Around the United States, peace groups are engaged in effective campaigns against proposed new military installations, local funding of weapons companies, and the routine destruction of the environment and of workers' health by such companies. Activists are building better media outlets, educating young people, educating old people, keeping military testing and recruiting out of schools, and discouraging the Army from building real-weapon video arcades in shopping malls. But when it comes to stopping our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, our citizens are less clear how to go about it.

The peace movement was defunded and demobilized by the absurd belief that an election alone would make a difference, and now there is widespread desire to tell everyone that it didn't. Certainly, it didn't. We have a larger military budget, bases in more nations, and more troops and mercenaries on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq combined now than before the election. We need to understand that this was entirely predictable and predicted. Those who expected something from an election alone need to be clear that such expectation was entirely - not just partially - misguided. Disappointment with a president needs to be replaced with acknowledgement of strategic error. The latter generates less despair and allows clearer thinking about strategy going forward.

There is still and will always be a role for journalists, bloggers, authors, and pundits to expose the abuses of any and all government officials, including the president. But the primary role of peace activists should have nothing to do with presidents, or with senators. We have virtually no ability to influence them. When you're invited to discuss these wars on a television show, by all means expose what the president is doing. But asking members of an activist group to spend their time writing or calling the White House is a waste of energy that could be better used. It should be directed at the House of Representatives.

And when we look at the House, we see that the easiest way to quickly generate a large list of cosponsors is to propose bills. This pleases our closest allies in the House and impresses funders and allies in Washington, D.C. But it is not the easiest way to use the House to actually end wars. A bill with no teeth to it instructing the Pentagon to produce a plan to exit Afghanistan someday is something that one could almost imagine passing the Senate and being signed by the president. At best that process might move public opinion a bit more in the right direction. But it would further enforce in the public's minds, and Congress's, the idea that when and where wars are fought should be determined by the president or the Pentagon.

Passing a bill barring the spending of any money on an escalation in Afghanistan shifts the discussion to one of opposing an escalation rather than demanding withdrawal. This has led many peace groups to self-censor their demands for withdrawal. And passing such a bill through the Senate and persuading the President to sign it, or overriding a veto is a beautiful fantasy, but a far, far, far more difficult undertaking than a simpler and more direct approach.

If you want to stop funding wars, or even just the escalation of wars, the easiest way is to just not fund them. This can be done in the House alone. The Senate is not needed. The president is not needed. Rather than passing a bill stating that you won't fund wars, and then dreaming about getting the Senate to pass it too, you can choose to not pass bills that fund the wars. If the House makes clear that it will not fund an escalated war, then the war cannot be escalated. If the House makes clear that it will not fund a continued war, then the war cannot be continued.

The process of signing congress members onto a bill against funding or a bill requiring an exit plan is not counterproductive. It nudges them in the right direction. It creates a discussion about the possibility of including such measures in funding bills. It identifies lists of congress members to target in lobbying for stronger commitments. But when these bills are all we ask for, then they are not compromises or middle-ground. They are harder to move forward when they are all we ask for. And moving them forward without a broader vision of how we actually end the wars doesn't get us anywhere in the end.

Our primary demand must be: publicly commit to voting no on any bill that funds these wars. If unrelated measures are included in such bills, they must still be voted down and those other measures passed separately. If your representative is worried about funding a withdrawal itself, assure them that a bill to fund purely withdrawal has our support. If they are worried about abandoning foreign nations, assure them that we support diplomacy and aid. But we need them to join the list of their colleagues who have committed to voting no on bills that fund the wars. And we need them to lobby their colleagues to join them on that list.

By moving our focus to Congress we do something else useful. We allow people to protest wars who refuse to protest a president. By identifying wars with a president, we grant all future presidents the power to make wars, and we discourage participation in citizen activism by people who fantasize about the president being their friend or who think it's not wise to protest a popular president.

Our focus on Congress should include their responsibility on Iraq as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan. Congress has now required the Pentagon to provide it with monthly reports on its progress toward fully withdrawing from Iraq by the end of 2011. When those reports are not forthcoming or do not credibly suggest progress toward that goal, congressional committees must be forced by us to subpoena Secretary of "Defense" Robert Gates. And in fact, the House Judiciary Committee must be compelled by us as soon as possible to restore the checking power of impeachment by opening an impeachment inquiry into Jay Bybee, a federal judge who, while employed by the Justice Department, signed memos purporting to legalize torture and aggressive war. At the very least, Bybee must be subpoenaed, and Congress must use the Capitol Police to enforce that subpoena rather than futilely asking the Justice Department to do it.

If Congress asserts the power to hold war criminals accountable (which, again, can be done without the Senate or the president), we will be in a far better position to deter further wars and escalations, and Congress will be in a better position to cut off funding.

In June, 32 congress members voted No on war funding. They should be thanked and rewarded. But they should, above all, be asked and pressured to make a commitment to join this list of members committed to voting No from here on out: http://afterdowningstreet.org/whipwars

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said that he'd like to see another $50 billion passed in another supplemental war spending bill in the next few months. This is money to fund an escalation that we are supposed to believe has not been decided upon yet. This must be stopped. Some congress members are speaking against it. Even the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee David Obey has suggested he might oppose this. He very much needs to be encouraged by people around the nation to not put our money where his mouth isn't.

I just had the privilege of speaking at a rally in Portland, Maine, where an enthusiastic crowd of Mainers demanded the actions I'm proposing here. Their two congress members voted the right way in June, and they are working to win their public commitments to continue that practice and to lobby their colleagues to join them in that commitment.

Resources to help in this effort (and a place to report your results) in your congressional district can be found at http://afterdowningstreet.org/whipwars . Here's a flyer on ending the war in Vietghanistan: PDF. Here's how to step up your activism. Here's what's needed instead of bombs and guns. Here's a way to nonviolently resist.

Here's a very useful list of top targets and multiple ways to contact them. You can help with that even if they are not your representative.

What I am proposing is not easy. It's just the easiest path we have. It will be easier, the more of us get involved, the more of us refrain from discouraging each other with our knowledge of how hard the struggle will be, and the more of us who are willing to go beyond lobbying to nonviolently disrupting, including by sitting in our congress members' offices and refusing to leave until they agree to leave Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. These wars, like all wars, are Congress's wars. The blood is on their hands and they represent us.

Statements of undisputed facts about President Barack Obama's actions can generate declarations on progressive websites that one has "gone too far" or said something that "should not be said." Honesty has been replaced by loyalty.

The most common place to find accurate statements on presidential abuses of power is buried in a sea of lunacy on rightwing websites that conclude their analyses with encouragement of violence, gun purchasing, and assassination.

Denunciations of rightwing incitement of violence and hatred come most often from groups and individuals eager to change the topic from the abysmal failures of Democrats who have been given large majorities in the House and Senate, plus the White House, and chosen to do nothing.

Tough talk about the failures of Democrats is most often heard from racist, xenophobic believers in fantastical fairy tales with very little connection to reality.

Room needs to be created for other types of speech. We must be able to criticize and even legally prevent incitement of political violence, while at the same time examining what has made some people susceptible to that kind of talk, and while simultaneously speaking honestly about the failings of the people being targeted.

To do this, we have to be clear about what is unacceptable speech, what is acceptable but misguided speech, what we honestly believe, and what amounts to adoration rather than advocacy. Comparing someone's actions to those of Adolph Hitler is not, by itself, speech that should be suppressed. The phrase "enemies, foreign and domestic" is not verboten. If dictatorial power or fascistic tendencies could not be discussed, huge chunks of what has been said about Bush and Cheney would have to be eliminated along with hours of rightwing radio Obama-bashing. We cannot resist what we cannot mention.

What we should not have on our airwaves are calls for violent "revolution", for persuading our elected officials of their errors by increasing the statistics on gun sales, for hating people's religions or nations or races or sexual groups, and for assassination. We can most effectively resist abuses of power through nonviolence. Blocking the encouragement of violence does not deprive us of any rights. So, the question is not whether the violence is driven by accurate facts and agreeable theories. The question is simply whether violence is being encouraged. Theories that depict groups of people as evil and in need of elimination tend to encourage violence.

What we should have openly reported and discussed are people's fantasies and the possible resentments producing them. These include claims that Obama was born in Africa and claims that Bush shot a missile from an invisible plane into the Pentagon, as well as claims that Jesus will come back if we can start enough wars in the Middle East. We should see the people of Afghanistan burning Obama in effigy and hear honest analysis of why they might be doing that. We should see anti-abortion activists burning Congressional Democrats in effigy, and hear honest analysis of why they might be doing that. The analysis can include the possibility that people are badly misinformed and hurting their own interests, but it must be open, honest, and accurate.

When assassination threats increase, when people begin killing police officers or census workers based on fantasies that politicians and pundits have used to manipulate them, when police themselves begin abusing and even killing members of minority groups that have been scapegoated, clear connections to hateful and inciting language must be drawn and all those responsible held accountable.

But there is no conflict between that and speaking or writing honestly about the actual failures of some of the real people so destructively depicted as the antichrist or devils. We must oppose the use of violence against anyone and everyone. By opposing the assassination of an elected official, I am not joining his or her team. I am not signing a loyalty oath and agreeing to pretend that a bailout for health insurance corporations is meaningful progress. I can oppose the burning of effigies and still describe the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan as massive crimes legally equivalent to mass-murder. I can reject racist portraits of President Obama that label him a socialist, and still advocate for more socialistic policies in our government.

We've all mistaken politics for personal relationships. Our role is not to be a friend or an enemy to a politician. Our role is to encourage them when they work for what we believe is needed, and to discourage them when they move in a different direction. We can best do either of those things by remaining independent and indifferent to the childish notion of being with them or against them. And we can best do either of those things by nonviolent means. In fact, nothing would move our government in a more dangerous direction than anti-governmental violence. And nothing would encourage such violence more than insistence that everyone refrain from criticizing politicians.

On the other hand, nothing would move our government in a more positive direction, than uniting the 90 percent of Americans who oppose Wall Street bailouts around a campaign of nonviolent resistance to antidemocratic abuses, regardless of parties, free of delusions, and apart from all bigotry and foolish distraction.

David Swanson is the author of the new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press. You can order it and find out when tour will be in your town: http://davidswanson.org/book .

Imagine public elections in which 2 percent are allowed to vote and Diebold gets to nominate the candidates. Or public parks with guest lists of 2 percent of the public, and private prisons for anyone else who tries to enter. Or how about public schools serving 2 percent of children with fully televised lessons broken up by commercials promoting illiteracy? Welcome to the world of the robust public option.

At first the "public option" was to be a massive but less-than-universal healthcare plan that would prove so efficient and effective that over several years the public would all opt into it. It was a backdoor to a civilized system of Medicare for all. Now what's left of it? Now it's a public option for 2 percent of Americans, and in some states 0 percent, to be run by private corporations, with prices set to avoid any efficiency or competition for the wasteful health insurance companies.

Is that better than nothing? No, it's worse, because this pathetic scam of a healthcare plan is plastered like lipstick on a pig to a bailout for the health insurance corporations. (Sure, the bill contains some reforms to the insurance corporations' practices, but that's like trying to reform piranhas.) And when the healthcare crisis continues to worsen in the coming years, the blame will be placed on the nearly nonexistent public option, thus justifying making things even worse, if possible. And the same bill goes out of its way to prevent states from solving the problem on their own, allowing them to opt out of the perverse public option (opting into which would hardly be noticeable anyway) but denying states the ability to create real healthcare funding for their residents. Congressman Kucinich's amendment to remedy this has been stripped out by Speaker Pelosi.

Now, enough House Democrats have publicly committed to voting No on any bill this bad, that it could not pass. On July 30th 57 of them signed a letter saying that any bill without a public option based on Medicare rates would be unacceptable. And therefore, this bill would be dead, and we could go into round 2 with a stronger demand for a bill that might actually save a significant number of lives. And we could move ahead on easy steps, like busting monopoly protections, passing the Kucinich amendment, and passing reforms proposed by Senator Sanders. That is, we could imagine all such scenarios if you could trust a progressive member of Congress as far as you could throw one. And some of them are pretty robust, if you know what I mean.

Sadly, these people's word is as trustworthy as the promises of a health insurance company. (And when they prove that yet again, you can forget about progressive legislation or action on any issue in the months and years to come.) And most so-called progressive and labor organizations don't even want to ask them to keep their word. So-called citizens' groups, now actually taking their directives from the very people they pretend to lobby, are so obsessed with passing any sort of bill, that the content of the bill is virtually irrelevant. I say virtually, because the collective decision is that it must contain something or other that can be mislabeled a "public option." Other than that, it could sentence millions of Americans to death, and it would still be fine and dandy. And that is exactly what it does.

And why is a bill better than no bill? Why is a bill that funds absolutely useless parasites like health insurance companies at the expense of our grandchildren's unearned pay better than nothing? Why -- when blocking a bill would almost guarantee a better debate in round 2 -- is it more important to pass the bill and close off the opportunity for valuable reform? Is there nothing this bill could do that would lead you to oppose it? If the senate turns the "public option" into something that does not even exist until possibly "triggered" years from now, then will you oppose the bill? But the public option barely exists in the House version either. Why wait until the last minute to pointlessly pretend you oppose this pig?

Why not speak up now wen it might make a difference? Why not at least demand No votes unless the Kucinich amendment is restored?

Silence is not speech.

War is not peace.

Illness is not health.

And 2 percent is not robust or public or an option.

"Glaubt es mir - das Geheimnis, um die größte Fruchtbarkeit und den größten Genuß vom Dasein einzuernten, heisst: gefährlich leben." - Friedrich Nietzsche

On Thursday night I had the privilege of viewing a premier of a film together with its star. The theater was in the U.S. Capitol, and the film was "The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers" ( http://www.mostdangerousman.org ). This is a powerfully and engagingly constructed film about one of the most effective instances of whistle-blowing in our nation's history.

Ellsberg risked life in prison to expose the lies that had taken this nation into war in Vietnam, lies from Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson. And Nixon believed that Ellsberg had incriminating documents on his own lies, which led Henry Kissinger to call Ellsberg "the most dangerous man in America."

Like most whistle-blowers, Ellsberg was not an outside reformer. He had promoted and advanced the war from inside the Pentagon. He had tried to be a force for moderation. But peace activists reached his conscience and persuaded him that he could and must do more. Those close to him supported his decision. Colleagues took similar risks to assist him. Major media outlets risked their futures to publish what Ellsberg gave them and to interview him while he was in hiding from the law. A member of Congress (former senator Mike Gravel, who was present on Thursday) risked his future to read the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record. The Supreme Court ruled against the president of the United States. And Ellsberg became a brilliant spokesman for his cause.

A lot of factors combined to create an incredible impact from the leaking of one 7,000-page pile of documents. This exposure helped end the war in Vietnam, and helped put some spine into our media outlets, our Congress, and our courts' treatment of the First Amendment.

However, Ellsberg expected more. He expected Americans to change their thinking about wars. He expected us not to fall for obvious lies about wars anymore. He thought that people would digest and synthesize the untold story he exposed. So, in some ways, he was of course disappointed. And, of course, what good he did for the media and Congress quickly wore off.

In the film we're told that the New York Times decided to publish top secret documents because it thought it would not be able to survive the disgrace of the world eventually learning that it had acquired the documents and not published them. This sounds like something out of Alice in Wonderland today in our world where the New York Times buries most interesting stories, where it dutifully kept a warrantless spying story secret for a year, where it still hasn't reported on most of the stories found in the same book that forced that story out, and where it pushed war lies about Iraq and now does the same for Iran.

Most crimes today are public. Bush and Cheney brag about torture on television. Nothing happens. Documents like the Downing Street Minutes are studiously ignored. Whistleblowers post their stories on the internet. Congress no longer impeaches or even issues subpoenas. And the RAND Corporation, from which Ellsberg leaked his documents, held a propaganda-fest about escalation in Afghanistan on Capitol Hill the same day as the movie premier.

In the film we're told that Americans were enraged to learn from the Pentagon Papers that the Vietnam War was being fought to "save face." At RAND's forum on Thursday, Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution openly argued for an escalation in Afghanistan, because withdrawal would mean a "huge PR victory for al Qaeda".

Our crimes, like our system of campaign bribery or our degradation of journalism, are mostly out in the open now. No doubt there are documents in the White House or the Pentagon or RAND indicating knowledge of the hopelessness of quagmire continuation in Afghanistan. But who would ever dare leak them? Who would ever dare help that person do so? Once posted online, who would compel a newspaper or a television network to notice? Once the information was in the corporate media, who would force Congress to care? Once Congress cared, who would shut down Washington DC until the powers of subpoena and impeachment were revived?

It seems to me that what we need is not a new Dan Ellsberg for our generation. We need a whole new generation. We need dozens of Dan Ellsbergs and Dan Ellsberg accomplices throughout our government, and we need them to act frequently and with eternal vigilance. Luckily for us, Ellsberg has provided an ideal model for how to conduct yourself when in a position like his. Ellsberg has also written the foreword to a book by Ann Wright (who was there on Thursday) that provides more recent role models: http://voicesofconscience.com And those of us who are not in possession of classified crime records can help as well. We can raise bloody hell until Congress passes a media shield law and a whistle-blower bill of rights. We can befriend war-makers, modern-day Ellsbergs, and reach their hearts. And we can build media outlets that do real reporting. We must do these things. Lets do them for the most dangerous man in America.

David Swanson is the author of the new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press. You can order it and find out when tour will be in your town: http://davidswanson.org/book .

Lies, damn lies, and promises from Democrats. An amendment allowing states to create state-level single-payer healthcare has been stripped out of the House healthcare bill, after having passed in committee back in July by a vote of 27 to 19. And rumor has it that a vote on national single-payer that was promised in July in exchange for skipping a committee vote on it will now be denied.

First, the state single-payer amendment.

Back in July, the House Committee on Education and Labor did something right, something that could have made all the difference in the world to millions of Americans. Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced in the committee an amendment that would have effectively allowed states to improve on our healthcare system if they chose to, allowed them to create state-level single-payer healthcare. There are bills to do this in several state legislatures already. Such a bill has passed and been vetoed in California twice, where a change in governor is imminent.

President Obama told the committee chairman, George Miller, to oppose Kucinich's amendment, and he did so, leading off the voting with a resounding "No." But the Democrats voted 14 to 14 with one member passing and two failing to vote. And the Republicans voted 13 to 5 with one member failing to vote. That added up to 27 yes votes and 19 no votes. Some Republicans may have voted yes simply because the chairman voted no, but they said they were voting yes for states' rights. And that would be a sensible, decent, and constitutional position. Why shouldn't states be permitted to do better, as well as worse, than Washington, even if the insurance companies bring in less blood money?

Canada got its healthcare system in one province first. If California or Pennsylvania joins the civilized world and treats healthcare as a right, and eliminates the waste and bureaucracy of the health insurance companies, our whole nation may just be forced to come along, or watch half the population migrate to California and Pennsylvania.

Ah, but it's not to be. Unless Americans behave as a civilized people and raise holy hell over this immediately. Sadly, a huge chunk of Americans opposes being provided with healthcare, and another huge chunk is drunk with a teenage crush on the guy who no doubt told Pelosi to strip out the amendment.

In the healthcare advocacy world, a big group has focused on the godforsaken bastard policy known as "public option" which at best will offer a token mitigating element in some states for a disastrous healthcare policy imposed on all states. But the states that choose to do right by their residents will not be able to choose a real solution like single-payer, not without a drawn-out legal battle with the insurance companies over the federal laws that Kucinich's amendment would have waived.

Another big group of healthcare advocates has been so obsessed with getting national single-payer immediately, rather than state-by-state, that they've barely lifted a finger for the Kucinich amendment, which I predicted in July would be stripped out.

Which brings us to the Weiner Amendment. The deal cut with Congressman Anthony Weiner was cut in committee. It's on video. Chairman Henry Waxman told Weiner that Pelosi would allow a floor vote if he skipped a committee vote. Weiner agreed. Weiner may have been lied to. But whether his amendment gets a vote or not, it has served as a big glaring distraction from the Kucinich Amendment.

A conversation I had with Congresswoman Betty Sutton is typical. She told me that the Kucinich Amendment was no big deal and shouldn't be paid any attention to. She said she wanted everyone to focus on the Weiner Amendment on which she planned to vote yes. Asked if there was any chance the Weiner Amendment would pass, she replied of course not.

From Congresswoman Sutton's point of view, a bill that will fail is far more important than a life-saving measure in a bill that might pass, because she planned to vote right on the former and brag about it to her constituents. "See, I tried. I really tried." But if Sutton's state, Ohio, passes the bill currently making its way through the state legislature and establishes single-payer for all Ohioans, the death panels, aka health insurance companies, will sue. And without the Kucinich Amendment they will win or at least hold things up for several years and several thousand deaths.

Will Sutton or any other members of Congress fight for either of these amendments? Will any of them call out Pelosi? Forcing the Kucinich amendment back into the bill and forcing a floor vote on the Weiner amendment are admirable immediate goals (as of now Pelosi will be allowing no floor amendments of any sort), but healthcare is very complex with the devil in the details, and the details are being written by devils, blood-soaked devils. The central demand of members of Congress must be: Vote No. The reason they should have to listen must be: We will occupy your offices and prevent you from working unless you commit to voting No, but if you commit to voting No and vote No, we will consider possibly not throwing your sorry ass in the street in next year's elections.

##

David Swanson is the author of the new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press. You can order it and find out when tour will be in your town: http://davidswanson.org/book .

A Call for Congress to Take Action on Torture
October 28th, 2009

ADD YOUR NAME TO THOSE OF 83 HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS AND LEADERS AT
http://afterdowningstreet.org/stop

Whereas over seven years have passed since President George W. Bush fraudulently induced the U.S. congress, the American people, and the world into the illegal war in Iraq,

Whereas it is nearly five years since Specialist Darby revealed the photos of Abu Ghraib that showed us torture being committed by our government in our name,

Whereas further evidence of torture remains secret and has been hidden from the public, courts, and Congress to insulate the perpetrators from appropriate criminal liability,

Whereas over the past years we have campaigned about the illegality of this war and the need to prosecute the high-level civilian and military officials who put in place the torture,

Whereas, notwithstanding all the congressional hearings and reports so far on these matters, those officials have not been brought to justice,

Whereas a prosecutor has been appointed to address only a very small number, perhaps as few as three, of the crimes committed and none of the crimes "justified" by the clearly illegal torture memos,

Whereas the Department of Justice’s limited investigation of torture threatens to invite more torture around the world by undermining the Nuremberg precedent,

Whereas the Attorney General of the United States, under the influence of the President, appears unwilling to follow the facts about the illegal war in Iraq and torture to the full extent of the law,

Whereas we as citizens of the United States do not accept the damage to our country's honor committed by these persons, the threats to the lives and well-being of our children and fellow citizens sent to illegal wars, and the transformation of our country from a beacon of liberty to a beacon of torture,

WE NOW CALL FOR ACTION:

1. We call on Congress to start impeachment proceedings against Judge Jay Bybee of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as it is unconscionable that one who encouraged violations of such fundamental laws as those against torture and aggressive war be trusted to apply and shape the law.

2. We call on congressional committees to subpoena those responsible for aggressive war and torture, including former president Bush, vice president Cheney, and other former senior officials complicit in war crimes; and to enforce those subpoenas through the Capitol Police, rather than the Department of Justice.

3. We call on state bar associations to begin the process of revoking the law licenses of those lawyers who put in place the legal analysis for the illegal war and the torture.

4. We call on state licensing authorities to begin the process of revoking the licenses of all other professionals who participated in the torture such as psychologists, psychiatrists and other doctors.

5. We call on the American people to contact their congressional representatives and insist that, on our watch, the high, who are the instigators of illegal wars and torture, will be brought low, and that low-level personnel will not be the only ones prosecuted for committing crimes authorized and encouraged by their superiors.

ADD YOUR NAME TO THOSE OF 83 HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS AND LEADERS AT
http://afterdowningstreet.org/stop

Forward and Post Widely!

Help Stop Torture!

SIGNED BY:
Robert H. Jackson Steering Committee
Action Center For Justice
After Downing Street
AngryVoters.Org
Backbone Campaign
Bend-Condega Friendship Project
Benjamin G. Davis, Associate Professor of Law, University of Toledo College of Law
Berkeley Fellowship Unitarian Universalists Social Justice Committee
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
BuzzFlash.com
Campus Antiwar Network, Ole Miss
Center for Constitutional Rights
Chelsea Neighbors United to End the War, New York City
Chesapeake Citizens
Christiane Brown, The Solution Zone, KJFK
Citizens For Legitimate Government
CODE PINK: Women for Peace
Code Pink Portland
Marjorie Cohn, Professor, Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Collateral Repair Project
Consumers for Peace
Defending Dissent Foundation
Democracy for America - Tucson
Democracy for NYC
Democracy In Action (DIA)
Democrats.com
Democratic Activist blog
Docudharma
Eastside FOR
The Enviro Show,WXOJ-LP/WMCB
Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space
High Road for Human Rights
Humanists for Peace
IndictBushNow.org
Instruments For Peace
Jobs For Afghans
Justice Through Music
Liberty Tree Foundation
The Make America Again Project
Media With Conscience
Media Freedom Foundation/Project Censored
Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute
Nashville Peace Coalition
Nicole Sandler, RadioOrNot.com
NC Democrats Network
New York Metro Progressives
North Country Coalition for Justice and Peace
Northeast Impeachment Coalition
OpEdNews.com
Oregon PeaceWorks
Peace & Justice Forums, Billings, Montana
The People's Email Network
PoetsWest (Seattle)
Progressive Democrats of America
Progressives Democrats of New York, 14th CD
Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains
PDA/DFA Progressive Democracy South Jersey
Progressive Democrats Sonoma County
The Progressive magazine
Rebublicans For Impeachment
Reclaim The GOP
RiseUpTampaBay.com
Sitkans for Peace and Justice
Squadron13.com
SUV Network (Seniors United for Victory)
ThisCantBeHappening.net
Topanga Peace Alliance
Topplebush.com
Transylvanians for Peace of Brevard, NC
True Blue Network
Uncommon Thought Journal
Velvet Revolution
VeteransAgainstTorture.com
Veterans For Peace Chapter 099
Veterans For Peace Chicago Chapter 26
Voices of Conscience
Voters for Peace
War Crimes Times
War Criminals Watch
Washington for Impeachment
Hazel Weiser, Executive Director Society of American Law Teachers -- SALT
Western North Carolina Stop Torture Now
Young Americans for Liberty at Ole Miss

ADD YOUR NAME TO THOSE OF 83 HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS AND LEADERS AT
http://afterdowningstreet.org/stop

A Call for Congress to Take Action on Torture
October 28th, 2009

ADD YOUR NAME TO THOSE OF 83 HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS AND LEADERS AT
http://afterdowningstreet.org/stop

Whereas over seven years have passed since President George W. Bush fraudulently induced the U.S. congress, the American people, and the world into the illegal war in Iraq,

Whereas it is nearly five years since Specialist Darby revealed the photos of Abu Ghraib that showed us torture being committed by our government in our name,

Whereas further evidence of torture remains secret and has been hidden from the public, courts, and Congress to insulate the perpetrators from appropriate criminal liability,

Whereas over the past years we have campaigned about the illegality of this war and the need to prosecute the high-level civilian and military officials who put in place the torture,

Whereas, notwithstanding all the congressional hearings and reports so far on these matters, those officials have not been brought to justice,

Whereas a prosecutor has been appointed to address only a very small number, perhaps as few as three, of the crimes committed and none of the crimes "justified" by the clearly illegal torture memos,

Whereas the Department of Justice’s limited investigation of torture threatens to invite more torture around the world by undermining the Nuremberg precedent,

Whereas the Attorney General of the United States, under the influence of the President, appears unwilling to follow the facts about the illegal war in Iraq and torture to the full extent of the law,

Whereas we as citizens of the United States do not accept the damage to our country's honor committed by these persons, the threats to the lives and well-being of our children and fellow citizens sent to illegal wars, and the transformation of our country from a beacon of liberty to a beacon of torture,

WE NOW CALL FOR ACTION:

1. We call on Congress to start impeachment proceedings against Judge Jay Bybee of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as it is unconscionable that one who encouraged violations of such fundamental laws as those against torture and aggressive war be trusted to apply and shape the law.

2. We call on congressional committees to subpoena those responsible for aggressive war and torture, including former president Bush, vice president Cheney, and other former senior officials complicit in war crimes; and to enforce those subpoenas through the Capitol Police, rather than the Department of Justice.

3. We call on state bar associations to begin the process of revoking the law licenses of those lawyers who put in place the legal analysis for the illegal war and the torture.

4. We call on state licensing authorities to begin the process of revoking the licenses of all other professionals who participated in the torture such as psychologists, psychiatrists and other doctors.

5. We call on the American people to contact their congressional representatives and insist that, on our watch, the high, who are the instigators of illegal wars and torture, will be brought low, and that low-level personnel will not be the only ones prosecuted for committing crimes authorized and encouraged by their superiors.

ADD YOUR NAME TO THOSE OF 83 HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS AND LEADERS AT
http://afterdowningstreet.org/stop

Forward and Post Widely!

Help Stop Torture!

SIGNED BY:
Robert H. Jackson Steering Committee
Action Center For Justice
After Downing Street
AngryVoters.Org
Backbone Campaign
Bend-Condega Friendship Project
Benjamin G. Davis, Associate Professor of Law, University of Toledo College of Law
Berkeley Fellowship Unitarian Universalists Social Justice Committee
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
BuzzFlash.com
Campus Antiwar Network, Ole Miss
Center for Constitutional Rights
Chelsea Neighbors United to End the War, New York City
Chesapeake Citizens
Christiane Brown, The Solution Zone, KJFK
Citizens For Legitimate Government
CODE PINK: Women for Peace
Code Pink Portland
Marjorie Cohn, Professor, Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Collateral Repair Project
Consumers for Peace
Defending Dissent Foundation
Democracy for America - Tucson
Democracy for NYC
Democracy In Action (DIA)
Democrats.com
Democratic Activist blog
Docudharma
Eastside FOR
The Enviro Show,WXOJ-LP/WMCB
Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space
High Road for Human Rights
Humanists for Peace
IndictBushNow.org
Instruments For Peace
Jobs For Afghans
Justice Through Music
Liberty Tree Foundation
The Make America Again Project
Media With Conscience
Media Freedom Foundation/Project Censored
Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute
Nashville Peace Coalition
Nicole Sandler, RadioOrNot.com
NC Democrats Network
New York Metro Progressives
North Country Coalition for Justice and Peace
Northeast Impeachment Coalition
OpEdNews.com
Oregon PeaceWorks
Peace & Justice Forums, Billings, Montana
The People's Email Network
PoetsWest (Seattle)
Progressive Democrats of America
Progressives Democrats of New York, 14th CD
Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains
PDA/DFA Progressive Democracy South Jersey
Progressive Democrats Sonoma County
The Progressive magazine
Rebublicans For Impeachment
Reclaim The GOP
RiseUpTampaBay.com
Sitkans for Peace and Justice
Squadron13.com
SUV Network (Seniors United for Victory)
ThisCantBeHappening.net
Topanga Peace Alliance
Topplebush.com
Transylvanians for Peace of Brevard, NC
True Blue Network
Uncommon Thought Journal
Velvet Revolution
VeteransAgainstTorture.com
Veterans For Peace Chapter 099
Veterans For Peace Chicago Chapter 26
Voices of Conscience
Voters for Peace
War Crimes Times
War Criminals Watch
Washington for Impeachment
Hazel Weiser, Executive Director Society of American Law Teachers -- SALT
Western North Carolina Stop Torture Now
Young Americans for Liberty at Ole Miss

A Call for Congress to Take Action on Torture
October 28th, 2009

ADD YOUR NAME TO THOSE OF 83 HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS AND LEADERS AT
http://afterdowningstreet.org/stop

Whereas over seven years have passed since President George W. Bush fraudulently induced the U.S. congress, the American people, and the world into the illegal war in Iraq,

Whereas it is nearly five years since Specialist Darby revealed the photos of Abu Ghraib that showed us torture being committed by our government in our name,

Whereas further evidence of torture remains secret and has been hidden from the public, courts, and Congress to insulate the perpetrators from appropriate criminal liability,

Whereas over the past years we have campaigned about the illegality of this war and the need to prosecute the high-level civilian and military officials who put in place the torture,

Whereas, notwithstanding all the congressional hearings and reports so far on these matters, those officials have not been brought to justice,

Whereas a prosecutor has been appointed to address only a very small number, perhaps as few as three, of the crimes committed and none of the crimes "justified" by the clearly illegal torture memos,

Whereas the Department of Justice’s limited investigation of torture threatens to invite more torture around the world by undermining the Nuremberg precedent,

Whereas the Attorney General of the United States, under the influence of the President, appears unwilling to follow the facts about the illegal war in Iraq and torture to the full extent of the law,

Whereas we as citizens of the United States do not accept the damage to our country's honor committed by these persons, the threats to the lives and well-being of our children and fellow citizens sent to illegal wars, and the transformation of our country from a beacon of liberty to a beacon of torture,

WE NOW CALL FOR ACTION:

1. We call on Congress to start impeachment proceedings against Judge Jay Bybee of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as it is unconscionable that one who encouraged violations of such fundamental laws as those against torture and aggressive war be trusted to apply and shape the law.

2. We call on congressional committees to subpoena those responsible for aggressive war and torture, including former president Bush, vice president Cheney, and other former senior officials complicit in war crimes; and to enforce those subpoenas through the Capitol Police, rather than the Department of Justice.

3. We call on state bar associations to begin the process of revoking the law licenses of those lawyers who put in place the legal analysis for the illegal war and the torture.

4. We call on state licensing authorities to begin the process of revoking the licenses of all other professionals who participated in the torture such as psychologists, psychiatrists and other doctors.

5. We call on the American people to contact their congressional representatives and insist that, on our watch, the high, who are the instigators of illegal wars and torture, will be brought low, and that low-level personnel will not be the only ones prosecuted for committing crimes authorized and encouraged by their superiors.

ADD YOUR NAME TO THOSE OF 83 HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS AND LEADERS AT
http://afterdowningstreet.org/stop

Forward and Post Widely!

Help Stop Torture!

SIGNED BY:
Robert H. Jackson Steering Committee
Action Center For Justice
After Downing Street
AngryVoters.Org
Backbone Campaign
Bend-Condega Friendship Project
Benjamin G. Davis, Associate Professor of Law, University of Toledo College of Law
Berkeley Fellowship Unitarian Universalists Social Justice Committee
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
BuzzFlash.com
Campus Antiwar Network, Ole Miss
Center for Constitutional Rights
Chelsea Neighbors United to End the War, New York City
Chesapeake Citizens
Christiane Brown, The Solution Zone, KJFK
Citizens For Legitimate Government
CODE PINK: Women for Peace
Code Pink Portland
Marjorie Cohn, Professor, Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Collateral Repair Project
Consumers for Peace
Defending Dissent Foundation
Democracy for America - Tucson
Democracy for NYC
Democracy In Action (DIA)
Democrats.com
Democratic Activist blog
Docudharma
Eastside FOR
The Enviro Show,WXOJ-LP/WMCB
Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space
High Road for Human Rights
Humanists for Peace
IndictBushNow.org
Instruments For Peace
Jobs For Afghans
Justice Through Music
Liberty Tree Foundation
The Make America Again Project
Media With Conscience
Media Freedom Foundation/Project Censored
Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute
Nashville Peace Coalition
Nicole Sandler, RadioOrNot.com
NC Democrats Network
New York Metro Progressives
North Country Coalition for Justice and Peace
Northeast Impeachment Coalition
OpEdNews.com
Oregon PeaceWorks
Peace & Justice Forums, Billings, Montana
The People's Email Network
PoetsWest (Seattle)
Progressive Democrats of America
Progressives Democrats of New York, 14th CD
Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains
PDA/DFA Progressive Democracy South Jersey
Progressive Democrats Sonoma County
The Progressive magazine
Rebublicans For Impeachment
Reclaim The GOP
RiseUpTampaBay.com
Sitkans for Peace and Justice
Squadron13.com
SUV Network (Seniors United for Victory)
ThisCantBeHappening.net
Topanga Peace Alliance
Topplebush.com
Transylvanians for Peace of Brevard, NC
True Blue Network
Uncommon Thought Journal
Velvet Revolution
VeteransAgainstTorture.com
Veterans For Peace Chapter 099
Veterans For Peace Chicago Chapter 26
Voices of Conscience
Voters for Peace
War Crimes Times
War Criminals Watch
Washington for Impeachment
Hazel Weiser, Executive Director Society of American Law Teachers -- SALT
Western North Carolina Stop Torture Now
Young Americans for Liberty at Ole Miss

ADD YOUR NAME TO THOSE OF 83 HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS AND LEADERS AT
http://afterdowningstreet.org/stop

The absence of a civilized healthcare system in the United States, almost alone among wealthy nations, results in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths every year. But if something is to be done soon to save lives it is not going to be done in Washington, D.C. It is going to be done in Sacramento, Harrisburg, Columbus, Springfield, Augusta, Denver. And then it's going to be blocked by lawsuits from health insurance corporations and preemptive language in federal legislation.

The very best possible bills now under consideration in Congress are largely bailouts for health insurance companies at public expense. The "public option," which was originally sold to us as a path toward a single-payer solution or Medicare for all, has been reduced to -- at best -- a token mitigating factor in a catastrophically bad law. And states may be permitted to opt out of it. So most people across the country won't be allowed to use the public option, and in some states nobody at all will.

Hurray for states' rights! But this has nothing to do with states' rights. We're permitting states to make our healthcare policies worse, but not necessarily better. The driving force seems to be concern for health insurance companies' rights.

The mammoth healthcare bills being carted around the U.S. Capitol on hand-trucks are likely to deprive states of the power to take useful steps to provide their citizens with healthcare, and unlikely to allow states to waive existing federal laws preventing life-saving action.

Back in July, the House Committee on Education and Labor did something right, something that could make all the difference in the world to millions of Americans, unless we allow the congressional "leadership" to unceremoniously undo it. Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced in the committee an amendment that would effectively allow states to improve on our healthcare system if they choose to, allow them to create state-level single-payer healthcare. There are bills to do this in several state legislatures already. Such a bill has passed and been vetoed in California twice, where a change in governor is imminent.

President Obama told the committee chairman, George Miller, to oppose Kucinich's amendment, and he did so, leading off the voting with a resounding "No." But the Democrats voted 14 to 14 with one member passing and two failing to vote. And the Republicans voted 13 to 5 with one member failing to vote. That added up to 27 yes votes and 19 no votes. Some Republicans may have voted yes simply because the chairman voted no, but they said they were voting yes for states' rights. And that would be a sensible, decent, and constitutional position. Why shouldn't states be permitted to do better, as well as worse, than Washington, even if the insurance companies bring in less blood money?

Canada got its healthcare system in one province first. If California or Pennsylvania joins the civilized world and treats healthcare as a right, and eliminates the waste and bureaucracy of the health insurance companies, our whole nation may just be forced to come along, or watch half the population migrate to California and Pennsylvania.

Of course we could create a Medicare for All system at the national level immediately. It would take a far shorter piece of legislation than what's under consideration, and one that everyone could understand. It would save money. It would save lives. It would not force anyone to give their hard-earned pay to wasteful health insurance companies. And the House has scheduled a vote on doing just that, on what has come to be called the Weiner Amendment, sponsored by Congressman Anthony Weiner. We certainly need as many yes votes on this as possible. We also need as many no votes as possible on any bill that does more harm than good. Then we can come back in round two with a more honest debate, one that includes the single-payer solution.

However, the approach that congress members are currently taking should give you pause about failing to speak up for the Kucinich amendment before it's too late. A conversation I had with Congresswoman Betty Sutton is typical. She told me that the Kucinich Amendment was no big deal and shouldn't be paid any attention to. She said she wanted everyone to focus on the Weiner Amendment on which she planned to vote yes. Asked if there was any chance the Weiner Amendment would pass, she replied of course not.

From Congresswoman Sutton's point of view, a bill that will fail is far more important than a life-saving measure in a bill that might pass, because she plans to vote right on the former and brag about it to her constituents. "See, I tried. I really tried." But if Sutton's state, Ohio, passes the bill currently making its way through the state legislature and establishes single-payer for all Ohioans, the death panels, aka health insurance companies, will sue. And without the Kucinich Amendment they will win or at least hold things up for several years and several thousand deaths.

If we made enough noise now, we could force Congress not to strip out the Kucinich Amendment. A first step would be a phone call to Nancy Pelosi and your Congress member.

That being done, we could still support or oppose the overall bill based on an analysis of all the details, but we would at the very least have laid the groundwork for inclusion of the Kucinich amendment in round two or for its passage as stand-alone legislation. This would conflict with our ongoing struggle for national Medicare for All only in the twisted confines of our own daydreams.

Open up the real possibility for California to act on behalf of its residents and you create an enormous new lever for prying the insurance executives' claws out of our representatives in Congress. Think about it. Do something about it.

David Swanson is the author of the new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press. You can order it and find out when tour will be in your town: http://davidswanson.org/book .

As someone who believes the producers of Fox News should be behind bars for promoting illegal wars and instigating domestic violence, and as someone who advocates never watching it, I feel compelled to speak up against the notion that Fox News is not a news outlet.

Now, Fox News does little investigative reporting. Mostly it chitters and chatters and re-processes. Nor does it stick with reliable information. It intentionally lies and distorts. It also screams and yells, demonizes and infantilizes. But these behaviors just make Fox News a small-time and untrustworthy news outlet that degrades the content and the form of our public discourse. These are not the reasons being widely offered for the declaration that Fox is not a news outlet at all.

To make that claim, we are being told that Fox News has an agenda and engages in activism. But every news outlet has an agenda, and I would like nothing more than to see the better ones engage in activism. Fox is owned by an international corporation, and generates xenophobic rallies against "socialistic fascism." This raises serious questions of foreign interference in our politics as well as pathetic ironies and sad hilarities. But, the central objection seems to be that Fox News has a right-wing agenda opposed by most Americans. That is true enough, and I almost always oppose Fox's agenda quite passionately. That more majoritarian agendas are not advanced by any major television networks is a severe defect in our system, not evidence of what constitutes real news.

The non-Fox television networks that we do have, with a few satellite, cable, and online exceptions, have agendas that are not terribly far removed from that of Fox. When Fox tells you to go out and rally against healthcare and explains what votes are coming up in Congress, it is doing something MORE democratic than what ABC News does when it reports on Congressional votes after the fact, explains them from the same corporate viewpoint as Fox, and makes clear that citizens are in no way involved in the process.

One of the best summaries of the "Fox is not news" argument is found in Adele Stan's "8 Reasons Fox Is Not a News Organization" on Alternet. This is an intelligent argument from a talented writer on an excellent news site. But it is a news site with an agenda and a great deal of admirable and beneficial advocacy of activism. And I wouldn't want it any other way. Stan writes:

"Setting Fox apart from the two other cable news networks is its ownership by a corporation whose CEO and major shareholder is a mogul with an ideological agenda . . . ."

CNN and MSNBC don't have ideological agendas? Surely that's not seriously what's being claimed here. These news outlets oppose healthcare favored by most Americans, back wars opposed by most Americans, and generally advance a minority corporate agenda on a wide range of issues. MSNBC has begun including a few talking heads who sometimes stray from its overall agenda, but they are distinctly labeled as doing so, whereas most MSNBC reporting advances the same agenda as always, and under the obscuring banner of "objectivity" and the powerful pretense of no point of view at all. Thankfully, Alternet itself has quite a good agenda and provides a far better service to our nation than MSNBC or CNN. The accuracy of its reporting does not seem to be in any way put in doubt by its activism.

"Fox News Channel," Stan writes, "is anything but a news operation." Instead it's "a massive media campaign for the consolidation of wealth through unfettered markets." Of course Fox could be both of those things, but it isn't. It wants the markets very much fettered to the advantage of mega-corporate interests and against the rest of us. That does not, however, prevent its being a news organization, any more than the Nation Magazine's preference for socialistic solutions (a preference I share) prevents it from reporting news.

The "Fox is not news" campaign criticizes Fox for, in Stan's words, "declaring war" on President Obama. But I don't recall Alternet objecting to Keith Olbermann's rants against President Bush on MSNBC. What has happened is not that Fox has ceased to report news. What has happened is that Fox has begun criticizing a president in a way that most of the corporate media refuses to ever criticize any president, and a way that progressive media outlets are happy to criticize only Republican presidents. Now, Alternet has published criticism of Obama, including some written by me. And Fox New's fantastic racist falsehoods are not something I want to see emulated. But the general notion -- which, following the Bush-Cheney years, ought to be absurd on its face -- that a media outlet disqualifies itself by criticizing a president, is as much a function of the partisan loyalties of those diagnosing Fox's status as it is of Fox itself.

Here are excerpts from Stan's eight reasons that Fox News is not news:

"1. Glenn Beck, the community organizer -- No other news operation in memory has ever hired its own community organizer, at least not one tasked with the mission of organizing paranoid people to march through the streets of the nation's capital with signs depicting the president of the United States as a mass murderer."

Huh? Every protest I've ever helped organize in the streets of our nation's capital to depict Bush as a mass murderer has been promoted and energized by Pacifica Radio, Air America Radio, and all sorts of other online and radio news outlets, often including Alternet.

"2. Fox's alliance with the corporate-funded astroturf group Americans for Prosperity -- We've scratched our heads trying to come up with an analogous relationship between a cable news channel and a corporate-funded group that organizes fearful people to disrupt public meetings, but we came up empty."

Fox News has encouraged threats, intimidation, and violence. It may indeed be guilty of crimes, and that should be investigated. It certainly encourages rudeness and incivility on behalf of a murderous agenda. But when Ed Schultz reported on advocates of single-payer healthcare nonviolently and eloquently disrupting a Senate hearing on behalf of a majority of Americans and after having attempted all other approaches, he did so encouragingly -- and many were encouraged to use the same technique. Of course we didn't pay Schultz to do that. We couldn't have afforded to. (Although he was paid a handsome sum when he switched from rightwing to leftwing talk show host.) But the corrupting force that money has on our communications system is obscured rather than revealed when we oppose advocacy journalism too broadly.

"3. On-air fundraising for Republican PACs -- Fox News personalities encourage viewers to contribute money to, and visit the Web sites of, specific Republican-affiliated political action committees. We can't find a single instance of either CNN or MSNBC doing anything of the kind for Democratic causes."

But we CAN find that, and better than that, at good media outlets, and why wouldn't we want good media outlets to continue behaving that way if the current cartel were busted?

"4. Bill O'Reilly, stalker of those whose opinions he doesn't like -- We exhausted all avenues of research trying to find a news show host at another cable news channel who pays his producer to stalk people whose opinions he or she doesn't like."

Yet some of the best video reporting on the Fox- and CNN-promoted nonsense regarding Obama's place of birth, aired on all the channels, was generated by Mike Stark at FireDogLake.com. The best footage of Congress members' opinions on wars and healthcare are produced by roving "stalkers", because the corporate press corps does not ask useful questions. Fox News demonstrates that useful questions could be asked. It would just take an anti-Fox to do it.

"5. Sunday talk-show host who promotes Republican falsehoods."

Promoting falsehoods is, indeed, a serious argument that what is happening is not news. But Republican falsehoods doesn't seem essentially less newsy than the bipartisan falsehoods promoted on every channel (Iran's got nukes, Social Security is broke, Single-payer is unpopular, etc.).

"6. Fox News anchors, show hosts and pundits parrot GOP press releases."

Well, how the heck do you think the New York Times sold us the war on Iraq? This is bad news, not non-news.

"7. Fox News hosts urge viewers to join a particular political group."

Well, shouldn't they? In a nation where we had other media outlets with the same reach promoting other groups, wouldn't this be far preferable to, say, John Stewart promoting cynical scorn for everyone and everything?

"8. Glenn Beck, deranged inventor of paranoid conspiracies."

Yes, falsehoods is definitely to the point. Perhaps Fox News pushes too many falsehoods to count as news. But that's a distinct argument that should be made without all of these partisan, anti-activist encumbrances.

Why? Because it matters. It matters because there is a more destructive force in our communications system than a transparently rightwing buffoons gallery. That destructive force is the persistent myth of "objective" "viewpoint-free" reporting. When the "respectable" news outlets tell us that "objectively" we are going to have to escalate wars in order to be safe, and when they quote two "opposing" experts who both agree with that claim, thereby providing "balance," and they neither scream nor rant nor suggest that we citizens have any role to play, we are persuaded and disempowered.

When Fox News, in contrast, pushes its "fair and balanced" bullshit, we fight back. But the way to fight back is to build truly democratic media that promotes what we believe in without apology, and yet without the dishonesty that has damaged Fox in so many minds. The way to fight Fox is not to suggest that there is something respectable or praiseworthy about the bulk of the infofascistainment found on MSNBC and CNN.

Fox is owned by a nut job. MSNBC is owned by a weapons company. Where are our priorities? Do not support CNN or MSNBC. Support Alternet instead.

David Swanson is the author of the new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press. You can order it and find out when tour will be in your town: http://davidswanson.org/book .

Why is it that every time we elect "peace" candidates we defund the peace movement, stop calling for an end to wars, and limit our demands exclusively to opposing war escalations?

In 2006 we voted into Congress the candidates who looked most likely to end the war in Iraq. We congratulated ourselves on a job well done. Then we mildly urged them not to escalate the war they'd been elected to end, and they escalated it anyway.

In 2008 we voted into Congress and the White House the candidates who looked most likely to end the war in Iraq. Candidate Obama promised to pull out two brigades per month for sixteen months. Here we are in month 10 and that withdrawal has yet to begin. And what in the name of all that is true, good, and free-of-hope are we doing about it? Not a god damned thing.

Meanwhile Obama promised, much less noisily, to escalate a war in Afghanistan and has done so with no resistance, even as the American people have (at least in polls) turned against it. Now party leaders in Congress have given Obama the go-ahead for a larger escalation, and what have we done?

To begin with we've accepted the terms of the debate that our government officials always impose on us following an election: Are you for an escalation or do you think the current troop/mercenary levels are adequate? There is no room in that debate for arguing that the entire enterprise is illegal, barbaric, self-destructive, and must be immediately replaced with civilized acts of aid and diplomacy.

Of course we should oppose an escalation, just as we should prefer a "public option" to no healthcare reform at all. But self-censoring our demand for single-payer shifts the debate so far right that we can't even pass a public option. And self-censoring our demand for an end to wars shifts the debate to a point where the middle ground becomes an escalation of half the largest size anyone proposes -- and the war in Iraq is not even mentioned.

Well-meaning peace groups are pointlessly urging us to lobby the president, and are publicly whipping congress members on the following items: sponsorship of a bill that would require some sort of non-binding exit plan for Afghanistan if actually passed by the House and Senate and signed by the president, and sponsorship of a bill that would deny funding for an escalation in Afghanistan if actually passed by the House and Senate and signed by the president. But getting either of those bills through the Senate is going to be significantly more difficult than getting the House to stop funding the wars, and thus far no organizations have begun building a public list of House members committed to voting No on war money.

In June, because all the Republicans were voting No on the war money for their own crazy reasons, we only needed 39 Democrats to vote No to block it, and we managed to get 32. We could easily line up 39 right now if we worked at it. Then we could begin building from there in the direction of 218. Even if all you wanted to oppose was escalation, the way to actually do so would be to build a whip list of House members committed to voting No on war funding bills that did not limit troop levels in Afghanistan to the desired level. Nobody is doing that. The next supplemental spending bill will probably come by spring, and it'll come sooner the greater the escalation, but peace coalitions tell me they think it's smarter not to prepare for such fights ahead of time.

FireDogLake, which hosted our whip list in June, is fully immersed in healthcare struggles. United for Peace and Justice and a new anti-escalation coalition have both refused to host a list of congress members committed to voting No on war funding or even escalation funding. So, I'm going to provide, not a replacement for the anti-escalation campaigns, but a necessary addition to them. I'm going to post a list at the top of http://afterdowningstreet.org and encourage you to ask these 32 heroes from back in June (plus a very short list of Republicans) whether they are committed to voting against further funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Please phone them at (202) 224-3121 and post your responses on the website.

Tammy Baldwin
Michael Capuano
John Conyers
Lloyd Doggett
Donna Edwards
Keith Ellison
Sam Farr
Bob Filner
Alan Grayson
Raul Grijalva
Michael Honda
Marcy Kaptur
Dennis Kucinich
Barbara Lee
Zoe Lofgren
Eric Massa
Jim McGovern
Michael Michaud
Donald Payne
Chellie Pingree
Jared Polis
Jose Serrano
Carol Shea-Porter
Brad Sherman
Jackie Speier
Pete Stark
John Tierney
Nikki Tsongas
Maxine Waters
Diane Watson
Peter Welch
Lynn Woolsey

Ron Paul
Walter Jones

Bricks in the Chamber Pot of Commerce
By David Swanson

The US Chamber of Commerce blew a mere $39 million on lobbying in Washington in the past three months. Lobbying for the promotion of global warming, the denial of healthcare, the further deregulation (if possible) of the financial "industry", blockage of the right to unionize, the lowering and elimination of minimum wage laws, maintenance of tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas, and protection of the "right" of corporations to bribe politicians. Money well spent: all minority positions, all adhered to by our government.

Several companies have dropped their membership in this chamber of horrors, and others have dropped their seats on its board. Now StopTheChamber.org has done something interesting. We've obtained the personal Email addresses of all the remaining board members. When you go to our website and scroll down and sign in, an Email is sent to all of the board members asking them to resign. And the chamber doesn't like it one bit. Their staff have been visiting the website constantly. And they've sent a message to their member companies stating:

"Please note that these calls against the Chamber are part of a broad-based, multisource campaign against us being carried out by our normal adversaries -- trial lawyers, activist unions, environmental extremists, etc. It is a 'corporate campaign' in the classic sense, where interest groups are looking for public leverage to force us to do things against the best interests of the business community. Frankly, these efforts are simply the result of how effective we have been in opposing card check, as well as aspects of proposed healthcare, capital markets, and climate-change legislation that we believe would be onerous to business and impede job creation. Our efforts to fix these key pieces of legislation are not going to stop."

Oh yeah?

Did you know that Drinking Liberally and Credo are urging the makers of Budweiser to drop off the board of the chamber pot, and you can help.

Did you know Change to Win is targeting the chamber?

Have you seen what the Center for Media and Democracy is up to?

What about the AFL-CIO?

Local chambers of commerce are opposing the US Chamber.

And you'll find a growing list of groups taking part in our campaign at http://stopthechamber.org

You say you're not going away. We say we're not. One of us is wrong. And the law may just get to decide.

Public Citizen has filed complaints against the chamber for filing false tax returns.

Cliff Arnebeck successfully sued the chamber for fraud and campaign finance violations in Ohio which the elections commission and three courts found violated criminal law.

According to another complaint filed by Public Citizen, this illegal conduct appears to be a pattern across the United States.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has filed a complaint against the chamber for violating election laws.

The chamber has used fraudulent claims to raise funds by inflating its membership numbers by 1000 percent.

Like I said, WE'RE not going away. Some of you just might be.

Davis, Nevada City, Fresno, Fair Oaks, Bay Area, Los Angeles, Orange County:

November 19, 2009, Davis, California

David Swanson will discuss and sign his new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union."

6:30 p.m. at the Avid Reader Bookstore
617 2nd Street
Davis, CA
between "E" and "F" Streets.

Directions: Taking I 80 West, take exit 72B (Richards Blvd/Olive Drive), turn right onto Richards Blvd, turn right onto First Street, turn left onto "F" Street to Second Street.

OR, Taking I 80 East, take exit 72 (Richards Blvd) and pick up First, then "F" Streets as above.

CONTACT THE ORGANIZERS:
Mary Zhu
zbox at dcn.davis.ca.us

Nancy Price
nancytprice at juno.com

November 20, 2009, Nevada City, CA

Doors open at 6:30 pm, program at 7:00 pm, Unitarian Universalists Community of the Mountains, 246 S. Church St. Grass Valley, Nevada City, Calif.

CONTACT THE ORGANIZER:
Margaret Joehnck
margaretjoehnck at yahoo.com


November 21, 2009, Fresno, CA

10:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon
Unitarian Universalist Church of Fresno
2672 E. Alluvial Ave, Clovis

CONTACT THE ORGANIZER:
Dan Yaseen
danyaseen at comcast.net
559-251-3361


November 21, 2009, Fair Oaks, CA

in evening at 5:00 p.m. dinner and speaking with Peace Pyramid
6009 Kifisia Way
Fair Oaks, CA 95628

CONTACT THE ORGANIZER:
Tom King
tjking07 at comcast.net


November 22, 2009, Bay Area, CA


* 12:30 p.m. in downtown Walnut Creek

* 3 p.m. at DIESEL, A Bookstore in Oakland
5433 College Ave., Oakland, CA 94618, (510) 653-9965

* Dinner at

* 7:30 PM in the Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists Hall
1924 Cedar at Bonita, 1 block East of MLK Jr. Way
Wheelchair accessible. Donation requested.
Co-sponsored by the BFUU Social Justice Committee
http://www.bfuu.org

CONTACT THE ORGANIZERS:
Cindy Sheehan
cindy at cindysheehanssoapbox.com

Susan Harman
susanharman1 at gmail.com

Mary Alice O'Connor
maryalice at mtdpc.org
http://www.mtdpc.org

November 23, 2009, Los Angeles, CA

At St. Bede's Church in Mar Vista at 7:30 p.m.
3590 Grand View Blvd., LA 90066 (Mar Vista)

Sponsored by:
CODEPINK: Women for Peace
Westside Progressives
Winograd for Congress

CONTACT THE EVENT ORGANIZERS:
Ilene Proctor
proctor at anet dot net

Marcy Winograd
Winograd4congress at gmail dot com


November 24, 2009, Orange County, CA

CONTACT THE ORGANIZERS:
Pat Alviso & Jeff Merrick
Military Families Speak Out
Orange County & South Bay Chapter
http://www.mfsooc.org
http://www.myspace.com/ocmfso
562-833-8035
mfso-oc at earthlink.net

Bangor, Portland, and Martha's Vineyard:

November 5, 2009, Bangor, Maine

David Swanson will discuss and sign copies of his new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union."

12:30 p.m. Talk on "Undoing the Imperial Presidency"
Bangor Room, Memorial Union, University of Maine, Orono, Maine

4:00 p.m. informal meeting with students to discuss philosophy and activism

7:00 p.m. evening talk on "Forming a More Perfect Union: Rights We've Lost and Rights We've Never Had"
Peace and Justice Center of Eastern Maine
170 Park St
Bangor, ME

November 6, 2009, Portland, Maine

6:00 p.m. at Longfellow Bookstore
1 Monument Way
Portland, Maine
207-775-4045

Contact the Maine organizers:

Jamilla El-Shafei
jamillaelshafei at gmail.com

Bruce Gagnon
globalnet at mindspring.com

Michael Howard
Michael_Howard at umit.maine.edu


November 7, 2009, Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts

Contact the Massachusetts organizer:

Bruce Nevin
bruce.nevin at gmail dot com

Philadelphia, Newtown, and Kutztown:

November 3, 2009, Philadelphia, PA

David Swanson will discuss and sign his new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union."

FIRST EVENT:
Speaking at the University of the Arts at the invitation of Professor Chuck Pennacchio at the following times:
10:00 - 11:30 AM
4:00 - 5:30 PM
This will be open to the University community, but not to the general public.

SECOND EVENT:
In Villanova (western suburb of Philadelphia), speaking at Villanova University at the invitation of Professor Joseph Betz, Department of Philosophy, at the following time:
7:30 - 9:30 PM
St. Augustine Center, Room 300, public cordially invited.
Click for: Flyer in Word.

THIRD EVENT:
On Wednesday morning, November 4, 7:30 AM, speaking on Michael Smerconish's radio talk show from Bala Cynwyd (also a western suburb of Philly).

CONTACT THE ORGANIZER:
Jane Dugdale
tjdugdale at verizon dot net
610-527-4170


November 4, 2009, Newtown and Kutztown, PA:

FIRST EVENT:

At Bucks County Community College, sponsored in cooperation with the Buxmont Coalition for Peace, takes place in the Fireside Lounge, located in the lower level of the Rollins Student Center on the campus at 275 Swamp Rd., Newtown, Pa., 18940. For more information, contact Dr. Christopher Bursk at 215-968-8156. Details.

SECOND EVENT:

At the Kutztown University Campus at 7 p.m.
Boehm Lecture Hall, Room 145
Kutztown, PA 19530

On the map, it's building 12 and people can park in lots B1 or B2 to the left of the building on this map: PDF.

Kutztown is located on Route 222, halfway between Reading and Allentown. The Kutztown Exit on 222 puts you on Main Street.

CONTACT THE ORGANIZER:
Karen Feridun
http://www.kutztowndemocrats.org
info at kutztowndemocrats dot org