Saturday, April 27, 2019

Moqtada floats closing the US Embassy, the Iraqi government demands the US delete a FACEBOOK post



The Pointer Sisters performing their hit "Freedom" which first appears on CONTACT (a great album -- listen to their vocals on "Twist My Arm," for example).

"Freedom"?  While the Iraq War continues -- never ends -- how can their be freedom for the Iraqi people.  They continue to live under the US occupation.  XINHUA reports:
Iraqi prominent Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Saturday called for stopping dragging Iraq into U.S.-Iran conflict and suggested to close the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
A statement by al-Sadr said that he is concerned about the "increase of interventions" in the Iraqi affairs that aimed at dragging Iraq into the U.S.-Iran conflict, and made 10 proposals including closing the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and withdrawing the Iraqi militias from the neighboring Syria.
"My concerns are increasing day after day, as I see that the interventions from both sides (U.S. and Iran) in the Iraqi affairs took roots and deepened," al-Sadr said.
He said that the weakness of the Iraqi government, political infighting and widespread corruption made Iraq depend on both sides and unable to give up, according to the statement.
Al-Sadr called for closure of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad if Iraq is dragged in this conflict, warning that the embassy will be under fire of the resistance fighters again, referring to the attacks carried out by militias previously on the Green Zone where the U.S. embassy is located.
Al-Sadr's proposals also included sending delegations to the United Nations, European Union, Organization of Islamic Cooperation and Saudi Arabia to ease the tension in the Middle East region.

He also called for withdrawal of the Iraqi militias, including those affiliated with Hashd Shaabi, from Syria. In addition, he urged the signing of a treaty between Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia to bring some peace to the region, the statement added.

On the latter, RUDAW adds:

 Hashd al-Shaabi, an Iranian-backed Iraqi paramilitia established to fight the Islamic State (ISIS), should withdraw from Syria so that Iraq does not get dragged into a conflict between Iran and the US and Israel, firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said Saturday. 

Sadr, who leads the strongest bloc in the Iraqi parliament, issued the warning as Baghdad tries to balance relations between regional rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia and navigate the escalating confrontation between Iran and the United States.

Sadr made a total of ten suggestions to the Iraqi government aimed at trying to avoid involvement in regional conflicts, including “the withdrawal of Iraqi groups affiliated to Hashd al-Shaabi and others from Syria and returning them to Iraq immediately without delay”.

“I am concerned about the conflict between Iran and the bilateral union [of the US and Israel] – the union which is responsible for starving people in the worst way and humiliate them in the pretext of terrorism,” Sadr said in the statement.

Hashd al-Shaabi was established in 2014 after Iraq’s influential cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani issued a fatwa calling on Iraqis to fight ISIS. It was officially integrated into the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) in 2016, when it became widely known as the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF).



Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr pulls a lot of weight in Iraq.  It will be interesting to see what happens if he makes a call for the closing of the security compound known as the US Embassy in Baghdad.  (Right now, he's only floating the idea.) 

Some are not pleased with Moqtada's remarks including the government of Bahrain which has issued an official statement and Bahrain's Foreign Minister Khalid al-Khalifa who says that Moqtada zoomed in on Bahrain to avoid calling out Iran.  ALSUMARIA reports that Iraqiya coalition member Jamal al-Karbouli stated he sometimes does not agree with Moqtada but he supports Moqtada's remarks regarding national issues.  Also voicing support for Moqtada's statements is Bahaa al-Araji -- not a surprise since he is part of Moqtada's bloc in Parliament.  ALSUMARIA reports that Iraq's Foreign Ministry has called on the government of Bahrain to apologize for their remarks about Moqtada.




Moqtada's floating of closing the US Embassy in Baghdad comes one day after foreign fighters -- the US-led coalition -- killed 1 Iraqi service member and injured two more in what is being termed a "friendly fire" incident.  Iraq still has no Minister of Interior.  So when press outlets tell you that  Aqeel Mahmoud al-Khazali is the Minister of the Interior, grasp that they are lying.

The laughable prime minister of Iraq has slid him into an unofficial post that has no real power.  On the killing in 'friendly fire,' al-Khazali posted to his FACEBOOK page the following.


د. عقيل محمود الخزعلي
April 26 at 8:54 AM
مهم
===
قيادة العمليات المشتركة تشكل لجنة تحقيقية في حادث استشهاد مقاتل وإصابة اثنين آخرين من الفوج الأول باللواء الحادي عشر / شرطة اتحادية خلال قيام طائرات التحالف بعملية الإسناد لقطعات جهاز مكافحة الإرهاب اثناء تنفيذ عملية انزال في قرية الدب التابعة لناحية الرياض في قضاء الحويجة بمحافظة كركوك.
... See More
Important
===
The command of joint operations is an investigative commission in the incident of the martyrdom of a fighter and injured two other first regiment of the eleventh brigade / Federal Police during the operation of the coalition aircraft in the process of attribution of anti-terrorist parts during the execution of the In Kirkuk Portfolio.
... See More




So that's one problem for the US government.  Here's another -- this is from the US Embassy in Baghdad's FACEBOOK page:


يستشري الفساد في جميع مفاصل #النظام_الإيراني، بدءا من القمة. فممتلكات مرشد النظام علي #خامنئيوحده تقدر بـ 200 مليار دولار، بينما يرزح كثير من ابناء الشعب تحت وطأة الفقر بسبب الوضع الإقتصادي المزري الذي وصلت اليه #ايران بعد أربعين عاما من حكم الملالي.
#فساد_قادة_إيران
Corruption is rife in all parts of the #IranianRegime, starting at the top. The possessions of the current supreme leader Ali #Khamenei alone are estimated at $200 billion, while many people languish in poverty because of the dire economic situation in #Iran after 40 years of rule by the mullahs.
#ThecorruptionoftheleadersofIran
See Translation



As ALSUMARIA notes, the Iraqi government sees that post as interfering in Iraqi affairs and they says it goes too far.  They are calling for the US Embassy to remove the post. 

Will it? 

Better question, why is it that the US media is ignoring this?  Normally, when the US and another government clash, it's news.  Does no one in the US media pay attention to Iraq anymore?  Or are they all desperate to save the US government any embarrassment by ignoring this story?




The following sites updated:

Posted by at

The Secretary of the Navy Lied to Congress

 The Secretary of the Navy Lied to Congress
By David Swanson
http://davidswanson.org/the-secretary-of-the-navy-lied-to-congress/
Read this Military.com article from Friday: “Do U.S. High Schools Bar Military Recruiters? Activists Try to Call Pentagon’s Bluff.” It discusses the offer that Pat Elder and I made to award funding to any school that could be identified as one of the over 1,100 public high schools that the Secretary of the Navy told Congress in December bar military recruiters. The article states:
“Addressing members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in December, Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer described an ‘excess of 1,100 schools and districts that deny access to uniform members to recruit on campuses,’ mainly in the northeast and northwestern United States, he said. And Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps Ronald Green in January said there are ‘just some places where we are not allowed to recruit.'”
If you watch the video of Spencer’s statement, you’ll note that one Congress Member sounded initially surprised by the bizarre claim, but Senator Joni Ernst jumped in to act as if she was totally familiar with it. And that was the end of the reaction from the House Armed Services Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and — as far as I have been able to learn — any of the committees’ members. None of them later asked to see a list of the 1,100 schools or even an example of one. None of them inquired whether all of those schools should simply be allowed to violate the hyper-militaristic laws of the United States which actually forbid giving military recruiters less access than is given to college or job recruiters. Not a single member of Congress or the media, as far as I’ve been able to determine, so much as raised the possibility that Spencer’s list of recruitment-free schools was as real as had been Senator McCarthy’s list of communists in the government.
Now “Pentagon public affairs officer Jessica Maxwell” has told Military.com that not a single school in the United States is barring recruiters. And Jessica Maxwell has not claimed that this situation was different in January or December. She has not produced a list of 1,100 high schools that were barring recruiters in December. She has not produced the name of a single such school. But she has, very typically, muddied the waters enough to suggest that it’s possible that she might be implying that the Secretary of the Navy and Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps were somehow telling the truth.
How has Jessica Maxwell done this? Well, Military.com reports: “Maxwell added that the 1,100 schools Spencer discussed were largely in New York City. The Navy, she said, has since worked with the Chancellor of the New York City Schools to restore access.”
Really? Most of the 1,100 public high schools barring recruiters were in New York City? And others were in the “Northeast and Northwest” perhaps? So, somewhere upwards of 100 percent of New York City public high schools were barring admittance to military recruiters in gross violation of the law, and nobody I know has heard of anybody who has heard of even one such school? And there hasn’t been a single news article or blog post about this? And nobody told Fox News? And sometime in the past three months every one of those schools reversed its policy, and again there’s not a word to be found about this change anywhere?
Of course the Pentagon may realize that someone might find this all a tad hard to believe. So, Jessica Maxwell, as reported on by Military.com, adds in an attempt to change the subject: “Interpretation of the law can vary by school and district. Access may mean direct contact and freedom to approach students on campus or in classrooms, or it may be tightly controlled, restricted to requiring direct appointments only and limiting distribution of information. It also may be limited to offsite events such as college fairs.” In other words, schools may be giving military recruiters at least as much access to students as they are giving to college and job recruiters, but the military recruiters may not be satisfied with that. And this dissatisfaction would not, of course, mean that it was true that military recruiters were barred, but we might pretend it meant that, so as to all feel better about prominent public liars.
If we were to try to pretend that, however, we’d quickly run into the problem that thousands of military recruiters all over the United States would probably prefer even more access to kids if they could get it. The notion that such desires are restricted to New York City, or even to the Northeast and the Northwest is as absurd as the notion that this is what the Secretary of Navy was talking about when he lied to Congress.
The point of saying he lied to Congress is not that I know what he was thinking, that I have a magical ability to be sure he knew he was lying to Congress. Perhaps he honestly believed what he was saying. But he spoke, not as an individual, but as the Secretary of the Navy, whose office has never replied to my inquiry, and apparently never communicated to Military.com any regret, apology, excuse, or explanation whatsoever. Instead, the Pentagon has done what it typically does: lied further.
Typically, Pentagon lies are about topics that may seem more significant: fraudulent cases for wars over WMDs, etc., or coverups of atrocities: “They were insurgents. Even the kids. Well, not the kids. But we were nowhere near them. They killed themselves. They’re still alive right now. They were used as human shields by our former weapons customer, so we had to kill them. Which we did not do.” Etc. But recruitment is not a minor concern. The only way they can throw a war and have nobody come is if some limit is placed on the extravagances of the recruitment industrial complex. Military.com has its own page dangling $50,000 bonuses in front of anyone who will sign up to join the U.S. military. If $50,000 won’t do it, perhaps $100,000 will. After all, the poor recruiters have one hand tied behind their backs by the 1,100 schools that won’t let them in.
Or perhaps this part of the Military.com article is the part worth taking seriously:
“Swanson said the [military is] having trouble recruiting because of low unemployment and the unpopularity of ‘participating in endless brutal wars that serve no clear purpose, increase hostility to the United States and leave participants at heightened risk of death, physical injury, brain damage, post-traumatic stress disorder, moral injury, violent crime, homelessness and suicide.'”
According to Pat Elder, lying is routine, not only in the process of military recruitment, but also in how the military talks about that process:
“The United States Military Entrance Processing Command, (USMEPCOM) is the division of the Pentagon that is responsible for inducting America’s youth into the all four branches in the military. The command is a reckless institution with little or no regard for transparency, rule of law, or civil liberties.
“USMEPCOM routinely misleads the American public. Following is a brief description of the most destructive lies they tell. They fall into four categories that cover military testing, the JROTC program, the access recruiters enjoy, and the “opt-out” process.
“(1) The command claims it is providing a public service when it administers the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) to nearly 700,000 children in 12,000 high schools across the country. Military recruiting manuals say the ASVAB’s primary purpose is to collect information on youth to procure leads for recruiters. Throughout the country, the testing regime is marketed in high schools as a free “career exploration program” that helps students – especially those who don’t go on to college – figure out what they want to do when they grow up. USMEPCOM also misleads the American public regarding a thousand schools that now require students to take the military test during school hours, usually without parental knowledge or consent. The command fails to disclose the actual number of schools that make the test mandatory.
“(2) The military lies to the public about the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program (JROTC). The military stands by the absurd contention that the JROTC program is a public service, rather than a recruiting program. The JROTC textbooks teach an untruthful and highly reactionary brand of American history. In addition, the military minimizes the potential health risks of lead contamination associated with nearly 2,000 marksmanship programs it operates in America’s high schools. Children routinely shoot lead ammunition from firearms in their cafeterias and gyms where the floors are covered with lethal lead dust.
“(3) The military continues to mislead the public regarding the access they have to our children in the high schools. Federal law says college recruiters and military recruiters are to have the same access to kids. In many schools, however, recruiters enjoy far greater access to students than college recruiters. Military recruiters often have lunch with students in the cafeteria and are free to fraternize with students during unsupervised encounters. Meanwhile, college recruiters usually meet with a small handful of students in the guidance office.
“(4) USMEPCOM continuously misleads the public by spreading misinformation regarding Section 8025 of the Every Student Succeeds Act, (ESSA). This section of the law says schools must relinquish the names, addresses and phone numbers of children – but nothing more. The law also says parents should be told they have the right to remove their child’s information from lists being forward to the Pentagon, although this fact is rarely conveyed by the recruiting command. USMEPCOM also peddles the misperception that ‘opting out’ by parents will preclude ASVAB data from reaching recruiters, although this is not the case.”
Why offer $2,000 to anyone who can prove the Pentagon has told the truth? Because:
1) There’s no real risk of losing the $2,000, and
2) Perhaps the Pentagon will now be compelled to admit, even to its Congressional sycophants, that it has forced open every schoolhouse door and still can’t manage to gather its cannon fodder, and
3) Perhaps someone will ask why that is.
--
David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio.He is a 2015, 2016, 2017 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.
Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook.
Help support DavidSwanson.org, WarIsACrime.org, and TalkNationRadio.org by clicking here: http://davidswanson.org/donate. 

Sign up for these emails at https://actionnetwork.org/forms/articles-from-david-swanson.
Posted by at

Where the Candidates Stand, or Kneel


Where the Candidates Stand, or Kneel

By David Swanson
http://davidswanson.org/candidates/
Below are 10 basic questions for U.S. Presidential Candidates and the answers they have thus far provided, if any.
  1. What would you like the U.S. discretionary budget to look like? Roughly what percentage should go to what project? With 60% now going to militarism, approximately what percentage would you like that to be?
  2. With some super-profitable corporations paying no taxes, some individuals with super-high incomes paying a lower tax-rate than ordinary people, a regressive cap on taxes for Social Security, no wealth tax, and no tax on the vast majority of estates, what will you do to make taxation less regressive and more progressive?
  3. Do you support a Green New Deal, and if so what exactly does it look like?
  4. How would you change the funding of education, including pre-school and college, and addressing student debt?
  5. Would you halt or continue expenditures on the production and so-called modernization of nuclear weapons?
  6. Do you support the creation of a single-payer health coverage system or enhanced Medicare for all?
  7. Would you end discriminatory bans on immigrants?
  8. How would you address the problem of mass incarceration?
  9. What changes, if any, would you make to Social Security and the funding thereof?
  10. What should the minimum wage be in the United States and should that wage be set to automatically keep pace with the cost of living?
Most people are surprised at how difficult it is to find any answers to such questions from candidates running for the office of U.S. president and receiving voluminous media coverage of various trivial details. Some candidates have answered some of these questions. Most have not answered most of them. You can ask your favorite and least favorite campaigns for their positions on these questions, and post their answers as comments at davidswanson.org/candidates
1. What would you like the U.S. discretionary budget to look like? Roughly what percentage should go to what project? With 60% now going to militarism, approximately what percentage would you like that to be?
Mike Gravel: Cut military spending by 50%.
Howie Hawkins: Cut military spending by 50%.
Bernie Sanders: Cut military spending by an unknown amount. He has voted against military budgets.
Marianne Williamson: Convert to a peaceful economy over 10 to 20 years.
Andrew Yang: Cut military spending by an unknown amount; move 10% to military-like infrastructure force.
Tulsi Gabbard: One website provides no positions on anything, another doesn’t say. We can look to her voting record. She has voted against cutting the military budget.
Kamala Harris: Website provides no positions on anything. She has voted for enormous military budgets.
Joe Biden: Website doesn’t say. As Senator, he voted for enormous military budgets.
Amy Klobuchar: Website provides no positions on anything. She has voted for enormous military budgets.
Cory Booker: Website provides no positions on anything. He has voted for enormous military budgets.
Donald Trump: Proposes to move yet more funding from almost everything else into military spending, boosting the latter to roughly 65% of federal discretionary spending across departments, not counting another 7% for Veterans Affairs.
Elizabeth Warren: Website doesn’t say. She has voted for enormous military budgets.
Wayne Messam: Website doesn’t say, but promotes hostility toward Russia and China.
Kirsten Gillibrand: Website doesn’t say.
Beto O’Rourke: Website doesn’t say.
Julian Castro: Website provides no positions on anything other than immigration and relations with Central America.
Jay Inslee: Website provides no positions on anything other than climate, which position avoids mentioning the military either as a destroyer of climate or a source of funding that could be moved to climate.
Eric Swalwell: Website provides no positions on anything other than guns, healthcare, and education.
John Delaney: Website provides an array of positions as if 96 percent of humanity and 65 percent of discretionary spending doesn’t exist: no budget and no foreign policy, except that he wants mandatory “service” with the military being one type of “service.”
Howard Schultz: Website provides no positions on anything other than coffee.
Pete Buttigieg: Website provides no positions on anything.
John Hickenloper: Website provides no positions on anything.
Tim Ryan: Doesn’t seem to have a website.
2. With some super-profitable corporations paying no taxes, some individuals with super-high incomes paying a lower tax-rate than ordinary people, a regressive cap on taxes for Social Security, no wealth tax, and no tax on the vast majority of estates, what will you do to make taxation less regressive and more progressive?
Bernie Sanders: Website says:
  • Pass the For the 99.8 Percent Act to establish a progressive estate tax on multi-millionaire and billionaire inheritances.
  • Eliminate offshore tax scams through the Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act.
  • Tax Wall Street speculators through the Inclusive Prosperity Act.
  • Scrap the income cap on Social Security payroll taxes through the Social Security Expansion Act so that millionaires and billionaires pay more into the system.
  • End special tax breaks on capital gains and dividends for the top 1%.
  • Substantially increase the top marginal tax rate on income above $10 million.
  • Close tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy and large corporations.
Elizabeth Warren: Website says: “stop handing out giant tax giveaways to rich people and giant corporations and start asking the people who have gained the most from our country to pay their fair share.” She has posted a plan for a wealth tax. She has posted a proposal for a tax on corporate profits.
Mike Gravel: Website lists numerous progressive policy changes here.
Marianne Williamson: Website says: “Make permanent the middle-class tax cuts, while repealing the corporate tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Bill. . . . Close the loopholes that give big breaks to big business, and ensure they pay their fair share of taxes to level the playing field so small business can compete. . . . Raise the estate tax (with special care given to help family businesses pay-off the estate tax bill over time so we don’t shut down small businesses). Eliminate the carried interest and ETF tax loopholes enjoyed by Wall Street.”
Andrew Yang: Capital gains tax. Make taxes fun.
Howie Hawkins: Website lists proposals here.
Beto O’Rourke: Website doesn’t say.
Kirsten Gillibrand: Website doesn’t say.
Joe Biden: Website doesn’t say.
Tulsi Gabbard: Website doesn’t say.
Wayne Messam: Website doesn’t say.
John Delaney: Website doesn’t say.
Donald Trump: Nothing.
Julian Castro: Website provides no positions on anything other than immigration and relations with Central America.
Eric Swalwell: Website provides no positions on anything other than guns, healthcare, and education.
Jay Inslee: Website provides no positions on anything other than climate.
Howard Schultz: Website provides no positions on anything other than coffee.
Pete Buttigieg: Website provides no positions on anything.
Kamala Harris: Website provides no positions on anything.
Amy Klobuchar: Website provides no positions on anything.
Cory Booker: Website provides no positions on anything.
John Hickenloper: Website provides no positions on anything.
Tim Ryan: Doesn’t seem to have a website.
3. Do you support a Green New Deal, and if so what exactly does it look like?
Bernie Sanders: Website explains his support for a Green New Deal. Has cosponsored S. Res. 59.
Elizabeth Warren: Website doesn’t say. Has cosponsored S. Res. 59.
Jay Inslee: Yes.
Mike Gravel: Website supports and expands upon a Green New Deal.
Kirsten Gillibrand: Yes. Has cosponsored S. Res. 59. Her support is reported on here.
Marianne Williamson: Yes.
Kamala Harris: Website provides no positions on anything. Has cosponsored S. Res. 59. Has written about her support here.
Amy Klobuchar: Website provides no positions on anything. Has cosponsored S. Res. 59.
Cory Booker: Website provides no positions on anything. Has cosponsored S. Res. 59.
Wayne Messam: Yes, vague.
Howie Hawkins: End capitalism.
Andrew Yang: Not clear.
Beto O’Rourke: No.
Tulsi Gabbard: Has not cosponsored H Res 109. Environmental policies don’t mention Green New Deal.
Joe Biden: Website doesn’t say.
Donald Trump: Hell no.
John Delaney: Opposes the Green New Deal.
Julian Castro: Website provides no positions on anything other than immigration and relations with Central America.
Eric Swalwell: Website provides no positions on anything other than guns, healthcare, and education.
Howard Schultz: Website provides no positions on anything other than coffee.
Pete Buttigieg: Website provides no positions on anything.
John Hickenloper: Website provides no positions on anything.
Tim Ryan: Doesn’t seem to have a website.
4. How would you change the funding of education, including pre-school and college, and addressing student debt?
Bernie Sanders: He has advocated these steps for years. Website lays out plans here and also says:
  • Make public colleges, universities, and trade schools tuition-free.
  • Fully fund Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
  • Substantially lower student debt.
  • Significantly lower interest rates on student loans.
Elizabeth Warren: She has posted a plan for free college and the cancellation of (much of) student debt. She has posted a plan to make child care free for many and “affordable” for others.
Mike Gravel: Would make education free and cancel debt.
Marianne Williamson: Website proposes many significant steps.
Eric Swalwell: Website says: “no-interest federal student loans, tax-free employer contributions, and debt-free college for public university students who do work-study and commit to bettering their communities after graduation.”
Andrew Yang: Control the cost of higher education. Reduce student loan burden. Makingcommunity college “affordable.” Early childhood education for all. Expand selective schools. Increase teacher salaries.
Howie Hawkins: Website says: “Free Public Education from Pre-K Child Care through College.”
Tulsi Gabbard: Free college.
Wayne Messam: Vague. Except for this: Cancel student debt.
John Delaney: “Guaranteeing free Pre-K through 14 public education.” Other proposals here.
Kirsten Gillibrand: Website provides some partial steps.
Beto O’Rourke: Completely vague.
Joe Biden: Website doesn’t say.
Donald Trump: Would make problems worse.
Julian Castro: Website provides no positions on anything other than immigration and relations with Central America.
Jay Inslee: Website provides no positions on anything other than climate.
Howard Schultz: Website provides no positions on anything other than coffee.
Pete Buttigieg: Website provides no positions on anything.
Kamala Harris: Website provides no positions on anything.
Amy Klobuchar: Website provides no positions on anything.
Cory Booker: Website provides no positions on anything.
John Hickenloper: Website provides no positions on anything.
Tim Ryan: Doesn’t seem to have a website.
5. Would you halt or continue expenditures on the production and so-called modernization of nuclear weapons?
Mike Gravel: He would get rid of all nukes.
Howie Hawkins: He would get rid of all nukes.
Beto O’Rourke: Website mentions “nuclear disarmament.”
Bernie Sanders: Website doesn’t say.
Tulsi Gabbard: Website provides no positions on anything, or doesn’t say. But she has voted to fund new nukes.
Donald Trump: Continue.
Elizabeth Warren: Website doesn’t say.
Marianne Williamson: Website doesn’t say.
Andrew Yang: Website doesn’t say.
Joe Biden: Website doesn’t say.
Wayne Messam: Website doesn’t say.
Kirsten Gillibrand: Website doesn’t say.
Julian Castro: Website provides no positions on anything other than immigration and relations with Central America.
Jay Inslee: Website provides no positions on anything other than climate.
Eric Swalwell: Website provides no positions on anything other than guns, healthcare, and education.
John Delaney: Website provides an array of positions as if 96 percent of humanity and 65 percent of discretionary spending doesn’t exist: no foreign policy, except that he wants mandatory “service” with the military being one option.
Howard Schultz: Website provides no positions on anything other than coffee.
Cory Booker: Website provides no positions on anything.
Pete Buttigieg: Website provides no positions on anything.
Kamala Harris: Website provides no positions on anything.
Amy Klobuchar: Website provides no positions on anything.
John Hickenloper: Website provides no positions on anything.
Tim Ryan: Doesn’t seem to have a website.
6. Do you support the creation of a single-payer health coverage system or enhanced Medicare for all?
Bernie Sanders: Website lays out plans here. He sponsored S 1129. Has supported and advocated for single-payer for many years.
Elizabeth Warren: Website doesn’t say. Has cosponsored S 1129.
Mike Gravel: Yes.
Kirsten Gillibrand: Yes. Has cosponsored S 1129.
Marianne Williamson: Yes.
Cory Booker: Website provides no positions on anything. Has cosponsored S 1129.
Kamala Harris: Website provides no positions on anything. Has cosponsored S 1129.
Tulsi Gabbard: Yes. Has cosponsored HR 1384.
Howie Hawkins: Yes.
Andrew Yang: Sort of.
Eric Swalwell: No.
Joe Biden: No.
Beto O’Rourke: No.
Donald Trump: No.
Wayne Messam: No.
John Delaney: Not exactly.
Julian Castro: Website provides no positions on anything other than immigration and relations with Central America.
Jay Inslee: Website provides no positions on anything other than climate.
Howard Schultz: Website provides no positions on anything other than coffee.
Pete Buttigieg: Website provides no positions on anything.
Amy Klobuchar: Website provides no positions on anything.
John Hickenloper: Website provides no positions on anything.
Tim Ryan: Doesn’t seem to have a website.
7. Would you end discriminatory bans on immigrants?
Bernie Sanders: Yes.
Tulsi Gabbard: Yes.
Mike Gravel: Yes.
Howie Hawkins: Yes.
Julian Castro: Yes.
Kirsten Gillibrand: Yes.
Marianne Williamson: Yes.
Donald Trump: No.
Joe Biden: Not clear.
Andrew Yang: Not clear.
Beto O’Rourke: Not clear.
John Delaney: Not clear.
Wayne Messam: Not clear.
Everybody else is silent.
8. How would you address the problem of mass incarceration?
Bernie Sanders: Website includes policy proposals here. Sanders has a long record as a leading opponent of creating mass incarceration.
Mike Gravel: End the war on drugs. Institute extensive reforms, including of prisons.
Kirsten Gillibrand: Website says: “legalize marijuana at the federal level and expunge past records; reform our sentencing laws so that judges can have more flexibility when dealing with low-level, nonviolent drug offenses; change federal rules for our prisons; end cash bail; and invest resources in communities harmed by the racist war on drugs.”
Marianne Williamson: Website includes plan here.
Andrew Yang: Reduce mass incarceration. Decrease pre-trial cash bail.
Howie Hawkins: Website says: “Appoint Public Defenders to the Federal Judiciary; Fully Fund the Legal Services Corporation.”
Tulsi Gabbard: Reform policies here.
Wayne Messam: A few reforms here.
Beto O’Rourke: Reform proposals sketched here.
Elizabeth Warren: Website doesn’t say.
Donald Trump: What problem?
John Delaney: Website doesn’t say.
Julian Castro: Website provides no positions on anything other than immigration and relations with Central America.
Eric Swalwell: Website provides no positions on anything other than guns, healthcare, and education.
Jay Inslee: Website provides no positions on anything other than climate.
Howard Schultz: Website provides no positions on anything other than coffee.
Pete Buttigieg: Website provides no positions on anything.
Kamala Harris: Website provides no positions on anything.
Amy Klobuchar: Website provides no positions on anything.
Cory Booker: Website provides no positions on anything.
John Hickenloper: Website provides no positions on anything.
Tim Ryan: Doesn’t seem to have a website.
Joe Biden: Website says: “We need to reform the criminal justice system to prioritize prevention, eliminate racial disparities at every stage, get rid of sentencing practices that don’t fit the crime, and help make sure formerly incarcerated individuals who have served their sentences are able to fully participate in our democracy and economy. We have to take action to reduce gun violence and hate crimes, strengthen the landmark Violence Against Women Act, and insist on real community policing that builds trust and makes every community safe.” Biden has a recordas a leading creator of mass incarceration.
9. What changes, if any, would you make to Social Security and the funding thereof?
Bernie Sanders: He would lift the cap so that those with large incomes pay for Social Security at the same rate as everyone else.
Marianne Williamson: She would lift the cap so that those with large incomes pay for Social Security at the same rate as everyone else.
Mike Gravel: Website doesn’t say, but offers alternative proposals.
Kirsten Gillibrand: Website is vague.
Tulsi Gabbard: Website doesn’t say.
Beto O’Rourke: Website doesn’t say.
Howie Hawkins: Website doesn’t say.
Joe Biden: Website doesn’t say.
Andrew Yang: Website doesn’t say.
Elizabeth Warren: Website doesn’t say.
Wayne Messam: Website doesn’t say.
John Delaney: Website doesn’t say.
Donald Trump: Cut it or privatize it.
Julian Castro: Website provides no positions on anything other than immigration and relations with Central America.
Eric Swalwell: Website provides no positions on anything other than guns, healthcare, and education.
Jay Inslee: Website provides no positions on anything other than climate.
Howard Schultz: Website provides no positions on anything other than coffee.
Pete Buttigieg: Website provides no positions on anything.
Kamala Harris: Website provides no positions on anything.
Amy Klobuchar: Website provides no positions on anything.
Cory Booker: Website provides no positions on anything.
John Hickenloper: Website provides no positions on anything.
Tim Ryan: Doesn’t seem to have a website.
10. What should the minimum wage be in the United States and should that wage be set to automatically keep pace with the cost of living?
Mike Gravel: $15, indexed to Consumer Price Index.
Bernie Sanders: “At least $15 an hour.”
Kirsten Gillibrand: $15.
Tulsi Gabbard: “$15/hour by 2024.”
Elizabeth Warren: Website doesn’t say. She has spoken often about restoring value to the minimum wage, but does not clearly have any specific proposal.
Marianne Williamson: “Increase minimum wage to a rate that provides a living wage in its given geographical area – and set the rate to adjust for inflation from now on.”
Howie Hawkins: “Living wage.”
Andrew Yang: Website doesn’t say.
Joe Biden: Website doesn’t say.
Beto O’Rourke: Website doesn’t say.
Wayne Messam: Website doesn’t say.
John Delaney: Website doesn’t say.
Donald Trump: $0.
Julian Castro: Website provides no positions on anything other than immigration and relations with Central America.
Eric Swalwell: Website provides no positions on anything other than guns, healthcare, and education.
Jay Inslee: Website provides no positions on anything other than climate.
Howard Schultz: Website provides no positions on anything other than coffee.
Pete Buttigieg: Website provides no positions on anything.
Kamala Harris: Website provides no positions on anything.
Amy Klobuchar: Website provides no positions on anything.
Cory Booker: Website provides no positions on anything.
John Hickenloper: Website provides no positions on anything.
Tim Ryan: Doesn’t seem to have a website.
--
David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio.He is a 2015, 2016, 2017 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.
Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook.
Help support DavidSwanson.org, WarIsACrime.org, and TalkNationRadio.org by clicking here: http://davidswanson.org/donate.

Sign up for these emails at https://actionnetwork.org/forms/articles-from-david-swanson.




Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)