Last night, the House Rules Committee met to determine which of the 241 offered amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would be considered. The committee ruled the McGovern/Jones amendment out of order, preventing it from coming to the House floor for a vote. The amendment would have required the U.S. to expedite the transition out of Afghanistan, end combat operations no later than December 2013 and ensure a limited or nonexistent U.S. military presence in Afghanistan after December, 2014. Last year, Representatives Jim McGovern (MA) and Walter Jones (NC) offered a similar amendment, which failed by a hair: 204-215. It was the most impressive display of congressional opposition to the war to date. This year, the amendment’s rejection by the Rules Committee was an indication that it would have likely passed had it seen the House floor. Rep. McGovern, a member of the Rules Committee, protested the decision for over an hour at the Rules Committee meeting late last night.

Despite poll after poll showing overwhelming public support for ending the war in Afghanistan across all party affiliations, the Rules Committee made the political choice to avoid this telling vote during an election cycle. Representatives whose constituents have been calling for the war to end now won’t have to make the choice between representing their war-weary constituents and acquiescing to a powerful, over-funded Pentagon.

Show your representative that there is public support for peace. The Rules Committee has allowed floor time for one of three possible Afghanistan-related amendments that FCNL was following. Representative Barbara Lee (CA) will be allowed to offer an amendment calling for funds for a safe and orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces and contractors from Afghanistan, similar to H.R. 780. The House will be debating and voting on the NDAA today: call your representative today and ask for their support for Rep. Lee’s amendment.

One of the chief difficulties in addressing climate change is that we are all complicit in the propagation of the warming of our world. Even those of us who are seriously concerned about this issue play a substantial role in the problem.

I ride my bike to work as often as I can, but my bike tires and even much of my clothing comes from foreign factories powered by coal fired furnaces. According to Scientific American, Producing the annual beef diet of the average American emits as much greenhouse gas as a car driven more than 1,800 miles. Just being alive in the first world and reaping the benefits of the free market and all of the infrastructure that supports it makes it dang near impossible to live a life that is entirely removed from industrial carbon cycles.

We must act humbly, but with purpose. None of us are innocent, but the whole of humanity is charged with the responsibility of doing better. The hard fact is that the world will become warmer. Retroactively reducing atmospheric CO2 content to preindustrial levels is no longer an option. People will die of hunger, thirst, heat exhaustion, extreme weather events and in myriad resource shortage conflicts. People already do worldwide, everyday. But the frequency and severity of these events will increase in direct proportion with warming trends.

Another maddening facet to the overall problem is that despite our knowledge of these trends (and lets be clear, climate change is no longer conjecture) the American taxpayer still funds infrastructure projects and resource extraction methods that take us backward in time.

During the first quarter of 2012, the Big Five oil companies earned a combined $33.5 billion, or $368 million per day. Fossil fuels are subsidized at nearly 6 times the rate of renewable energy in the United States. Americans pay Oil Companies to do their jobs, in what is already the most profitable industry in the world. Think about that for a moment.

The U.S. is the only country in the developed world without a comprehensive climate change plan. American taxpayers fund dirty energy technology that not only endangers human health and the environment, but puts us behind even developing nations with the governmental wisdom to fund renewable, clean technologies that, in the long run, will be incalculably more cost effective.

Civilization is where it is today, in large part, because of fossil fuels and internal combustion. Ironically, these resources and technology now threaten the quality of life they have provided us in the past. We are all responsible for the problem we face, and we must all do what we can to address it. Repealing fossil fuel tax breaks, loopholes and special financing is the most logical place to start. Please read about the "End Polluter Welfare Act," bill number S.3080, and urge your members of congress to be an original co-sponsor.

I was sitting on the metro listening to a little boy of 10 or 11 years old talk about how he wanted to be a pilot when he grew up. It struck me that the U.S. has been at war the entire time this little boy has been alive and if he has lived in the DC area all of his life I am sure he has seen plenty of military propaganda.

I do not presume to know anything of this child's life but the unfortunate fact is that funding for his education, any welfare his family receives through cash assistance, food assistance, or Medicaid are all in jeopardy of being cut to fund a grotesquely over-funded military. Just yesterday the House approved a bill that cuts $310 billion-mostly from poverty assistance programs-to pay for automatic spending cuts to the Pentagon that are scheduled to occur next year.

Aside from that, if this little boy grows up and joins the Air Force as he says he wants to he could potentially pay the most tragic price with his life or health by simply flying a faulty air craft. The F-22 is the most expensive fighter jet ever produced, yet the jet still suffers basic design problems that endanger pilots. Lockheed Martin, the principle producer of the F-22 Raptor has done rather well for itself with profits of $3.8 billion in 2010. Not too shabby for a company making a faulty device. Aside from general waste, this is another example of how our money is not being spent wisely for the Americans at home or those in the military.

But what about the jobs that Lockheed Martin and the military provide? This is the argument repeated time and time again in relation to military cuts. However, I would like to point out that spending on other government programs such as education, food stamps, infrastructure, and more both create jobs and give direct benefits to a struggling economy at the same time.

I do not need to tell you that the military-industrial complex is running rampant in the U.S. and seems to be growing in power and influence by the day. The sheer size of our military compared to the next biggest military alone shows the beast for what it is.

However, if deficit reduction and getting the economy moving is really the goal of this Congress, shouldn't they be looking in the most obvious spot for savings? What about the future of the little boy I saw on the metro? Will he have an education that allows him to get the job he needs to support himself? Will he get the adequate nutrition and healthcare needed for proper development? This, my friends is the trillion dollar question. What are our values as a nation? What we choose-to pay for fancy fighter jets or meals for hungry children-says something important about our values as a country.

Bitumen rich tar sand mining is one of the most environmentally dangerous energy resource extraction processes in existence. In recent months, I have written many blog posts about the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline which would transport sands for refinement from the Athabasca region of Alberta down through the heartland of the United States to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico.

In a time when corporate structures have the same rights as individuals, it is even more important for individuals to make their voices heard. Our tax code already supplements big oil’s annual profits with disturbing amounts of tax payer money in the form of subsidies. On top of that, The Hill reports that “the Pentagon pays an average of $400 to put a gallon of fuel into a combat vehicle or aircraft in Afghanistan.” Guess who pays for that? That’s right, you and I do.

We must re-evaluate our country’s dependence on fossil fuels. All of the money that big oil receives annually could be re-allocated to incentivizing alternative energy resources. Imagine what that would do not only for environmental purity, but also for our government’s fiscal concerns. Although a monumental task, redefining energy sourcing and infrastructure financing is a process that America won't be able to avoid in the future. That task is one that many countries worldwide have been working hard on for years now, and it is paying off. Make no mistake, the money is there. The real problem is changing the priorities that determine where money streams flow, particularly where Washington is the point of origin.

There are many viable alternative energy technologies available for implementation. China’s solar industry is so heavily subsidized by its government that the Chinese solar industry controls the international solar market. If China can do it, can the wealthiest country in the world do it? You bet.

Bitumen sands aren’t likely to go away without a serious fight from well educated citizens. A company in Utah will likely be employing the same technology that Transcanada does for oil sands extraction in the U.S. It is likely that the pro fossil fuel jobs and domestic energy security rhetoric will be at work in Utah as well. Many already understand that true security comes from supporting clean industries that will provide good, long term jobs that do not endanger the water, air and soil that support American lives. And there is even more good news on this front.

There is a wealth of pro-fossil fuel mis-information linking jobs and energy security to public opinion. However, this recently released poll from the Yale and George Mason climate change communication programs is revealing.

Brigadier General Jonathan Gensler, a fellow at the Truman National Security Project claims, “the longer the United States remains dependent on fossil fuels – no matter where it comes from– the longer our nation’s security will be vulnerable.”

There is growing understanding of just how deeply the misinformation behind big oil has penetrated our Nation’s psyche. Speak to your friends and family, write a blog, call your representative and ask them to oppose the Keystone XL permit amendment to the surface transportation bill, or write a letter to the editor of a local paper. Do what you can because big oil will do everything they can to make sure that their profits go unchecked, and that the U.S. remains the only country in the developed world that does not have a comprehensive climate change strategy.

The 48 Hour Prayer Vigil to bear witness to the injustice of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law began on Monday outside of the U.S. Supreme Court with a press conference. In front of the media and a group of faithful witnesses, faith leaders prophetically called on the Supreme Court Justices to rule the Arizona anti immigration law SB1070 as unconstitutional. They referenced Micah’s call to “act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God” and Matthew’s call to “welcome the stranger.”

Those present carried signs and banners declaring:

"Together, Not Torn: Families Can’t Wait for Immigration Reform"

"Standing on the Side of Love with Immigrant Families"

"Soy Testigo de Justicia (I am a Witness for Justice)"

And my personal, homemade sign:

No Human Being is Illegal

An individual appeared toward the end of the press conference and immediately scurried away when the press conference ended. He had quite a different idea of what God's love calls us to in the midst of a law like Arizona's Senate Bill 1070.

"God so loves us, He gave us Arizona SB1070" his sign read. In contrast to the Unitarian Universalists call to "Stand on the Side of Love with Immigrant Families," I couldn't help but revel in the irony of the moment.

A group of faithful Quakers gathered to commence the Prayer Vigil at Noon, where we silently protested and later stood in a circle of silent Quaker worship. Some shared their reasons for coming out to protest a law like AZ SB1070. For some it was a book they had read about the injustice of young students who don't have the opportunity to go to college because of their legal status. For others it was intensely personal: a relationship with an immigrant and the immigrant community. For one, it was the love of country and the desire for that country to take a hard look at what effects laws like AZ SB1070 has. Another simply wanted to hold the Supreme Court Justices in the Light.

I shared about my encounter with immigrants who were crossing the Arizona desert or had been deported back across the border to Mexico. I set forth a query: if people are willing to risk death in the desert and/or months in a detention center at the hands of border patrol, shouldn't we, as a country, show them a little more mercy and acceptance than making them suffer at the hands of laws like AZ SB1070?

The prayer vigil continues tomorrow and into Wednesday when the Supreme Court hearing for Arizona vs. United States will begin. Many faith groups will be present at the Supreme Court around the clock (more info here and here) and would love to have YOU join them, especially as people of faith participate in a biblically inspired Jericho March around the Supreme Court on Wednesday at 9:30am. Contact melanie@fcnl.org if you have questions or would like to participate.

Wednesday April 25th will mark the beginning of a truly historic moment in the current debacle that is the U.S. immigration debate. The Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments for and against Arizona's extreme anti-immigrant law Senate Bill 1070. The law, which was passed in the summer of 2010, was soon enjoined by a federal district court, essentially barring it from taking effect. If put into effect, SB1070 would have:

Following in Arizona's Footsteps

Since the passage of SB1070, many other states have introduced and passed similar legislation including Georgia, South Carolina, Utah and Indiana. Alabama's infamous HB56, which went into effect last September, was said to be even more extreme than Arizona's bill. Among other things, HB56 required teachers to check the status of their students and criminalized business transactions with undocumented persons. This caused 2,000 Hispanic students to stop showing up for school and landlords around the state to ask for IDs from their tenants before they would turn their water back on. Other state legislatures have introduced anti-immigrant legislation but not yet passed it including Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Missouri. Mississippi recently had an anti immigrant law, HB 488, that passed their House but has yet to come up in their Senate (there is still a chance that it could pass this legislative term).

Why is this particular Supreme Court decision so historic? Essentially, whatever happens to Arizona's anti-immigrant law will happen to the anti-immigrant laws in other states.

If the Supreme Court rules that Arizona is allowed to pass its own immigration law and enforce immigration on the state and local level, all of the other states that have already passed or are considering such laws will no longer have to face a lawsuit from the federal Department of Justice challenging their law. It would essentially mean a patchwork of state immigration laws in which literally "existing while undocumented" is a state crime (although it's technically only a civil matter, not a criminal one, under federal law).

On the other hand, if the Supreme Court rules that Arizona's law is unconstitutional and that it is only under the federal government's jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws, it would mean that other state anti-immigrant laws are unconstitutional as well. And it will send a message to states that have been considering similar legislation that state legislators will only be consciously wasting tax payer dollars by voting for anti-immigrant laws, knowingly stepping right into a lawsuit with the federal government for which taxpayers will foot the bill.

Take Action!

No Human Being is Illegal!

There is a prayer vigil and protest going on in order to create awareness and encourage media coverage of this historic event. It will start Monday morning April 23 and continue until mid-day Wednesday April 25 right outside of the U.S. Supreme Court building on First Ave in DC. We need Quakers to participate! The official Quaker prayer vigil will be Monday April 23 from 12Noon until 2pm...the more people we have participating the stronger our statement for immigrant justice! To confirm that you will be in front of the Supreme Court at that time and for more information, please contact Melanie Fox at melanie@fcnl.org and/or RSVP on Facebook for the event by clicking here! (There is also an online vigil for those outside of the DC area.)

Comprehensive Immigration Reform

FCNL, along with our colleagues in the faith community and immigrant rights activists across the nation, will be holding our breath for the Supreme Court decision. Until then, we continue on in la lucha (the struggle), as our Latino friends would say, to advocate for immigration reform at the federal level.

More resources:

Huffington Post: With SB 1070 on Deck, Supreme Court Decision Will Be a Game-Changer

National Immigration Law Center: The Upcoming Supreme Court Hearing on SB 1070 - WHAT'S AT PLAY

Immigration Impact: Supreme Court Flooded with Briefs Opposing Arizona SB 1070

Legal Action Center, American Immigration Council: Arizona SB 1070, Legal Challenges and Economic Realities

Immigration Policy Center, American Immigration Council: A Q&A Guide to State Immigration Laws: What You Need to Know if Your State Is Considering Anti-Immigrant Legislation

Center for American Progress: The 10 Numbers You Need to Know About Alabama's Anti-Immigrant Law

National Council of La Raza: NCLR report shows states that pass anti-immigrant laws pay a high cost

Landmines have been banned by the majority of the world because, like cluster munitions, they disproportionately and invariably cause devastating harm to innocent civilians.

While the world marks International Landmine Awareness Day today, Syria has started using these devastating weapons along its borders with Turkey and Lebanon.

On March 14, US Ambassador Susan Rice and the State Department both described reports of Syria's use of landmines as "horrific." The Director of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) stated that they "are outraged to see Syria using antipersonnel mines against its own people, adding to the already dire humanitarian crisis Syrian civilians are facing." The ICBL has called on U.N.-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan, who spoke out fervently against landmines during his time as U.N. Secretary General, to condemn this atrocity during a recent visit to the region.

Even though the United States largely complies with the Mine Ban Treaty's provisions, it is one of the 37 countries that have yet to join. Take action and write a letter to urge President Obama to join the Mine Ban Treaty.

Resources and Recommended reading:

Thursday, March 8th was a particularly good day in congress for the environment. The Senate defeated the latest attempt at approving the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. S 1813, a transportation bill, included amendments that would have increased off shore drilling opportunities, rolled back efforts at ensuring air quality standards, and approving permits for portions of the Keystone XL pipeline route. The senate made the right choices on all three counts. However, a vote is likely to take place on Tuesday, March 13th to grant access to domestic oil and gas reserves, including another approval attempt for the Keystone XL pipeline.

This tug of war dynamic is typical of our current congress, particularly on energy issues. FCNL is grateful for all the effort that our constituency has put in, calling and writing congress people and writing to editors of local papers, but the fight is far from over. This issue demands our unwavering attention, and relentless efforts at engaging our congress to communicate to them what their respective constituencies, and the country as a whole, want from them. We want a country whose energy future is wholly dependent upon clean and renewable energy resources. Congress must be receptive to the demands that future generations impose upon them now. The focus of energy policy in this country must be shifted from big oil favoritism to developing a clean, dependable energy infrastructure that won’t compromise quality of life. It’s no longer a debate. It is a moral imperative.

Imagine it. It's your senior year in high school. You and your three best friends in the whole world are in the midst of planning for your futures. One of the most exciting times of your life, right? For Clara and Elissa, definitely. But for Marisela and Yadira, not so much.

At the end of February, FCNL hosted Helen Thorpe, a particularly wonderful advocate for undocumented immigrant youth who were brought to the U.S. by their parents, more colloquially known as "DREAMers." Helen Thorpe came to FCNL and spoke about her poignant book Just Like Us.

About the book...

Just Like Us is a story four young women from Mexico who have lived most of their lives in the United States and attend the same high school. Two of them have legal documentation and two do not. The book starts on the night of their senior prom in Denver, CO.

Each is bright, ambitious, and an excellent student. Their leader, Marisela, dazzles teachers during the day, and spends her evenings checking groceries to help pay the bills. She dreams of college and a professional career - but she doesn't have a green card or a Social Security number, because her parents brought her across the border illegally.

Marisela's best friend, Yadira, shares her predicament. But they spend all of their time with two girls who are legal - Elissa, who was born in the United States, and Clara, who has a green card. Each of the girls views the others as her equals, yet the world does not treat them that way. Their situation becomes increasingly painful and complex as the four young women approach adulthood, and Marisela and Yadira watch their two legal friends gain opportunities that are not available to them. All four hold American aspirations, but only Clara and Elissa have the documents necessary to realize those hopes. Their friendships start to divide along lines of immigration status.

Click here to keep reading and learn more about the book.

Background

FCNL worked with our colleagues in the Interfaith Immigration Coalition in 2010 to support the DREAM Act, a piece of legislation that would provide a path to citizenship for undocumented people who arrived in the U.S. at a young age either through post-secondary education or through military service. DREAM stands for the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors. The DREAM Act passed the House in December 2010 but never received enough votes to pass in the Senate.

Where is the DREAM Act currently?

Currently, the DREAM Act in the House (H.R.1842) is sponsored by Representative Howard Berman (CA) and has 77 co-sponsors. In the Senate (S.952), Senator Richard Durbin (IL) is the sponsor along with 34 co-sponsors.

The Keystone Pipeline is the story of a Canadian company seeking to deliver a highly polluting form of oil, extracted by the destruction of millions of acres of Canadian boreal forest, laid across America’s agricultural heartland and above the Oglalla Aquifer, which supplies 30 percent of the nation's ground water used for farm irrigation and 82 percent of the people who live within the aquifer boundaries.

Existing pipelines have already spilled tar sand oil on American lands and communities in Michigan, Illinois and in the Yellowstone River. Even more, revenue that companies generate from tar sands oil is not subject to the federal tax imposed for the very purpose of cleaning up oil spills.

The pipeline will create a mere 20 permanent and 6000 temporary American jobs. It will likely be constructed mostly with foreign steel. The tar sands oil producers view Keystone XL as an export pipeline (which largely bypasses American markets), that will increase oil costs in the American Midwest, delivering tar sands oil to refineries in tax-free Trade Zones on the Gulf Coast that will be made available to markets in Latin America and Europe.

It lurks in the corners of what used to be a marshy swamp, gobbling up everything else it sees bit by bit. Every year, it comes to the people and demands more-and the people in charge comply. This year, they've given the beast 40% of what we have, even though the people are starving. Supposedly, the beast keeps bad people away, but many think that it just encourages malefactors. What's the name of this beast--part minotaur, part Grendel, part sasquatch? Some (pretty much just me) call it…the Spendagon. *cue dramatic theme music*

What do I mean by the Spendagon? I certainly don't mean the men and women who serve in our armed forces. I don't mean the people who work in DOD. I don't even mean the military contractors and lobbyists who are the primary agents which fuel this never-ending force. The Spendagon is a more ineffable presence than any of these things. It is the military industrial complex as a whole…and more. It is the part of the U.S. political psyche that insists on hegemony, the power of the gun over that of the open hand, and the persistent insistence that bombs and tanks are the only thing that we as a country can produce anymore.

So how do we slay the demon? Summon Uther Spendragon? Sneak garlic into the House Armed Services Committee? Let me offer a few (more real) suggestions.

Sunlight. It kills vampires, keeps away zombies in some movie imaginings, and reassures heroes that they can sense their foe. And it might be one of the most important things to build a responsible military budget. The military budget is not too different than a cobweb ridden cave a la Lord of the Rings. It is dark--the Pentagon budget has not been audited in modern history. No one knows for sure where all the money goes and there's no way to verify what figures we do have. It is dangerous--people who try to shine a light on military spending have a way of making powerful enemies and getting labels like "unpatriotic" or "soft on terrorism." And it takes forever to navigate. The Pentagon budget is spread across thousands of accounts and again as many contractors and private interests. The labyrinthine nature of military accounts let people familiar with the spending cave sneak around and skim off where they can. In fact, the Pentagon has lost, wasted, and misspent more than the total budgets of 5 other federal departments. It must be stopped.

But sunlight alone won't drive back the monster. We also need a hero. Or rather, some heroes. The Spendagon has its own champions that can be relied upon to fight on its behalf. You can be sure that whenever cutting the Pentagon comes up in Congress, an army of hawks will always pop up with dire predictions about American decline, terrorists, and the false bogeyman in China. But who will stand up for peace and a rational military budget? There are a few brave men and women in both houses who can always be counted to beat swords into plowshares, but we need more of them. You can help do this. You can teach your senator to draw the (peaceful) sword from the stone and stand up against the dreaded Spendagon by writing your Senators.

This goes into the most important tool we have in slaying the Spendagon. You. This baddie is one of those hipster villains from the movieverse that is only dangerous as long as you believe in it. If we break ourselves--our whole culture--of the delusion that we are the only country that matters on the planet, and that military might is the only path we can tread, then the Spendagon will disappear. We each have the power to transform our communities. It won't be easy, but was it easy for Frodo to cast the ring into Mt. Doom? Or for Harry Potter to defeat the dark lord Voldermort? No. But it is possible. If we commit ourselves to the task by organizing our communities, building bridges with our elected officials, and speaking out for what we believe in then we have a unique opportunity to change our country and the world for the better.

As a fresh face at FCNL, I have already had amazing opportunities. On my very first lobby visit I was joined by Kate Gould, and Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to former Secretary of State, Colin Powell.

Although I would like to believe that the staffers' excitement was due to my stunning charm and quick wit, it was more likely that a name such as Col. Wilkerson's warrants a bit of a buzz. As a high-ranking member of the former Bush Administration, Col. Wilkerson had an inside view to one of the most controversial presidencies in recent history. He has been very outspoken against the policies and secrecies of that administration, saying Bush and Cheney should be held accountable for the crimes they committed in office.

Left to right: Chic Dambach, Rep. Garamendi, Col. Wilkerson, Kate Gould, and Hilary Johnson

Regarding Iran, Col. Wilkerson has spoken in adamant opposition to war and has pushed back against those who favor military action. In our meetings with members of Congress and their staffers, he gave insight into consequences of war with Iran, and noted similarities between the "drumbeats" of war that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 with similar, and more rapid, drumbeats today pushing for war with Iran.

During our meeting with Congressman Garamendi's office, Col. Wilkerson spoke of the disastrous consequences that would come of a military attack on Iran, and the need to avoid those circumstances. Also, we were lucky enough to score some photos with the Congressman and his Chief of Staff, Chic Dambach.

Col. Wilkerson was kind enough to join Kate and I on a second day of lobby visits, where we continued our meetings to speak out against war with Iran. Additionally, we addressed the Casey-Graham-Lieberman bill that pushes President Obama to abandon diplomacy with Iran, and encouraged members of Congress to sign on to the Ellison-Jones letter which encourages increased diplomatic efforts by the United States. On the second day, we had a meeting with Congressman Guthrie, and asked that Congress support an Incidents at Sea Agreement with Iran. Congressman Guthrie co-sponsored the Conyers-Davis Incidents at Sea Agreement during the last Congress.

The entire experience was positive and left me full of hope. Hope in this incredible organization, hope in my colleagues' dedication to the vision of a world without war or the threat of war, and hope in the strong leaders in our government who want to do what is right in a world filled with uncertainties.

Semper Fidelis-often shortened to Semper Fi-is a Latin phrase meaning "always faithful." It's most commonly known as the motto for the United States Marine Corps. The phrase has taken on a new meaning for me as details about the poisoning of Marines and Marine Corps families who lived at Camp Lejeune, the United States' largest Marine base, have come to light. For decades, the Marine Corps dumped toxic waste in Lejeune which leached into the groundwater, affecting as many as one million Marines and their families.

Baby Heaven at Camp Lejeune

While many Marines directly suffered from the effects of carcinogens like Benzene that leached into the groundwater, the hardest hit may be the children who were born around Camp Lejeune. In a study done by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, kids born around Lejeune experienced a rate of birth defects and childhood cancers at five times the national rate. But no study can speak adequately to the existence of a section of the base's graveyard known as "baby heaven" where hundreds of sick and malformed babies have been buried.

For me, this story is more than an abstraction. I was born at Lejeune in the 1980s. My father joined the Marines to help pay for college, and he served for four years as an officer before returning to Harvard to get a second (and eventually a third) degree. My dad was stationed in Lejeune in 1989, and I was born on July 4th of that year--a fitting start for a Quaker peace activist. When I first read about this story in The Washington Post, it hit me right in the gut. Is this me? Could I be sick? How could this happen?

My dad during his Marine years.

One of the most disturbing parts of this story has been the failure of the military and the federal government to address this issue. The Marines have refused to even contact the people who might have been affected by the toxic dumping saying that it would be too large an undertaking. The Federal Government and the military have betrayed the men and women who proudly pledged "Semper Fi." Being faithful must be a two way street. The government has an overwhelming responsibility to care for the people who have sacrificed for their country.

And really, this responsibility for the government to be faithful to those whom allow it to govern doesn't end with the Marine Corps. It extends to every person under its care. Communities all around the United States face similar dangers. Communities in Pennsylvania and all along the East Coast face exposure to dangerous chemicals that are the byproduct of hydraulic fracturing, a practice for the harvesting of fossil fuels that causes some of the same chemicals that were dumped in Lejeune to leech into the groundwater. Dozens of communities on the Gulf Coast were devastated by the effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. These are only a few examples, but represent a larger problem-the government's refusal to adequately address environmental issues fundamentally puts people at risk.

Some Marines and their families are beginning to get some justice for what has been done to them as a recent documentary and congressional investigations shed light on what happened to them. Two bills are making their way through Congress which seek to do something for Lejeune families who were affected by the poisonings. But I wonder, would anyone have found it if those affected weren't military families? What if this same rash of death had happened in a place like Compton or Anacostia--poor, mostly black neighborhoods where public sympathies don't reach? Would members of Congress clamor for action? Would award-winning documentaries be made about it?

I am blessed. I was born in 1989, two years after the poisonings stopped. But this doesn't change the message I have taken from this story. The government must be always faithful for the basic health of its citizens, or we must faithfully change it.

Citations and Resources

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has approved legislation that would reverse President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline. Politicians and pundits alike have been promoting the pipeline because there is a lot of profit to be made. However, in order for the project to be approved they have to convince the American people of all of the hollow benefits that the pipeline would provide. Every single one of those benefits is a deception. Let’s take a closer look at each.

Write to your member of congress, write a letter to an editor, talk to your friends, heck go ride a bike. Do what you can, while you can. It isn’t enough, particularly during the 112th congress, to assume that your elected representatives have your best interests in mind. In fact, that has never been enough, which is the nucleus of Democracy. At the heart if this issue lies nothing but the opportunity to turn a profit at the expense of American health, ecological integrity and agricultural productivity. This issue will set the precedent that will define America’s energy future.

This weekend Matt Southworth and I packed our bags and took our excitement about the upcoming young adult Spring Lobby Weekend on the road, touring the Tri-College Consortium of Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and Swarthmore. It's been great talking on the phone and emailing with people interested in the weekend, but we've also been wanting to speak with people in person.

At Swarthmore, we worshipped with young Friends in a beautiful meetinghouse, and Matt shared the story of his first experience lobbying--at Spring Lobby Weekend 2006, lobbying to end the Iraq war, in which he fought. Speaking about Spring Lobby Weekend after meeting for worship brought a gravity and a power to the conversation that sometimes can get muffled in an office environment. I found that leaving the office and talking with such energized and passionate students gave me a taste for what Spring Lobby Weekend must be like, on a much grander scale.

At Haverford, we met up with my fellow FCNL Program Assistant Emily Temple, and the three of us spoke with students interested in FCNL's internship, the young adult lobby weekend, and the FCNL priorities process by which meetings and groups of Friends weigh in on what policy issues matter to them. Students at Haverford's Quaker House hosted us for a wonderful dinner. I was inspired by the passion and detailed policy knowledge of students there.

At my alma mater Bryn Mawr, I was greeted warmly by faculty who know FCNL well, and students eager to learn more. In particular, political science majors were interested in FCNL's internship and the lobbying weekend. In conversation with some students about the war in Afghanistan (one of the issues of focus at this year's Spring Lobby Weekend) I discovered they had nearly up-to-the-minute knowledge of policy changes regarding the war. Spring Lobby Weekend is designed for people with all levels of knowledge about policy, but Spring Lobby Weekend will be a great opportunity for those students who are already passionate about ending the war in Afghanistan.

As well as getting students excited about Spring Lobby Weekend, one of the effects of the trip was that I am now very excited to spend a weekend with so many passionate, energized students!

Learn about Spring Lobby Weekend 2012, March 17-20.

In 2007, the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo received a lot of media attention. Prominent actors and U.S. officials traveled to the DRC and were shocked by the appalling situations in the hospitals and the testimonies of the rape victims. Their shock and concern was justified; rape and sexual violence were and are a horrific tactic of terror in the Congolese conflict.

This wave of shock was followed by a wave of financial support. Hospitals received equipment and medicine to aid rape victims. The international response to support victims of sexual and gender-based violence was astonishing. Health programs have increased the survival rates for victims, and charities provide many victims with means to supplement their income and gain access to basic services if they have experienced exclusion from their families and communities.

At the same time, however, other programs remain desperately underfunded. Other health issues remain unaddressed. Medical, STI and therapy treatments are often only available to female victims of rape. These initiatives should not be diminished, however they do not take the other victims of the conflict or the rape crisis into account. There is little to no aid for the victim's family members. A female rape victim can receive vaccinations or treatment for Sexually Transmitted Infections, however her partner or her male children cannot. As a result, some women who receive treatment are re-infected by their partners who do not have access to treatment. To receive vaccination for their children, some parents are even pushed to disguise their male children in dresses and hope that doctors will mistake them for girls.

Suddenly being a rape victim has benefits and enables access to aid unavailable to anyone else. This creates tension and jealousy within the communities. Some women give false reports of being raped to receive treatment they could not otherwise receive. As these tensions grow, they will increasingly become a source of potential conflict.

The Congolese government has little to no means or capacities to step in and fill these gaps. Assistance from abroad is direly needed. Much of the violent conflict in the DRC has moved beyond the point at which preventive policies can be effective. However, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) calls governments and international communities to three commitments: Prevent, Respond, Rebuild. And none of these responsibilities stand alone. The responses and efforts to rebuild must be structured in a way that they also prevent renewed atrocities.

Civil society and non governmental organizations provide a kind of focused, effective support that is irreplaceable. They are able to raise an enormous amount of valuable funding for specific causes, however government programs have a greater capacity to reach beyond the limits of specific donations. To fulfill the international responsibility to protect, we need to pair robust civil society programs with flexible government assistance.

More resources:

This blog post is a special edition guest blog written by Asha Warner, who volunteered at FCNL this winter. One of her projects was to call all of our Letter Writing Coordinators to learn how to improve our letter writing campaign. Please see below for a brief bio written by Asha.

I was rather nervous as I picked up the phone to dial the first on a long list of FCNL Letter Writing Coordinators and anxiously hoped that I wouldn’t blank on my prepared questions. Instead, a reassuringly chatty voice answered the phone, and my rather shaky introduction led into a seven-minute conversation with a kind woman who was delighted to talk to me. After nearly two-hundred of these calls, my nervous questions have steadied and my respect for the work which both FCNL and its participants do has grown.

The most common response I got when asking, “So, how has letter writing been going in general?” was a little chuckle. Most would go on to explain that they sent out emails detailing the FCNL causes and set up letter writing tables after worship or during potlucks. There were a few Friends who did astounding work--such as one man who traveled between three different Quaker meetings and collected letters which he then hand-delivered to several representatives around his state. Most people were also busy with their hectic lives and found it difficult to consistently find time for letter writing. They would say rather apologetically that only about five or ten letters were written and sent each month, but to me that sounded like quite a few.

People often spoke of the discouragement they felt with the current state of politics in the United States. They would wonder if the letters actually make a difference, if their representatives read them, and if so, would they listen? Yet despite this outlook, whenever I asked: “Is there anything FCNL could do to improve, or to make letter-writing easier for you?” the response was always no. I often heard from Letter Writing Coordinators that FCNL is doing great, and that “we just need to get more letters written.” These coordinators amazed me. They cheerfully took the time out of their busy day to chat with me, explain their process, give feedback, and to express how much FCNL’s work means to them. Despite the worries over Congress and how effective FCNL constituents can be as citizen lobbyists, they keep on writing and keep on trying to make a change. I see those five or ten letters they help to get written as an accomplishment. Even more than that, these letters send a fantastic message from the organization as a whole. FCNL and Letter Writing Coordinators are moving us all another step forward.

About the author: Asha Warner is a freshman at Haverford College with an interest in political science and activism. She plans to become fluent in Chinese and study-abroad in China, if only for the opportunity to enjoy their cuisine. She has spent three weeks volunteering at FCNL, and has thoroughly enjoyed the experience.

If you are interested in receiving our monthly Letter Writing Coordinators materials to begin a letter campaign in your own, or if you have questions about the process, please contact Emily Temple at emily@fcnl.org or 800.630.1330 ext. 2504.

In 1935 the unemployment insurance program was established and described as a program that "differs from relief in that payments are made as a matter of right not on a needs basis, but only while the worker is involuntarily unemployed." What a wonderful idea! To have a social insurance program in which people are eligible for the compensation based on having been a part of the work force and having paid into the program but are now unemployed. This program was not intended to have stipulations placed on it that were unrelated to job loss however H.R. 3630 would like to place an education requirement, drug testing, and other barriers on the program for the unemployed and states.

One change that the bill proposes is that those receiving compensation either have a high school diploma, the equivalent, or working to obtain this education requirement. There are two prominent concerns with this. One is that over 80% of those that are relying on U.I. are over the age of 45 and have been in the work force for years, not needing a high school education. Although it is hard to imagine in today's world, people once could support themselves without high school diploma. These numbers speak for the many that did just that until their skilled labor jobs were sent overseas. The second concern is that states are not equipped with educational programs to allow people to sign up for their GED even if they wanted to. There are waiting lists, lasting for months, for such programs totaling 160,000 people in 2009 into 2010.

Then there is also a provision for drug testing. This seems to be based on the idea that those unemployed are lazy drug users. Interestingly enough at least 20 states already deny benefits to anyone who had job loss related to drug use. This would be a huge expense to states with a guarantee of almost no results. The drug testing alone would cost states between $25 and $75 dollars per test. Similar drug testing in Florida for TANF and in Indiana both have proven to have been unfounded expenses in comparison with those found using drugs to only have been 2% and 1% respectively.

There is also a requirement to determine the "need" of compensation because of an exaggerated claim that millionaires are receiving benefits. This sets the stage for not allowing those with high income levels to qualify for benefits. Again since this is an insurance program for all workers that become unemployed it is unfair to exclude high income earners since losing a job could have significant impacts on their well-being as well. U.I. is not a viable solution to get richer quick since states cap the maximum amounts of benefits. This ranges from $235 in Mississippi to $625 in Massachusetts per week, not to mention in 2009 only 0.015% millionaires received unemployment benefits. Another aspect that would affect people receiving U.I. is the proposed requirement that beneficiaries would have to do mandatory community service to "work off" their benefits. This would allow employers to have a largely free labor force even though these methods have not been any more successful at returning the unemployed to the work force. As if that is not enough, there is also the authorization to states to reduce unemployment compensation by $5 each week to fund re-employment services that have previously been funded through taxes. Five dollars is a significant amount considering the average benefit is slightly under $300, only a third of the averages workers normal wage.

The House bill is intrusive and overbearing on states and people with no justification. There would be additional requirements on states to more heavily track those unemployed applying for jobs, a requirement states to not have the funds to meet, even though many states already have programs in place that work best for their state's circumstances. Also states would be required to collect over-payments to those unemployed even if the fault was not on the part of the unemployed. Previously, had an error been made by the state in the amount paid to a beneficiary the state would correct the error but not demand repayment. However, by changing the wording of the current law, the state would be required to collect from anyone who had been overpaid, without consideration of the hardship that this may cause the person.

Just like SNAP and other safety nets in place to shield from the blow of a faltering economy, U.I. is doing exactly what it was intended to do, demonstrated by more people using the insurance program. The changes being proposed are not trying to fix a broken system, but instead to hinder a program that could actually use more help not more barriers. With the ratio of people seeking work to available jobs being 4 to 1 it can be expected that this program is needed more so now than in the past. There is no foundation for the claims that those who do not have jobs are drug users or uneducated. If Congress truly wishes to help the unemployed and the unemployment insurance program then it should fund job placement programs, educational and training programs, and work to create more jobs for a struggling economy.

This week Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced a new strategy for the Pentagon reflecting the nearly $1 trillion in Pentagon cuts mandated by the failure of the deficit supercommittee combined with $450 billion in already planned cuts. Although these cuts represent only a small portion of the military budget, defense hawks on the Hill are up in arms insisting that they would endanger national security. As Arnold L. Punaro, a consultant for the Defense Business Board, was quoted as saying in the New York Times, "we're going to turn the Department of Defense into a benefits company that occasionally kills a terrorist." Of special chagrin to some on the hill is Panetta's insistence that the U.S. must move away from a "two war strategy" in which the U.S. is always ready and willing to engage in two major ground offensives at any given time. Instead, he argues, it will move to a footing in which the U.S. should be able to maintain and win one major ground war, "spoil the ambitions" of one adversary, and provide humanitarian and emergency services around the world.

I find the myopic thinking that leads to the bellicose rhetoric from defense hawks on this issue astounding. The "two war strategy" that the U.S. has pursued for the last ten years has been frankly disastrous. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost as much as 4.4 trillion dollars, not to mention the human impact it has had on our veterans and on people in Iraq and Afghanistan. These metrics also don't take into account the diminished the global stature U.S. has today--more playground bully than city on the hill.

So as much as I welcome the cuts to the Pentagon, I think they reflect a lack of imagination. We don't need a one war or a one and a half war strategy. We need a no war strategy. We should have a military that is not planning for the next war, but rather one that thinks how to prevent it before it starts. As Albert Einstein once said, "you cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."

Many might claim that a no war strategy is just Wilsonian isolationism; a withdrawal from the world in order to maintain peace that allows evil to flourish as during Hitler's rise. But this is not what an effective peace strategy would look like. It is the opposite of isolationism-it is really a stronger engagement with countries around the world by working with them before violence occurs. It is a robust United Nations that will help mediate disputes between states. It is civilian negotiators who are able to defuse violent conflicts between regional groups. It is a robust and well funded USAID that is able to provide targeted assistance to communities endangered by conditions that deny people their livelihoods and spark violence.

A strategic approach that focuses on conflict prevention will lead to a United States that can easily meet its financial obligations; if we accept Admiral Mike Mullen's assertion that "the single, biggest threat to our national security is our debt" our country will be more secure as well. It will lead to a U.S. that wields a strong moral authority in the global community by not only talking peace and global cooperation but also doing it. And maybe most importantly, a no war strategy will free up the money to help build communities in the United States where people are employed, where kids get a good education, and where everyone has access to the basic necessities. This is not a dream that it is out of our reach. It is a vision that we can make happen if we elect strong moral leaders who believe in peace and a vision of security that goes beyond bombs and tanks to a human security built around peace.

In returning to Washington after a month-long trip to Kenya, one conclusion from my time there has become all the more clear: as Kenyan Friends continue to empower their communities toward peace in the upcoming year, those of us in the U.S. should ensure that our country’s policy supports, not undermines, the success of their programs and others like them. With 2012 already here, the countdown to Kenya’s elections has begun – and now is the time to make peaceful prevention a U.S. priority, sooner rather than later.

Over the next 12 months, FCNL will continue to look toward Kenya as a case in which U.S. preventive tools can be utilized to help avert violence before it begins. In advancing the specific policy recommendations of our recent brief, we’ll emphasize the importance of U.S. support for community peacebuilding, diplomacy, and international cooperation. We’ll also work to continue connecting the concerns of Friends building peace in Kenyan communities to the capacities of the policymakers we work with here in Washington – particularly when the U.S. might be able to play a role in helping to prevent renewed violence.

As Kenya’s national elections in 2012 approach, the U.S. will undoubtedly have an eye on the country that remains its strongest political and economic partner in the East African region. But considering Kenya’s proximity to and recent armed intervention within Somalia – which hosts a militant group, al-Shabab, that has ties to al-Qaida – the potential for a U.S. focus on military aid and counterterrorism over peacebuilding and violence prevention will only increase. Requests for direct U.S. assistance of the operation have already been made, and while Kenya's government claims that the action is in their citizens' best interest, many Kenyans I spoke with were fearful of the increased tension and violence that the incursion has already caused within their country’s borders.

Though the “war on terror” too often succeeds in dominating U.S. foreign policy, the next year could instead mark one in which our government takes concrete steps toward preventing, rather than fighting, war. In 2012, the PPDC program looks forward to working toward a United States that supports Kenya's peacebuilders over its warmongers. After all, Kenyan Friends have already demonstrated just how much impact one voice for peace can have.