Action Alert: The Bills That Can End the War

I would add to David Swanson’s excellent summary below that Barak Obama Tuesday introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 Fact sheet here. http://obama.senate.gov/press/070130 obama_offers_plan_to_stop_escalation_of_iraq_war_begin_phased_redeployment_of_troops/index.html The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

Suggested Actions:

Rep. Raul Grijalva, CD 7, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Out of Iraq caucus (65 members), is working hard on our behalf to end this occupation. He is listed as a cosponsor on Woolsey’s HR 508, but not yet on Nadler’s bill, HR 455. You can call his Tucson office ( (520)622-6788) to register your thanks for his work and his cosponsorship of Rep Woolsey’s bill, and to ask him to also cosponsor Nadler's HR455. Both bills are referred to the House Armed Services Committee,

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, CD8, sits on the House Armed Services Committee. Please call her office ( 520) 881-3588 ) and urge her to vote the bills out of committee and onto the floor of the house when they come up for review. Please also urge her to cosponsor at least one of the three house bills David Swanson discusses below, and to join the Out of Iraq Caucus. She has said publicly that we must get out of Iraq, a surefire applause line in CD8. Joining the Out of Iraq caucus is how she can help make that happen.

Rep. Ed Pastor, CD 4, also a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is a member of the House Appropriations Committee. He voted against the initial Resolution approving the war in Iraq, but has not yet joined the Out of Iraq caucus Please urge him to do so, and to work with the OOI caucus to support rep. Nadler’s bill as an amendment to the supplemental spending bill when it comes before the committee. (602) 256-0551

gerry

The Bills That Can End the War
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/nadlerbill
By PDA Board Member David Swanson

Summary

Senator Feingold held a hearing on the topic yesterday and plans to introduce a bill today to end the war by denying the President the money to continue it. http://feingold.senate.gov/issues_redeploy_factsheet.html Congress Members Lynn Woolsey, Jim McGovern, and Jerrold Nadler have bills in the House to do the same. But the bills are not all the same.

Congressman Nadler's bill, H.R. 455, crafted as an amendment to a supplemental spending bill, may very well be the best crafted piece of legislation. If the supplemental cannot be voted down, this bill can be added to the supplemental, thus making a yes vote on the supplemental a vote to end the war this year. Bush would have a choice between signing a bill to end the war, vetoing a bill providing the money he needs to continue the war, or going outside the rule of law in a manner that even Congress might be disturbed by.It does not cut off funding. Rather, it limits what any Iraq funding can be spent on to : (A) the continued protection of members of the Armed Forces who are in Iraq pending their withdrawal ; and (B) the safe and orderly withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq pursuant to a schedule that provides for commencement of the withdrawal not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and completion not later than December 31, 2007.

McGovern's bill includes exceptions for guarding the embassy and for the Army Corps of Engineers that Nadler should add to his. McGovern's bill is here: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/mcgovernbill No number yet.

Woolsey's bill includes provisions for a range of needs, including health care for our veterans. Woolsey's bill is a complete plan for Iraq, and therefore immune from numerous criticisms and subject to numerous criticisms. You can read about it at
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/woolseybill

check out Nancy Hill's blog from DC buildpeace

a full account of a Code Pink day at the capital. With pictures! http://buildpeace.blogspot.com/

some highlights:

Medea arrested
Medea Benjamin and six others were arrested this morning for disturbing the peace in Hillary Clinton's office. They wove a symbolic web of lies told by Hillary. Scissors (pink and made of cardboard) were offered to her staff if she would cut the web.

think about it
Pretend you are going to spend the next three weeks of your life in Washington D.C. engaging in actions to end war. Think about what you are willing to do. Now think about the 4th week, when the bombing will likely start against Iran. Think about the 100-or so-thousand human beings whose lives are going to be vaporized. Think about the 10’s of 100,000’s of human beings whose lives will be in grave danger, the pain and the suffering of nuclear burns.

NOTES FROM GABBY’S folks.
She ran as a progressive , why hasn’t she joined the progressive caucus? What is she doing in the next two weeks to stop the illegal nuclear weapon use of the US on Iraq in three weeks? We have to observe the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

A hilarious accont of banner droppers in the atrium of the Hart building.

yagottagoreadit

Meeting with Karin Uhlich, Tucson City Councilwoman

Had a productive meeting with Karin yesterday, inviting her to join with us in conversation about what the city council is up to and where they need a little extra push from community activists. She was excited to hear about our citizen articipation groups.
She says she feels good that in this year they have been able to push back at the devlopers and establish real waterway protections and impact fees that mean somethiing. Since I don't live in the city, i will have to trust her on that.

If anyone is interested in forming a citizen participation group around city issues, please let me know.

I told her that in a month or two, we might want to have her talk with our group, to let us understand what the issues are from her point of view, before the city council elections later this year. Her seat is not up for reelection this year, so it would not be a campaign stop.

Barbara Lee to visit Arizona

No details yet, but it seems that Rep Barbara Lee, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and founder of a new caucus, the Up from Poverty Caucus in the House, is coming to Arizona! see www.pdamerica.org See other coverage there of the weekend’s activities including th3e lobbying day yesterday. Sounds like a great time was had by all – even to a Code Pink "street theater protest in the atrium of the Hart Senate office building, with unfurled banners and streamers and “Stop the Funding" chanting and conga-line." tres cool.

At the bottom of a Jan 30 article on the PDA homepage titled AntiWar Activists Transform the Halls of Congress, please let me quote: “All day long, PDA members, leaders and staffers pushed Democratic Congressional offices to bring our troops home and move toward a cutoff of funds – by supporting H.R. 508, and by rejecting the upcoming White House request for $100 billion more in supplemental appropriation for Iraq war-making. We met with a number of Congress members personally, including Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Bob Filner (D-CA).

The day ended with 15 state and national PDA leaders (from Maine and Massachusetts to South Carolina to Arizona, Utah and California) gathering for a special “thank-you” meeting with our board member Barbara Lee, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. PDA activists thanked Rep. Lee for her courageous leadership -- not just on ending the war, but on other progressive measures from single-payer national health insurance to poverty.

Lee recently formed the Up from Poverty Caucus in the House. Lee, in turn, thanked PDA for building grassroots activism in support of Congressional progressives; she’ll be featured at an upcoming PDA event in Arizona and will be joining with PDA in San Diego in April at the California Democratic Convention. “

Let’s make sure that Arizona includes Tucson!

Update from John Brakey

Action Alert - The suit Pima County Dems voted to support at the County organizing meeting last month, to demand records the county is denying access to, around the early reports pulled from early ballot data, may be filed this Wednesday. Hang on to your hats! John and Bill Reisner will be speaking at the County Board of Supervisors Wed, 1/31. Around 2:30 PM. Two supervisors, Dem Richard Elias (D) and Ray Carroll (R) are working with EIC, and they should be thanked. The others must be lobbied.

Flash - Brad Friedman form Bradsblog (http://www.bradblog.com/ ), a leader in reporting on election integrity issues nationally, will be in Phoenix to do two radio shows on AA PHXon Thursday and Friday, and may be in Tucson on Wednesday. Save Wednesday evening just in case, and if you can attend the County supes this week, please do so.

John reports that the practice of pulling early reports of vote by mail (VBM) ballots, probably to indicate where to fight and put extra funds and where to save money, has been going on at least as far back as Tom Volge’s support for clean elections. Tom never won an election after that, John believes he was was targeted for his support.

Four hours after pulling that report in the 2006 election, the R’s put out that voter robocall that the Democratic Party was pulling its support for Ted Downing, working hard to take him out over election integrity. Luckily, it takes more than a lost election to stop Ted! John does not know yet whether John Kyle pulled money he had planned to spend in Pima County when he discovered the balloting was going his way.

Just in...Finally, David Waid and Donna Branch Gilby are carrying a friendly amendment authored by AUDITAZ and others, putting extra power into the DNV election integrity resolution, when they go to DC later this week for the DNC quarterly meeting.


Thanks to everyone for their work.

The Virtual Iraq Veterans Memorial

The Iraq Veterans Memorial
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/actnow?bid=4&pid=158679
Filmmaker Robert Greenwald has just announced the formation of the Iraq Veterans Memorial. This living online tribute to US soldiers killed in Iraq will bear witness with 60-second video testimonies of family, friends, co-workers, and military colleagues of those killed. The memorial will be unveiled on March 19th--the war's fourth anniversary--across the internet.
Please contact him with any stories you have to add. gerry

Nancy Hill in DC for a month. Blogging on buildpeace.

Nancy will be sharng at http://buildpeace.blogspot.com/
Stop by and visit.

John Braky: Clean elections fuel party expansion - don't have to fund local candidates

Thanks to Clean Elections, the AZ Democratic Party is no longer only a candidate-based party led by special interests. Clean Elections has empowered grassroots activists. Previously, anyone wishing to have a serious run for office had to be anointed by the Party Machine or grab the label and ran; then, become obligated to big business to get funding to run. Now activists can recruit candidates from within their ranks. Any activist can run for office because they don't need the blessing or approval of the Party to do so.

Before Clean Elections, Democrats only came together around election season and our goals were always short-sighted. Now, we have become a year-round Party that helps develop activists and recruit candidates. The shift to year-round party activism has allowed us to expand the scope of our work. In particular, we have been able to establish an Elections Integrity Committee that conducts examinations and audits of election processes, uncovering sloppiness and breakdowns in security, voting records chains-of-custody, and actual breaches of the law. Clean Elections has allowed us to engage in much-needed everlasting watchfulness to ensure that every voter can vote and every vote is counted.

What we all are doing in the Arizona Democratic Party needs to be better understood from within, analyzed, further developed, defined, bottled and exported to other states. "Arizona Clean Elections" and "Election Integrity" are connected at the hip in our party.

We are now a party that knows the real value that "Clean Elections" brought to our table and now, how Election Integrity is connected to "Clean Elections". Our state party Elections Integrity Committee, (EIC) also must be expanded to include our 6,000 Democratic poll workers state wide. Our party job is to oversee the total elections process and be that vigilance.
We even could appoint all of our poll workers and etc, etc, etc.

Best regards to all and THANK YOU!!

John R Brakey, Special Task Force Leader of Arizona Democratic Party
Election Integrity Committee and Co founder; Americans United for Democracy
Integrity and Transparency in Elections - AUDIT-AZ

AZ Legislature: Urge reps, please ratify the ERA

This looks like something for our legislative action committees? gerry

Dear Editor;

A bill to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment in the U.S. Constitution has been entered in the Arizona Legislature. It is sponsored by Sen. Meg Burton Cahill and Rep. Ed Ableser. It will take only three more states to make ERA an amendment to the Constitution. Due to the precedent that the 27th Amendment was ratified 203 years after introduction, it was decided there could be no deadline. In 1982 there were 35 states that had ratified ERA before that deadline. Arizona is one of the 15 states that could put it over. It would certainly be national headlines if Arizona were one of the three needed to ratify. Maybe we could change the national perception that we are a backward redneck state, and it would increase conventions in Arizona.

I had no idea when I started working for the ERA in 1972 when Congress approved it that I might not live to see the results of our labor. It took 100 years to get the 19th Amendment, women’s right to vote. Many of the suffragists, of course, didn’t get to see the victory. Alice Paul, who wrote the ERA in 1923, died in 1977. At least she finally saw Congressional passage. We’re closing in on 100 years for this effort to get rights for women into the Constitution the second time. Why?

The ERA is the same simple one sentence: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex”. The word ‘sex’ means gender. ‘The law’ is the Constitution. The ERA simply says that the rights contained in the Constitution apply equally to men and women. There are situations where men are discriminated against also.

With wild extrapolations there were many myths created in the 70’s and I’ve heard them all today. There was the fear that unisex toilets would be required. I don’t recall seeing anything in the constitution about toilets. We have had them for some time on airplanes and other places. The ones in my home seem to work just fine. The right to privacy protects us on this issue. Some complained that women would be drafted, but Congress already has that power. The power in the Constitution to raise armies does not specify gender or age. Some even think that ERA would have something to do with abortion or homosexuality. These are not gender issues. In cases where people have tried to use equality for these issues, have been thrown out of court. The 14th Amendment has been cited as a reason ERA isn’t needed. It was passed to insure that former slaves were given equal protection under the law, but it didn’t even include black women, let alone all women. Then there are those who say ERA is not needed because there are laws that protect women. Laws can be overturned, eroded, misinterpreted, and amended – even by one vote. Equality of women and men is a fundamental human right and should be codified in our Constitution.

An independent national poll was taken by Opinion Research Corporation. To the question ‘should male and female citizens of the United States have equal rights?’ The total for ‘Yes’ of men and women was 96%. Another question, ’should the Constitution make it clear that male and female citizens are supposed to have equal rights?’ The total ‘Yes’ for men and women was 88%. 72% thought it already was in the Constitution. Why is there any controversy??

Is your legislator supporting the ERA? I have been helping get signatures for this bill at the Legislature. I have heard the myths. Rep. Russell Pearce said that it would create “preferential treatment” for women. DUH! What does the word ‘equality’ mean? I have been telling them that they are either for equality or for discrimination. There is no middle ground. Half of the voters who elected these people want their rights. Find out where your three legislators stand. Then vote accordingly next election.

Carolyn Maxon
Scottsdale
President, Phoenix Branch AAUW

Plea from Joyce: Urge Giffords to support HR 508: Troops Home

 If you're in d. 8, please visit, call or email rep. giffords to urge her to co-sponsor and vote for rep lynn woolsey's (d-ca) HR 508, The Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act NOW!
and even if you're not, it affects all of us, so call or email anyway .
 
the text of HR 508 is on the pda website:
http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/news/2007-01-17-22-20-47-news.php
 
raul and 26 others are co-sponsoring it as of now.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h508:
 
giffords' email website: http://giffords.house.gov/IMA/issue_subscribe.htm

Tucson Congressional Office
1661 North Swan
Suite 112
Tucson, AZ 85712
Phone:(520) 881-3588
Fax: (520) 322-9490

Thank you. Joyce Smith

June Wortman to GV News: More demonstrations feb 14 and 24

January 28, 2007

Dear Editor,

Thank you for not only covering the Peace Demonstration yesterday, January 27, but for being there to observe for yourself.

I do not understand your editorially expressed concern about violence that might develop from such demonstrations. In my memory, the only violence that resulted from peace demonstrations was violence perpetrated by the police. The incident in Chicago, years ago, and incidents in New York occurred when the police cordoned off the demonstrators into small isolated areas, rushed them with guard dogs, water-hosed them, and other rough tactics, shackled them and took them to jail. . The same was true of the early peace walks in Selma, Alabama. Even today, through the CIA's monitoring of peace groups such as American Friends Service Committee, and the spying on emails that the Bush administration has been doing without court permission, "peace- nicks" are still being treated like criminals, and terrorist threats, and are often called terrorist sympathysers in the conservative press. So why are you worried about violence from the peace-loving people? Why not worry more about the possibilities of our moving toward an abusive police state?

Do we not have the right, in our Constitution, to protest against government policy without being considered sedition or traitorous? The Declaration of Independence even presents the rights of citizens to over-throw the government.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I hope your concern about future violence, and implication of blaming the peaceful demonstrators, will not frighten and intimidate people from continuing to participate in peaceful demonstrations. Your continued coverage should help to present the facts of such demonstration, whatever occurs The courts, I am sure, will continue to uphold, as they have in the past, the right to peaceful demonstration, and dismiss charges that are brought against whose only crime has been to be present at such demonstrations.

We do plan to have more such peaceful demonstrations, one on Wednesday, February 14 at 10:00am - "Make Love, Not War" on Valentines Day, and another on Saturday, February 24 at 1:00pm, both at the same location, Esperanza and La Canada Blvds. Anyone wanting information can contact JunesRag@cox.net or call 520-648-5877. We will continue them until or government gets out of Iraq and ends our military interference in the Middle East, a policy that the majority of American citizens support, according to the last election and the opinion polls. All are welcome to participate in these non-politically sponsored events.

Yours in hope and peace, June Wortman

Randy Pullen, (Yes on 200 chair) has just been elected AZ Republican Party chair.

Tedski (Rum, Romanism, Rebellion) just reports that Randy Pullen, (Yes on 200 chair) has been elected Republican Party chair.

Randy Pullen - 408
Lisa James – 404

Why should we care? It indicates the same folks who brought us Randy Graf and Captain Al are consolidating their hold on the Republican Party.

Here’s what Tedski said on the 23rd:

“A Republican State Committeeman has a choice on Saturday: either Lisa James, who promises to keep the same cadre of consultants and hangers on that have lost them two governor’s races in a row or they can choose Randy Pullen, a man who seems bound and determined to alienate large parts of both the fundraising base and the electorate.
I love it!”

To read more about Pullen, go here. http://www.pullenforchair.com/

or google

Another take on progressivism

Thanks for starting us off, Salette.
I have a different take, and I love that we could actually engage in a discussion at this level. Hope someone joins us.
The liberal/conservative continuum, when it's boiled down, seems to me is an economic continuum, from socialism to robber baron capitalism. It deals with the social contract around resources, how they are earned, how they are distributed. The basic values tension is whether the "free market" should determine the fate of individuals, each competing in their own selfish interest to grab as much as they can, or whether more sucessful people should be forced to take care of "those less fortunate" through the government (taxes), and to what extent.

Conservatism here says the poor are poor because they are lazy and thriftless, and somehow have not properly employed their bootstraps, with which everyone is equally endowed. It simplistically ignores differences in opportunity and capacity. Unfettered, it believes in funneling all resources to the private sector, ignoring the interest of the public in those resources. In truth, while they claim to enjoy an unregulated market, the market is highly regulated to favor the wealthy.

On the other hand, liberalism responds with the notion, "from each according to their ability, to each according to his (her) need," and the liberal fights for the government to assure the basic wellbeing of all the people, through taxation and regulation, making it comfortable for some people to get by without much bootstrap-pulling going on. It simplistically ignores questions around what motivates people to do what’s uncomfortable or disagreeable, or why anyone would bother to get ahead. All of us know people who won’t work for fear of jeopardizing their disability check, even if their lives would be much better with a decent salary.

I don't want to dwell on this axis of experience. It is absolutely still relevant to decisions today, but it does not define a progressive. Ted Kennedy today on YouTube was magnificent in defending the working men and women who produce our wealth as he fought that the Senate might actually vote on increasing the minimum wage. This is the government acting to assure the wellbeing of the powerless.

Most progressives would believe that both the individual and the commons hold economic responsibilities toward each other, that corporations and consumers ought to fairly pay the full and actual cost of production, and most progressives believe that we should pay for things collectively as we go along in a way that sustains our society for the long run and keeps us self-sufficient.

I would argue that modern progressivism is on a whole different continuum, a “y” axis if you will rather than an “x axis.” In fact, a person could plot his or her position any given day on each axis and come pretty close to predicting their stand on any issue.

For me this axis relates to the social contract around distribution of "rights and powers," in which economic resources are but one factor. And on this continuum, progressives tend to side with Thomas Jefferson, that all power is inherent in the people, and that the government works for the people who vote for them and pay their salary, and that each human being is endowed with inalienable rights and we include in that our undeniable responsibilities toward future generations and Mother Earth.

We speak of ideas of "fairness," "honesty," “equality,” "respect," “responsibility,” "balance," "justice," “human rights,” “human dignity,” “neighborliness,” ideals that had little context in the old discussion of social darwinism vs the nanny state. But these are the ideals of small town America and we can call them up in people.

We intuitively resonate to Howard Dean’s cry for we the people to “take our country back,” we idealize the equality (and the pragmatism) of a 50 state strategy (however imperfectly carried out), we shudder at human rights abuses anywhere in the world, we rebel at the way wealth buys power in this country, and in our own party, and we resent the taxing authority squandering our money and our kids lives without our OK. Taxation without representation is again a rallying cry.
Progressivism grows out of a concerted response to the neocon philosophy, which is held by many powerful people on both sides of the aisle. The neocons believe in elitism as an article of faith, consciously build aristocracies especially of wealth, and believe a select few elite rightly know what’s good for everyone (I’m the decider.”), and the elite is in fact obliged to provide “noble myths” (LIES) to assure a “stable” (COMPLACENT) society. (Leo Strauss)

Leo Strauss and his neocons, believe that nothing could ever eradicate the basic evil in man, expressed in dangerous (sexual) hedonism, to be rigidly controlledby a strong authority, while progressives tend to trust the collective wisdom and basic goodness of ordinary people to make things right. And we all have a little of that neocon in us, if we will but look in the mirror.

Progressives would argue that you don’t sell your birthright as a free citizen to the wealthy or the powerful in order to stay alive, and that even the poorest among us have equal standing before the law, or should have, a level playing field of education and opportunity, and an equal say as to what happens in the commons.
Neocons would hold that by birthright some men (and some countries) are more equal than others, that the elitist social order is to be protected and expanded, that the commons should be privatized and removed from the control of the people, and that really only the elite need to be educated.

Progressives dream of a future sustainable world that offers dignity and equal opportunity to all – a life-friendly world. Neocons dream of a world they can dominate that maintains their social standing.

What are Progressives?

Progressivism is a political movement that seeks to secure justice for the governed. It has its own history, its own culture, and its own politics in America. Its accomplishments include
emancipation, universal adult suffrage, and better conditions for workers.

Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, kept corporate power in check and expanded rights for ordinary citizens. Later progressives helped the United States to become the leader of the free world.

Today, the progressive movement is associated with:

• economic justice reforms that seek to end the domination of public policy by corporations
  
• the advancement collective bargaining and the right to work for a living wage
  
• fair distribution of the tax burden
  
• fair distribution of government resources to put the needs of ordinary citizens first
  

Progressives believe that the needs of ordinary citizens should be the priority in public policy. Progressivism is pragmatic. It's driven by the American values that have made our country stronger and better. Progressives believe we have the tools to make this nation’s future brighter for all.

Progressivism isn't necessarily the same as liberalism. Progressivism is an attitude towards politics that goes beyond the ideologies of liberalism vs. conservatism.

Liberals promote social justice, sometimes without addressing the underlying economics. Liberals value individual freedom, democratic government, freedom of thought and belief, and equal opportunity. Liberals believe that problems can be solved through government intervention.

Progressives seek systemic change or reform, with an emphasis on economic justice. Progressivism is about the ultimate American ideals of pragmatism and fairness. Progressives see the world as it is, ever-evolving, and choose the best course of action in line with their values.

Progressives encourage personal and moral responsibility, and promote respect for ethical values. They see government intervention as one solution among many. They understand that government can be force for good, but they believe that ordinary citizens can use both public and private tools to solve problems.

One reason that people sometimes equate progressivism and liberalism is that progressivism is grounded in liberal values and ethics. It’s driven by a desire to promote fairness, human well-being, and opportunity. Progressives believe in maximizing human freedom and helping society (and its individual members) achieve their full potential.

Progressives are also inherently democratic. They believe in participation and leadership for all Americans. Power, wealth, and information must flow freely, rather than be concentrated in the hands of a few, so that all citizens can contribute.

The progressive movement within the Democratic Party offers an overarching vision on core issues on which all of us can agree because they affect us all.

Progressives believe in:

• The rule of law
  A secure nation that protects its citizens and respects the sovereignty of other nations
  
• Living wages and fair working conditions
  
• Public office-holders who serve the best interests of ordinary citizens instead of the corporations and the very wealthy
  
• The separation of church and state, including not only freedom of religion, but freedom from religion
  
• Universal healthcare
  
• The right of every person to control his or her own body
  
• Public education from preschool through community college
  
• Helping children and older adults in need of basic services for survival
  
• Protecting the environment
  
• Protecting consumers from harmful products
  
• A progressive tax policy where corporations and citizens pay their fair share based on their income to fund the basic functions of government
  
• A nation that lives within its means and renounces deficit spending
  

This is not extremism. This is life lived with American values and economic justice. This is the center of the Democratic Party.