No New War in Iraq

I am 100% opposed to any new U.S. military intervention in Iraq.  My Democratic opponent is not. #NoNewWar

I call on my opponent to step up to his constitutionally mandated duty to vote on whether the country will go to war. I call on him and the rest of Congress to vote “NO” as a vote for peace, as I would. We can have peace, we ought to expect peace, and we should not accept anything but peace, not ever-greater destruction.  

The American people must have the opportunity to have their representatives openly debate this fool-hardy, disastrous course the military-industrial-political cabal is intent on forcing upon us. We have been down this road paved with lies from the warmongers before.

Since the war in Iraq has officially ended the President now has a constitutional requirement to ask Congress to vote on a declaration of war before sending any further armaments or military to Iraq. The original Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) in Iraq does not apply to this situation. Kevin Zeese, the Attorney General for the Green Shadow Cabinet, cites the relevant language:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. 

(a) Authorization.–The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to–

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. 

Zeese points out that:

It is a vast stretch to claim that Iraq poses any threat to the United States. Iraq does not have the capacity to threaten the United States. A change in government in Iraq does not change that basic reality. The U.S., with the most powerful military in the world history, is quite capable of defending itself against Iraq. Regarding the second clause, there are no current UN resolutions regarding Iraq that would authorize a military attack by the United States.

Beyond the U.S. Constitution and domestic law, there is international law to consider. Attacking another country with military force is the gravest crime a country can commit. A military attack is only allowed if authorized by the United Nations or if a country is under direct attack. Neither is true in the current situation in Iraq.

As your Green Party candidate for Congress I demand that the rule of law be respected: Congress, call for a vote on whether the country will go to war. President Obama, respect constitutional and international law. Pursue policies of peace, not war!

2 reactions Share

Join Me to Stop the TPP! Feb. 1

My opponent Mike Quigley recently stated his support for the TPP Race to the Bottom in Crain’s Chicago Business. Let’s let him know his position is unacceptable and voters have a Green Party progressive choice! 

Join me to show him what standing up for jobs and the environment looks like! We will have signs and a banner for Nancy Wade for Congress. 

When: Saturday. Feb. 1, 11:40 am

Where: Jonquil Park, 1001 W. Wrightwood at the intersection of Lincoln, Sheffield, and Wrightwood. We will march to Quigley's office nearby at 3223 N. Sheffield 

The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement is like NAFTA on steroids. It is a corporate coup negotiated in near-total secrecy, even from Congress, to undermine labor, the environment, and democracy. Obama wants it to pass on the Fast Track, an arrangement that bypasses Congress's constitutional right to approve trade treaties. 

 I support Fair Trade agreements that protect the labor, human rights, economy, environment and domestic industry of partner and recipient nations so that the growth of local industry and agriculture has the advantage over foreign corporate domination. Agreements that protect democracy not crush it. I oppose the TPP because it would further subjugate us to corporate power. See more at http://www.wadeincongress.org/blog. 

Thank you for your support for Wade In Congress!

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140102/BLOGS02/140109985/fight-builds-to-give-obama-fast-track-trade-authority

Add your reaction Share

Quigley Promises Not to Decide on Democracy-Busting TPP

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would grant enormous new powers to corporations, is a massive assault on democracy, says Public Citizen's Executive Director Lori Wallach. She has dubbed it “NAFTA on Steroids.” President Obama wants to use Fast Track authority to force a straight up-or-down vote without any amendments on this corporate coup d'etat – a document Congress has been forbidden from seeing. 

You might not have heard about the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, or TPP. That’s because the negotiations and the agreement itself have been shrouded in secrecy, even from the U.S. Congress. Yet the TPP is poised to usher in vast powers for corporations, powers that will override the laws of nations, including the U.S., and bring new corporate rights to undermine environmental and health laws, offshore millions of American jobs, flood the US with untested food products, extend the duration of medical patents, restrict Internet use, and much more.

I support Fair Trade agreements that protect the labor, human rights, economy, environment and domestic industry of partner and recipient nations so that the growth of local industry and agriculture has the advantage over foreign corporate domination. Agreements that protect democracy not crush it. I oppose the TPP because it would further subjugate us to corporate power.

Where does the 5th District incumbent stand on this threat to our jobs, health, environment, and democracy? If you’ve been reading this blog regularly I’ll bet you can guess.

In an effort to combat the TPP threat 151 House Democrats have signed the DeLauro-Miller letter opposing Fast Track and demanding more transparency on the proposed agreement. Mike Quigley is not one of them.  Instead, he has said in a public meeting when questioned on the TPP that he gave the White House his word that he wouldn't make up his mind on the TPP until the White House made a decision, TPP activist Jim Coleman reports.

In other words, Quigley is perfectly happy to give up his constitutional authority to regulate trade. He is unconcerned about an agreement that he has not seen but that would override his own authority to make laws and represent his constituents.

The DeLauro-Miller letter states, “we remain deeply troubled by the continued lack of adequate congressional consultation in many areas of the proposed pact”. And:

… the TPP FTA [Free Trade Agreement] will include binding obligations that touch upon a wide swath of policy matters under the authority of Congress. Beyond traditional tariff issues these include policies related to labor, patent and copyright, land use, food, agriculture and product standards, natural resources, the environment, professional licensing, state-owned enterprises and government procurement policies, as well as financial, healthcare, energy, telecommunications and other service sector regulations.

It goes on to re-assert the constitutional right of Congress to set the terms of trade.

Republicans have also recognized the threat Fast Tracking the TPP represents. Twenty-three of them have signed a letter by Walter Jones (R-NC) saying they do not agree to give their constitutional authority over trade agreements to the executive branch.

Let Mike Quigley know that his shameful unwillingness to stand up for his constituents is unacceptable. I will be in the primary election March 18, 2014. Vote for a progressive Green Party champion willing and able to stand up for the people of the 5th!

1 reaction Share

Humanitarian Aid to Syrians, Not Bombs

I am opposed to U.S. military intervention in Syria on practical and moral grounds. Unlike my opponent, I do not have to check with my donors in the military industrial complex before I take a principled stand. I would vote No when the House considers the President’s request to bomb Syria.

Read more
2 reactions Share

A Better Choice: Protect and Expand Social Security

I hear from time to time, “Why are you running against Quigley? He’s one of the better Democrats.”

To begin with, the expression “better” Democrats is debatable when all of them are answerable to their corporate donors before anyone else. However, if we accept for the sake of discussion that there are “better” Democrats, is Quigley one of them?

For instance, my opponent has been given the opportunity many times to publicly state that he will support Social Security. He hasn’t done it. 

The organization The Other 98% compiled a chart of how representatives stand on every major letter, resolution, or bill since 2010 opposing cuts to Social Security benefits—especially the chained CPI. The chart shows that Quigley has rejected seven public opportunities since 2010 to take a stand in favor of protecting  the most successful anti-poverty program in our nation’s history. He won’t protect Grandma.

I will protect seniors, but simply pledging not to cut Social Security is not enough. What our seniors need is an expansion of Social Security with a reduction in the retirement age. I propose setting the retirement age at 58, rather than pushing the retirement age ever higher. This will allow more of our young people to take the jobs vacated by seniors. The unemployment rate for youth is now 16.2 %, more than twice the rate for older workers. The biggest employer of our young people now is the military, which is entirely funded by tax dollars. The tax money spent to send our young people into harm’s way would be far better spent in respecting and supporting our seniors and making space in the job market for youth.

In addition, I propose increasing the benefits allocated to seniors by 10% for those whose incomes are up to three times the poverty level. Low income seniors must spend their money on everyday needs. Such an increase in benefits would not only increase their quality of life but be a boost to the economy since it would create a lasting demand for everything they need, from groceries to home repair. Funding this increase in benefits could come from a small tax on Wall Street speculation, which would generate $350 billion of in revenue every year.

It’s time to support a candidate who stands for progressive principles. My opponent stands for undermining the safety net for seniors. I stand for strengthening it in ways that also strengthen our country. We must invest in our youth and our seniors and thereby benefit our economy. Which choice is better is clear.

1 reaction Share

March with Nancy in Pride 2013

Join Team Nancy in the 2013 Pride Parade in Chicago this Sunday 6/30. Let us know you are coming on Facebook.

 Show your Green Party PRIDE by marching with us in the Chicago PRIDE parade on Sunday June 30!

Be sure to WEAR GREEN! We'll have signs on hand!

TIME: Meet at 11:15-11:30. Parade steps off at 12pm

PLACE: Meet at Sheridan and Sunnyside (WEST SIDE)

We are entry #10. Look for the Green Party signs and banners!

Green Party Pride Parade Day Contact:
Walter
walter@wadeincongress.org
773-609-5087

Add your reaction Share

Standing Against the Surveillance State

In my last blog post, entitled “Rep. Quigley Votes to Spy on You”, I pledged to stand against bringing blanket surveillance to this country. At that time, I believed, like most of us, that blanket surveillance had not yet come.

I was appalled that Mike Quigley had just voted in favor of CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act), thereby supporting snooping into all our emails, Internet searches, and Facebook posts. He voted to shred our constitutional right to be protected from unreasonable search.

It was bad enough for Mike Quigley to be in favor of Big Brother stalking our every move on the Internet. Now the courageous whistleblower Edward Snowden has outed the National Security Agency (NSA) for its surveillance of millions of Americans' cellphone calls and Internet use. Big Brother and blanket surveillance are here – and have been here for some time.

What is Mike Quigley’s response?

Silence.

Why isn’t Mike Quigley calling loudly for a Congressional investigation into the NSA? Why isn’t he proposing legislation to stop the NSA's apparatus of spying on every American?

How can he? He already voted in favor of it.

As your Representative I would call on Congress to protect our constitutional rights, to investigate NSA abuses.  That's what should be happening now in light of Edward Snowden's revelations.  But our current Congress is full of people, both Republicans and Democrats, who have no interest in upholding the Constitution and defending our rights.  If we want Washington to be accountable, we're going to have to remove the people from office who aren't interested in truly fighting for us.

We cannot allow the apparatus of oppression to stand unopposed and unquestioned. I will keep speaking out against the surveillance state.  The next time you see Mike Quigley or contact his office, ask why he supports blanket surveillance and why he doesn't support the Bill of Rights.  And then tell him that he's lost yet another vote – yours.

1 reaction Share

Rep. Quigley Votes to Spy on You

Imagine this: It’s worse than 1984.  Now Big Brother is in your computer. It’s 2013, and the U.S. Treasury, National Security Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security are monitoring and recording all your emails, Internet searches, and Facebook posts. Everything you read, write, and think about can be tracked by the government, without the permission of any court of law.

Let me be clear, this nightmare scenario has not yet actually come true. But the bill that would allow it to happen passed the House on April 18 and Mike Quigley, my opponent, voted for it. 

Read more
1 reaction Share

Tar Sands Oil Threatens Lake Michigan

The debate over the Keystone XL pipeline may seem distant. As it turns out, the threat is very immediate for us – if Canadian company Enbridge gets its way toxic tar sands oil could be spilled into Lake Michigan, from which we draw our drinking water.

Read more
1 reaction Share

Success for Wade In Congress!

We did it! We got close to 6% of the vote. This is a huge step forward for the Green Party in the 5th district. It means that instead of having to get 5,000 plus signatures of registered voters to get our candidate on the ballot we’ll only need a few hundred next election cycle. Piece of cake.

Read more
5 reactions Share

1  2  3  4  Next →