RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | The American Sniper You Didn't Hear About Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7118"><span class="small">Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 27 January 2015 11:47

Gibson writes: " Another American sniper became so disgusted by what he had done that he started the first-ever antiwar blog, and is actively encouraging his fellow soldiers to use their First Amendment rights to speak out against what he calls an 'illegal occupation' in Iraq."

Garrett Reppenhagen of Iraq Veterans Against the War. (photo: CQ Roll Call)
Garrett Reppenhagen of Iraq Veterans Against the War. (photo: CQ Roll Call)


The American Sniper You Didn't Hear About

By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News

27 January 15

 

ne American sniper called Iraqi natives “savages,” compared them to American welfare recipients, and bragged about looting their homes after killing them. Another American sniper became so disgusted by what he had done that he started the first-ever antiwar blog, and is actively encouraging his fellow soldiers to use their First Amendment rights to speak out against what he calls an “illegal occupation” in Iraq. Guess which one had a blockbuster movie made about him, and which one got ignored?

Between February 2004 and February 2005, Garett Reppenhagen was a sniper in Iraq’s Diyala province, serving as a cavalry scout with the U.S. Army. It was his job to conceal himself near roadsides and kill anyone he saw planting IEDs. He was also ordered to wait in fields and target Iraqi insurgents pulling up in pickup trucks to launch mortars on American bases. While Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, who killed over 160 people during his time in Iraq, relished in pulling the trigger and wrote “I only wish I had killed more” in his memoir, Reppenhagen became increasingly more remorseful after each kill.

“Every time I pulled the trigger, I had to really convince myself that I was saving a buddy of mine. And it got increasingly difficult,” Reppenhagen told an audience at Colorado College in May of 2011.

Reppenhagen came from a military family – his father was a Vietnam veteran, and his grandfather served in World War II. He enlisted in 2001 and was stationed in Vilseck, Germany, with the 2-63 Armored Battalion, 1st Infantry Division. Between 2002 and 2003, his division was stationed in Kosovo on a peacekeeping mission. After completing international interdiction training at the NATO Special Forces School in Steton, Germany, he was deployed to Iraq in 2004. During that time, Reppenhagen learned that most of the men in his division were serving simply because a recruiter had bullied them into joining to get out of a bad economic situation. One of his fellow soldiers from Los Angeles had joined the military to get away from the gangs in his neighborhood. Another man from Ohio joined because the factory in his rust belt town had shut down and jobs were scarce.

“It was just 2 months of basic training for a cavalry scout, and out we come,” Reppenhagen said. “They’re just like you. They were given a bad haircut and an M-16 in their hands and they’re scared shitless.”

As Zaid Jilani recently wrote, the film “American Sniper” uses clever editing to suggest that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11: In one scene, Chris Kyle is watching the 9/11 attacks unfold on TV. In the next scene, Kyle is seen deploying to Iraq. But unlike Kyle, Reppenhagen became aware that he and his division were risking their lives in Iraq for fabricated causes, and actively started speaking out against the war.

“It was the conduct of the war that really started turning me, and the fraudulent causes that sent me there that really put me over the edge,” Reppenhagen said. “There were no ties to 9/11, no weapons of mass destruction.”

Reppenhagen later started the first-ever antiwar blog, which was called “Fight to Survive.” It became a place where he and his fellow soldiers could share combat experiences with the world that would shape their view of the war and make the case for their outspoken opposition.

In one blog entry from November 13, 2006, a soldier who identifies only as “Hellblazer” wrote a detailed post about a skirmish that erupted in the city of Ba’Quba in 2004. After an hour of receiving gunfire from all sides and getting orders to “shoot anything the [sic] moved,” Hellblazer noticed an insurgent with an AK-47 run out from a corner across a nearby street. Despite Hellblazer’s chasing him with machinegun fire, the Iraqi made it to another corner and out of sight. But one of the targets in the gun’s wake was a trailer that had been riddled with Hellblazer’s bullets.

“Now falling out from behind this trailer was the body of a teenage boy. The void in his chest replaced what was once his heart and his body convulsed slightly as his nerve endings fired their last. His body lay there in the filthy dirty street, muddy water surrounding him from the drainage of the nearby houses … Nausea filled my stomach and a cold feeling overtook my flesh. How long had he been behind that trailer? Had he been there through the whole mess? Not to [sic] long afterwards, an older man emerged from around a corner, immediately collapsing nest [sic] to the young man’s body.”

– Excerpt from The Day That Haunts Me, by “Hellblazer”

During his 2011 lecture at Colorado College, Reppenhagen noted that 18 veterans commit suicide every day (now 22 veteran suicides per day), and that more veterans have committed suicide after returning from combat than have been killed while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined. He theorizes that atrocities like the Haditha massacre of 2005 and the slaughter of Iraqis at a canal in 2007 are perpetrated by veterans who have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury re-deploying again and again, making them less stable in battle.

Reppenhagen's theory was sadly and ironically proved by the death of famed "American Sniper" Chris Kyle. It wasn't an insurgent in a foreign battlefield who ended Kyle's life in February of 2013, but a traumatized veteran named Eddie Ray Routh, at a shooting range in Texas. In the June 2013 issue of The New Yorker, Routh was profiled as a troubled young man who succumbed to his inner demons after a tour of duty. His father recalled one telephone call from Iraq in which Routh hinted that he had killed a child.

“More veterans are killing themselves than are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Reppenhagen said in 2011. “You think they’re coming home because they’re proud of what they did? 3rd Brigade just came back to Fort Carson two weeks ago, and six of them killed themselves already.”

After his honorable discharge in 2005, Reppenhagen became the first active duty member of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW). Since then, IVAW has simultaneously become a vast antiwar movement and a support community for returning veterans who are proud of serving their country, but want to express their opposition to the acts carried out around the world in their name.

“There are ways to resist this war within army regulations. You still obtain your rights as a citizen,” Reppenhagen said at a lecture in March of 2008. “You’re able to use those rights, and you should, since you’re the one sacrificing to protect those rights. It’ll be a shame if the actual use of your First Amendment right becomes unpatriotic.”

Today, IVAW is in 48 states, Washington D.C., Canada, and military bases around the world, including Iraq. Its members advocate for full funding of the office of Veterans Affairs, full quality healthcare (including mental healthcare) and full benefits for veterans when they return from duty. While IVAW reaches out to returning veterans, Reppenhagen is quick to separate their methods of engagement from military recruiters.

“We’re not gonna come out and recruit soldiers and veterans. We’re not going to try to trick you into joining us. But we will ask you,” Reppenhagen said.

“There’s a lot of pride in joining our army, our corps,” he continued. “We can fight for a cause that will change America and the world for the better and stop these occupations.”



Carl Gibson, 27, is co-founder of US Uncut, a nonviolent grassroots movement that mobilized thousands to protest corporate tax dodging and budget cuts in the months leading up to Occupy Wall Street. Carl and other US Uncut activists are featured in the documentary We're Not Broke, which premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. Carl is also the author of How to Oust a Congressman, an instructional manual on getting rid of corrupt members of Congress and state legislatures based on his experience in the 2012 elections in New Hampshire. He lives in Sacramento, California.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Legalized Bribery Print
Tuesday, 27 January 2015 09:26

Teachout writes: "Under current law, campaign contributions are illegal if there is an explicit quid pro quo, and legal if there isn't. But legal campaign contributions can be as bad as bribes in creating obligations."

Speaker Sheldon Silver on Monday leaving his office in the Legislative Office Building. (photo: Nathaniel Brooks/NYT)
Speaker Sheldon Silver on Monday leaving his office in the Legislative Office Building. (photo: Nathaniel Brooks/NYT)


Legalized Bribery

By Zephyr Teachout, The New York Times

27 January 15

 

ast Thursday, Sheldon Silver, the speaker of the New York Assembly for the past 20 years, was arrested and charged with mail and wire fraud, extortion and receiving bribes. According to Preet Bharara, the federal prosecutor who brought the charges, the once seemingly untouchable Mr. Silver took millions of dollars for legal work he did not do. In exchange, he used his official power to steer business to a law firm that specialized in getting tax breaks for real estate developers, and he directed state funds to a doctor who referred cases to another law firm that paid Mr. Silver fees.

Albany is reeling, but fighting the kind of corruption that plagues not only New York State but the whole nation isn’t just about getting cuffs on the right guy. As with the recent conviction of the former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell for receiving improper gifts and loans, a fixation on plain graft misses the more pernicious poison that has entered our system.

Corruption exists when institutions and officials charged with serving the public serve their own ends. Under current law, campaign contributions are illegal if there is an explicit quid pro quo, and legal if there isn’t. But legal campaign contributions can be as bad as bribes in creating obligations. The corruption that hides in plain sight is the real threat to our democracy.

READ MORE


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
How Bernie Sanders, in New Role, Could Make Wall Streeters Very, Very Unhappy Print
Tuesday, 27 January 2015 09:14

Rabin-Havt writes: "Bernie Sanders, the United States senator from Vermont, plans on using his new position as ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee to take on too-big-to-fail financial institutions by advocating for their dissolution."

Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/AP)
Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/AP)


How Bernie Sanders, in New Role, Could Make Wall Streeters Very Unhappy

By Ari Rabin-Havt, The American Prospect

27 January 15

 

ig banks now have to contend with an old enemy in a new position of power.

Bernie Sanders, the United States senator from Vermont, plans on using his new position as ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee to take on too-big-to-fail financial institutions by advocating for their dissolution. Though a registered independent, Sanders caucuses with the Democrats, allowing him to assume the ranking member role representing the minority party.

While normally the domain of the Senate Banking Committee, the oversight of Wall Street, Sanders and his staff believe, is a critical budgetary issue. Democrats need to directly challenge Wall Street’s power, they assert, by boldly reframing the argument against the consolidation of financial institutions in terms of its cost to the national coffers. Though the term “ranking member” might not ordinarily have the barons of finance quaking in their custom-made oxfords, Sanders knows how to draw the media spotlight when advocating for a cause.

“Being the ranking member of the budget committee gives Senator Sanders the opportunity to say, look, people on food stamps didn’t cause the economic crisis, people that lost their jobs weren’t responsible for the economic crisis that we faced,” explained Warren Gunnels, director of the committee’s minority staff, during an interview in his office. “Average ordinary Americans weren’t responsible for the financial crisis we had.”

While centrist Democrats have expressed displeasure with progressives' forceful defense of regulations included in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Sanders plans on pushing the boundaries of the debate in the other direction. This potentially puts Sanders, who is seriously considering a run for the White House, in a head-on conflict with Hillary Clinton, Wall Street’s favorite presidential candidate.

As media types muse over Sanders’s prospective presidential campaign, the focus of the minority Budget Committee staff, hard at work in a corner suite on the sixth floor of the Dirksen Senate office building, is elsewhere. Such a run by the senator would no doubt shine a light on the mission he’s set before his committee staff, but the work in this office has no connection to that effort.

Packed boxes are stacked almost randomly as the staff focuses on more important matters—unpacking would be just a temporary process, anyway. Republicans, having won the Senate in the midterms, will take over the office in a few months after the rush of budget season subsides.

Warren Gunnels’s office has a sweeping view of the Capitol dome, but for most of the hour I spent speaking with him about Sanders’s plans for the upcoming Congress, the blinds remain closed.

Gunnels has worked for Sanders in a variety of capacities since 1999, journeying with the Vermonter from his House staff to his Senate staff, when Sanders won the office in 2006, and now to the Budget Committee. There Sanders has recruited a hard-charging group that is by far the most progressive of any committee on Capitol Hill. Instead of sulking in the Democrats’ new minority status, Sanders is preparing to use his staff to advocate aggressively on behalf of a progressive agenda.

Even late on a Friday afternoon, with the senator back in Vermont, there is a sense of hustle in the office, with several meetings taking place around desks.

Gunnels put the blame for our economic collapse squarely on Wall Street. “The people responsible for the financial crisis were the CEOs in charge of the largest financial institutions in this country,” he said. “That nearly drove the economy off a cliff. We are still paying for that today.”

One way to make sure the nation doesn’t approach that cliff again anytime soon is to reverse the consolidation of the big banks, Gunnels said.

“If we are serious about making sure the deficit doesn’t get out of hand, if we are concerned about protecting the homes [and] life savings [of Americans] and making sure that banks provide more affordable lending in the productive economy—and aren’t allowed to make risky bets using taxpayer money and the federally insured bank deposits of the American people,” Gunnels explained, “then we have to break up too-big-to-fail financial institutions so that they can’t put us into a situation like we found ourselves in 2008.”

Sanders, by reframing the financial crisis in budgetary terms, and using his platform as ranking member, opens up a new front in the debate over Wall Street, removing its oversight from the purely regulatory space. The argument over Wall Street’s proper role in the economy now becomes one about dollars and sense.

How much revenue was lost by the federal government due to the 2008 financial crisis? Sanders wants that question asked when Congress considers rolling back Dodd-Frank or discusses future reforms.

As part of that effort, Sanders and Gunnells hired Matt Stoller, a pioneering blogger and online organizer who served twice in the office of Representative Alan Grayson of Florida, where he worked on financial services issues, including the congressman’s audit-the-Fed legislation, and investigating foreclosure fraud.

Were Washington’s conventional wisdom your only guide, it would be easy to dismiss Bernie Sanders as a gadfly. But the Vermont progressive’s bipartisan track record of success challenges that notion.

In the last Congress, as chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, he teamed with John McCain, Republican of Arizona, to pass much-needed reforms to the scandal-wracked Veterans Administration. In two years marred by partisan recriminations and fighting, the Sanders-McCain bill passed the Senate 93-3 and was signed into law by the president. In crafting this legislation, Roll Call's Humberto Sanchez wrote that Sanders “bridge[d] Washington’s toxic partisan divide” calling it “one of the most significant deals in years."

The role of ranking member of the Budget Committee is one that can drastically change based on the personality and politics of the senator holding the position. Patty Murray, who left the Budget Committee to become ranking member of the Health Education Labor and Pension Committee, used her former position as committee chair (when the Democrats held the majority) to lead the negotiations with Paul Ryan that ushered in the end of sequestration.

Paul Ryan, as Republican chief of the House Budget Committee, used his position as a platform to push conservative policies on entitlements and taxes in the media.

Sanders is planning to fight for an aggressive and progressive agenda. Using the bully pulpit of his status as ranking member, he will push for a multipart agenda that, in addition to Wall Street reform, includes proposals for reducing unemployment, raising wages and thereby reducing income and wealth inequality, and expanding Social Security.

Before the new Congress officially began, Sanders announced that he will introduce a $1 trillion infrastructure bill “to rebuild crumbling roads and bridges and invest in other infrastructure modernization projects.”

The plan, according to Budget Committee minority staff, would “put 13 million Americans to work.”

Sanders’s focus on the unemployed reaches beyond simply lowering the conventional unemployment rate, termed U3 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Instead the mandate assigned to his Budget Committee staff is to focus on the category known as U6 unemployment, which includes discouraged job-seekers who have given up actively looking for work, as well as workers who would like employment but haven’t searched for a job recently, and part-time workers who would like full-time roles. Current U6 unemployment sits at 11.2 percent; while significantly lower than its recession peak of 17.1 percent, it remains uncomfortably high. Sanders also would like a greater focus put on joblessness among African Americans and young people, groups that suffer much higher rates of unemployment than the general public.

Sanders will also use his platform to look at the budgetary impact of certain trade treaties, most prominently the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).

To protect existing jobs, committee staff tells me that Sanders plans to examine the budgetary impacts of past trade deals to help make the case against the Trans Pacific Partnership and the granting of “fast track” authority to the president for such deals—authority that limits Congress's role in ratifying trade deals to a simple up-or-down vote, with no amendments, under severe time constraints. The senator's opposition to trade deals puts him out of step with the White House—which is aggressively lobbying for the fast-track authority that would clear the way for ratification of the Trans Pacific Partnership—but in sync with Minority Leader Harry Reid.

Reid, who calls Sanders “a passionate and tireless fighter for middle-class Americans,” has been a decades-long opponent of nearly every trade treaty that has come up for a vote in the Senate. (Disclosure: I served on the staff and as a consultant to Senator Reid from 2004-2008.)

The passage of free trade bills is one of the few issues where the White House is in direct agreement with Republican leaders in both chambers. Historically, the Senate is friendly to such treaties, making Sanders’s and Reid’s fight against TPP an uphill battle. But Sanders’s novel use of the Budget Committee provides a new battleground.

If there’s one indication of the radical new direction in which Sanders plans to take the Budget Committee, consider the most eye-popping minority staff hire so far. As his committee staff’s chief economist, Sanders chose Stephanie Kelton, a leading proponent of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). It was Kelton who coined the term “deficit owl,”—in contrast to “deficit hawks” and “deficit doves”—to describe those, like her, who “don’t concede we need to balance [the budget] at all,” according to the Washington Post’s Dylan Matthews.

Matthews writes that “owls” such as Kelton and the University of Texas’s James K.Galbraith “see government spending that leads to deficits as integral to economic growth, even in good times.”

The MMT has existed far outside the Overton window of fiscal policies pushed by either party. Galbraith described being “laughed at” by “hundreds” of “economists” during a panel at the White House in April of 2000 for his assertion that the surplus then run by the government posed a danger.

Reporters suggest the hiring of Kelton by Sanders was a move towards this school of economics.

Not so according to Sanders’s staff. Sanders does believe that deficits matter, they insist. When I raised MMT on two separate occasions, Sanders aides chafed at the notion, proclaiming their boss, far from an “owl,” is a “deficit hawk.”

Sanders, according to staff members, has a long history of taking stands against deficits—but in distinctly progressive terms. They cite rising deficits as part of the reasoning behind his opposition to the war in Iraq, his votes against the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, and his opposition to Medicare prescription drug coverage because the legislation did not allow program officials to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices.

But Sanders is not opposed to running deficits for spending that could produce future gains, such as new and rebuilt infrastructure, or to pull the nation out of economic downturns. This position is one articulated even by leaders of centrist Democratic institutions.

One strategic question that faces Sanders is whether to introduce his own budget. While no decision has been made yet, the Senate’s processes make it far less of a strategic imperative for the minority party to produce one than it is in the House of Representatives. There, during floor debate, amendments are restricted by the Rules Committee to whole budgets typically presented by different factions in the chamber—the Progressive Caucus, the Black Caucus, the Republican Study Committee, and others.

On the floor of the Senate, the budget process is open; hundreds of amendments submitted on their own merits, culminating in what’s known as a “voto-rama” that brings members of the chamber to the floor into the wee hours of the morning.

This provides Sanders or, in fact, any member of the Senate, the opportunity to introduce a slew of progressive amendments covering any pertinent issue. While some, on issues such as funding for infrastructure, might be added to a final bill by unanimous consent, others could create politically toxic votes for Republicans in blue states.

In many ways the Budget Committee is the ideal platform for Bernie Sanders, allowing him to use the implied power of the ranking member position to take a leadership role on a host of issues. For progressives this means having a Democratic committee chief willing to increase the volume of their voices by pushing the boundaries of acceptable policy debate in their direction.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Republican Candidates Descend on Iowa Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Monday, 26 January 2015 14:53

Borowitz writes: "Republican Presidential candidates descended on Iowa over the weekend, giving Iowans a rare opportunity to evaluate all thirty thousand hopefuls in one place."

Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin. (photo: AP)
Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin. (photo: AP)


Republican Candidates Descend on Iowa

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

26 January 15

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."

epublican Presidential candidates descended on Iowa over the weekend, giving Iowans a rare opportunity to evaluate all thirty thousand hopefuls in one place.

The candidates were a big hit with their G.O.P. audience, who attempted to determine which of the thirty thousand would do the best job of eviscerating Obamacare and deporting college students.

Attendees gave an especially warm welcome to the businessman Donald Trump, whose potential entry into the 2016 race would instantly raise the credibility of everyone else.

In a speech laden with red meat for the Republican faithful, Trump explained how his experience of hosting a reality TV show would prove invaluable in defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS).

But Iowans reserved their most enthusiastic response for Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who laid out an ambitious vision for depriving future generations of a living wage.

Asked how he hopes history will remember him, Walker said, “If I have my way, there will be no one teaching history.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Republican Abortion Bill Shows They Still Believe Many Women Lie About Rape Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=30488"><span class="small">Jessica Valenti, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Monday, 26 January 2015 14:38

Valenti writes: "During a time when sexual assault and the difficulty of reporting it is a central part of the national conversation, forcing women and girls to go to the police before they can access abortion makes Republicans seem even more out of touch with the issues women face than usual."

Representative Renee Ellmers. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Representative Renee Ellmers. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)


The Republican Abortion Bill Shows They Still Believe Many Women Lie About Rape

By Jessica Valenti, Guardian UK

26 January 15

 

‘Forcible rape’, ‘legitimate rape’ or ‘reported rape’: anti-abortion politicians remain anti-woman, and no female conservative is going to change that

n a move being credited to the wisdom of Republican women lawmakers, the House will not be voting on a sweeping 20 week abortion ban that only allowed for rape and incest exceptions if the victims reported their assaults to police. (Because Republicans know just how much women love to lie about rape and incest to get those sweet, sweet abortions!)

But before we pat all those kind, considered Republican women on the back for their reasoned withdrawal of support for a bill that would’ve made women file police reports 20 weeks after being assaulted in order to have the option of not being forced to have their rapist’s baby, let’s not forget that all of this is just political posturing. The bill – or even another, less extreme 20 week abortion ban – was unlikely to ever pass the Senate, and President Obama made clear that he would veto it if it did.

So backing off on yet another terrible anti-abortion bill – they tried this in 2011 with the “forcible rape” provisions in the Hyde Amendment renewal – is not a sign that Republicans will be more moderate with their future restrictions on reproductive rights, or that Republican women will be able to temper the radical anti-choice agenda of their party.

It’s great, sure, that Representatives Renee Ellmers and Jackie Walorski took their names off the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and that Ellmers also reportedly lobbied her female colleagues against the legislation. But I don’t believe this was some change of her anti-choice heart: more likely, she simply realized that the bill’s extreme requirements for rape and incest exceptions to the blanket ban wouldn’t exactly go over well with American women.

During a time when sexual assault and the difficulty of reporting it is a central part of the national conversation, forcing women and girls to go to the police before they can access abortion makes Republicans seem even more out of touch with the issues women face than usual. According to RAINN, 68% of sexual assaults aren’t reported to police, and numbers are even harder to come by for incest – where so often the victims are young girls.

Still, Republicans will now get to introduce and support anti-woman legislation, but they’ll have the advantage of appearing less radical than they are because they supposedly have a few “reasonable” women in the party keeping them in check on women’s issues. And any 20-week abortion ban is a bad thing for women, even without “forcible rape” or “reported rape” provisions.

Trotting out a few female Republicans and changing some words in a bill doesn’t change the reality of how the party feels about – or legislates – abortion; it just changes the optics. Republicans still want to deny people access to sex education, they still want to deny women access to contraception, they still want to prevent us from getting abortions and they still want to eliminate the Roe v Wade decision that protects our rights – and they want to do all of this despite the irreparable harm that it will cause American women.

The Republican women who forced House leadership to withdraw this one bill aren’t “reasonable” – they’re just smart enough to know that they need to shroud just how radically anti-woman their party really is. Good luck with that.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2571 2572 2573 2574 2575 2576 2577 2578 2579 2580 Next > End >>

Page 2577 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN