives to war. For example, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Emirates have yet to be held accountable — for their enormous inequalities and injustices that have spawned terrorism and for their export of hateful ideologies and funding support for jihadist groups. Stifling money for terrorist groups must extend to any and all nations, businesses, or organizations with any connections to the flow of that lethal money.
Ultimately, we won’t see an end to our “war on terrorism” without dealing with the underlying causes, and not just targeting the consequences of growing terrorism. We must address the world of oil that the West has created, that has literally defined nations, changed geography, and institutionalized the injustices and hypocrisies that breeds the grievances of terrorism. Having justified the unjust structure of that oil world to accommodate our addiction to fossil fuels has produced both a profound threat to our planet and the rise of an angry terrorism that threatens our own children. We must address the fact that 60 percent of the Middle East population is under 30 years of age, and many of them are unemployed, uneducated, aggrieved, and angry young men — too easily drawn to the rhetoric of revenge. To overcome terrorism we must address the grievances that give rise to it and are exploited by hateful extremists.
Again, we must address all of these causes. War and more war will not be able to solve any of it.

Jim Wallis is president of Sojourners. His book, The (Un)Common Good: How the Gospel Brings Hope to a World Divided , the updated and revised paperback version of On God’s Side, is available now. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.

 

Congress: debate and vote on the use of military force & Kaine Introduces Authorization for Use of Military Force Against ISIL & House Passes Bill That Authorizes Arming Syrian Rebels 17SEP14

 

SEN Tim Kaine D VA has been one of the most vocal critics of Pres Obama's plans, without congressional approval, to drag us in another war in the Middle East. While I oppose his support of another war, I do admire him for insisting congress be informed, consulted and approve or disapprove Obama's war. At least he is strong enough to insist the president recognize and follow the U.S. Constitution. I still believe the American people do not want another war in the Middle East and we can stop our government from forcing this war on us. Here is another petition demanding congress vote yes or no to war. Click the link to tell them to vote NO, not even for Sen Kaine' proposal. From the ACLU, followed by Sen. Kaine's proposal and the report on the WAR PIGS of the US House vote for war from +NPR .....

Tell Congress: debate and vote on whether to declare war before you leave for recess tomorrow Please note: If you forward or distribute, the links will open a page with your information filled in. Can you believe it? President Obama wants to take our country to war all on his own, even without Congress’ approval. Last week he announced the ramping up of yet another U.S. military intervention in the Middle East. Meanwhile Congress, anxious to leave for recess in 24 hours, wants to avoid tough decisions about whether or not to go to war in Iraq and Syria. That doesn’t leave us much time – together we have to stop this dangerous combination of presidential overreach and Congressional cowardice. Send a message to your congressional representatives today – demand that they fulfill their constitutional duty to debate and vote on whether or not America goes to war. Whatever you may think of the extremist group commonly referred to as ISIS, without a sudden attack on the U.S., our Constitution is clear: only Congress has the authority “to declare war.” Yet already, over the past few weeks, President Obama—on his own—sent over 1,500 uniformed American service members into Iraq and ordered more than 150 airstrikes. He doesn’t have the authority to launch yet another war in the region on his own. He now wants to go into Syria too, and his top general said yesterday that Americans fighting a ground war is also possible. We can’t let the President overstep his powers. Tell your representatives to reassert their constitutional role before they leave for recess. Congress needs to delay the start of its 7-week recess and deal with this pressing decision. Congress might want to delay tough choices so incumbents can hit the campaign trail before the election – but if our representatives don’t deal with this now, the American people will pay the price. Our Constitution has checks and balances for a reason. It’s up to Congress to reject the Obama administration’s attempt to claim excessive authority, make its own decision to authorize or prohibit the war, and not skip town while America plunges into a new war. Time is running out - the Congressional recess starts in 24 hours. Together we need to make sure Congress does its job and is accountable for deciding what an appropriate U.S. response to the threat of ISIS is. Congress needs to act before it goes on vacation. This is critically urgent: sign letters to your representatives right now. Thank you for taking action, Anthony Romero for the ACLU Action team

Kaine Introduces Authorization for Use of Military Force Against ISIL

Wednesday, September 17, 2014 WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Tim Kaine, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs, will introduce a narrow and specific authorization for use of military force against ISIL. As the Foreign Relations Committee prepares to draft a tailored authorization to provide President Obama with authority in the mission to degrade and destroy ISIL, Kaine’s proposal is meant to reinforce the President’s strategy, as well as set key limitations he hopes will be included in final authorizing language for broader Congressional consideration.

In announcing the proposal, Kaine said: “Last week, President Obama laid out a strong case for the need to degrade and destroy ISIL and invited broader Congressional support for this effort. I was heartened when Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Menendez answered this call by saying the committee would soon craft authorizing language for the U.S. military mission. It’s my hope that this proposal will help move the ball forward on what a specific and narrow authorization for limited military action against ISIL should look like – one that bars the deployment of U.S. ground combat troops except for rescue missions or limited operations against high-value targets, and sunsets in one year so that progress can be assessed before continuing the mission. I also propose the repeal of the obsolete 2002 Iraq War authorization. If Congress isn’t willing to do the hard work – to debate and vote on an authorization – we should not be asking our servicemembers to go into harm’s way.”
The authorization is specific to ISIL and supports President Obama’s key pillars: a multinational effort to degrade and destroy ISIL, the use of necessary and appropriate force in a campaign of air strikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria and the provision of military equipment to appropriately vetted forces in Iraq and Syria, including the Iraqi security forces, Kurdish fighters, and other legitimate, appropriately vetted, non-terrorist opposition groups in Syria.
It also includes four key limitations:
1)      No U.S. ground troops;
2)      Repeal of the 2002 Iraq Authorization for Use of Military Force;
3)      Sunset after one year;
4)      Narrow definition of “associated forces.”
Full text of Kaine’s legislation is below:
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant:
Whereas that the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), also known as ISIS or the Islamic State, is a terrorist organization committing daily acts of barbarity currently encompassing large portions of Syria and Iraq, and is a serious threat to the United States and the international community;
Whereas ISIL’s violence is destructive of religious freedom, the equality of women, protections against genocide, principles of national sovereignty, freedom of expression, and other core human rights protected by international law;
Whereas ISIL’s grisly execution of United States hostages, recruitment of United States citizens and others to serve as foreign fighters that threaten to return to the United States and other nations, and pledges to carry out additional acts of violence directly against the United States make it a threat of growing significance to the United States; and
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolutions 2169 (2014) and 2170 (2014) note that ISIL’s advancement is a major threat to Iraq’s future, condemn attacks by ISIL, reiterate international community support for Iraq’s security and territorial integrity, and emphasize the need for the international community to work together to help stabilize Iraq and combat ISIL: Now therefore be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant”.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST THE ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND THE LEVANT.
(a) In General.—In order to protect the United States and other countries from terrorist attacks by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and in order to protect individuals from acts of violence in clear contravention of international law and basic human rights, the President is authorized, as part of a multinational coalition, subject to the limitations in subsection (b)—
(1) to use all necessary and appropriate force to participate in a campaign of airstrikes in Iraq, and if the President deems necessary, in Syria, to degrade and defeat ISIL; and
(2) to provide military equipment and training to forces fighting ISIL in Iraq or Syria, including the Iraqi security forces, Kurdish fighters, and other legitimate, appropriately vetted, non-terrorist opposition groups in Syria.
(b) No Authorization for Use of Ground Forces or Force Against Associated Forces.—The authorization in this section does not include—
(1) authorization for the use of United States ground combat forces, except for the purposes set forth in subsection (a)(2) or as necessary for the protection or rescue of members of the United States Armed Forces or United States citizens from imminent danger posed by ISIL, or for limited operations against high value targets; or
(2) authorization for the use of force against forces associated with ISIL, unless such forces are identified in a report submitted under section 4 as individuals or organizations that are immediately and directly fighting alongside ISIL in Iraq and Syria.
(c) Expiration.—The authorization in this section shall expire on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.
(d) War Powers Resolution Requirements.—
(1) Specific statutory authorization.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.—Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 3. REPEAL OF PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ.
The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107–243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.
SEC. 4. DESIGNATION OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS IMMEDIATELY AND DIRECTLY FIGHTING ALONGSIDE ISIL.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this resolution, and every 90 days thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a list of those organizations or individuals immediately and directly fighting alongside ISIL for purposes of actions taken pursuant to this joint resolution. The list shall be maintained in unclassified form but may contain a classified annex.
SEC. 5. REPORTS.
The President shall report to Congress every 90 days after enactment of this resolution regarding the progress of the effort against ISIL.
SEC. 6. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as—
(1) authorizing support for force in support of, or in cooperation with, the national government of Syria that was in power as of the date of the enactment of this resolution, or its security services; or
(2) limiting the constitutional or statutory powers of the President or Congress, or any additional powers held by the United States pursuant to international law or treaty.

House Passes Bill That Authorizes Arming Syrian Rebels

by Eyder Peralta

September 17, 2014 5:20 PM ET

In a vote that eschewed traditional Washington divisions in favor of novel ones, the House approved a bill that authorized the training and arming of Syrian rebels in their fight against the so-called Islamic State.
The final tally was 273-to-156. But many members of both parties broke ranks with their leaders — Reps. John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi — who strongly backed the measure.
According to a count by NBC News' Frank Thorp, 114 Democrats voted in favor of the measure; 85 voted no. Republicans broke down similarly voting 159-to-71.
The New York Times adds:

"'The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission,' President Obama said Wednesday in addressing troops at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida. 'I will not commit you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq.'
"But the theater around the debate and the vote belied that portrayal. The president, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and top White House officials personally lobbied for the measure's passage, calling more than 70 Democrats and Republicans on national security committees and in leadership posts to appeal for their support. Mr. Obama and his allies pleaded with lawmakers not to cut his legs out from under him as he tries to assemble an international coalition to confront the terrorist group."
"'Obama is our commander in chief,' said Representative C. A. (Dutch) Ruppersberger of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. 'You don't weaken the commander in chief when we're in a serious crisis.'"