Month: August 2010

After nine years — yes nine long mostly futile years — we are still reading about these stories, military and civilian families are still mourning the loss of their loved ones and I am still wondering what in hell has all the death and destruction and havoc our military machine has wreaked on Afghanistan has accomplished:

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — U.S. forces lost 22 soldiers in Afghanistan, mostly to roadside bombs, since Friday, marking a bloody step-up in the insurgency as a major U.S.-led offensive seeks to capture the spiritual homeland of the Taliban movement in Kandahar.

The U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan said it’s gaining ground against the insurgents, but violence is rising across the country, including in areas that were considered relatively safe.

Every year it’s the same thing. Another offensive, another promise by the generals that we’re making gains, another bunch of innocent civilians bombed and slaughtered, another group of soldiers who died fighting with little if any progress to show for it. And it’s not as if things in Iraq are really a whole lot better now that we have reduced our presence in that country to 50,000 or so “non-combat” troops.

Iraq is as much a mess as ever despite the spin the politicians, left and right have put on the situation. It would be comical watching Democrats and Republicans fighting over who won Iraq, when the truth is that Iraq still suffers from an alarming lack of stability, a government that can deliver adequate water and electrical services to its people, sectarian conflict and regular outbreaks of violence and death:

BAGHDAD, Aug. 28 (Xinhua) — A fresh wave of coordinated bombings swept across Iraq’s major cities on Wednesday, only one day after the United States downsized its troops below 50,000, some Iraqi experts said that after more than seven years of military occupation, violence is one of the few U.S. legacies left in Iraq.

“Now the Americans are leaving, the clearest fingerprints they left on Iraq that any Iraqi can perceive are torture, corruption and civil war,” Nuri Hadi, an Iraqi political analyst told Xinhua in a recent interview. […]

Hadi said the latest wave of deadly bombings on Wednesday in Iraq’s major cities, which left 64 people killed and more than 272 wounded, made the timing of the U.S. troops withdrawal from Iraq looks more untimely, and the Obama administration’s repeated claim of Iraqi security force can stand on their own two feet, say, more untenable.

“With the partial pullout of the U.S. troops at the end of August, the violence in Iraq is widely expected to increase,” he said.

“I think the Qaida militants have showed that they reorganized themselves, and during the past few months they proved that they have the ability to launch sporadic deadly and massive attacks in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities,” Hadi said, adding “but I still believe the Iraqi security forces seem have the capability to fight back.”

However, Hadi said “we have to admit that a large part of the insurgent groups in Iraq are directly or indirectly linked to political parties participating in the political process, then the security will largely depend on whether those parties are willing to find peaceful means to settle their differences and their struggle on power, or they will simply rise their weapons to fight each other.”

If any lesson should have been learned from the past decade it is that war is rarely the answer to any crisis, and with respect to the 9/11 attacks it was definitely the wrong answer. And all the crocodile tears being shed over Iraq by those like Tony Blair that no one foresaw how badly things would go after the “shock and awe” was over is no excuse:

Tony Blair admits that Britain and the US failed to anticipate, after the invasion of Iraq, “the nightmare that unfolded” as al-Qaida and Iran destabilised the country after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

In an emotional chapter in his memoirs on the Iraq war, in which he admits to shedding many tears at the loss of so many lives, the former prime minister insists that military action was justified and refuses to offer an apology for joining forces with George Bush.

Blair is either a liar or he was not fit to serve as the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister. Only a US President like George W. Bush could make him look half-way competent as a leader in comparison. That he refuses to admit how horrible were his actions regarding the Iraq war and offer even the barest apology for them is evidence of a man who knows he’s guilty of committing war crimes and has chosen the option of denial and continuing to spread the lies about the role he played in enabling Bush rather than tell the truth. A truth many have known for years and a truth Blair himself knew before the invasion of Iraq began:

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER’S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents. […]

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. [Note: italics are mine]

We cannot have a do-over in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s far too late to ever repair the damage we’ve done and continue to do. However, we can start to recognize that continuing a Western military presence “over there” will never be part of an effective strategy to resolve the problems of international terrorism, regional instability, the opium and heroin trade, the increased influence of Iran’s radical government in the region as a result of destroying Saddam’s regime, or the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It won’t even get the oil wealth to flow into the coffers of Big Oil which Bush as much as admitted in 2005 was the primary reason we attacked Iraq, and which Alan Greenspan confirmed in 2007.

The sooner the Obama administration and the American people accept that we need to bring all the troops home, the better it will be for all concerned.

The sheer amount of perseverance shown by New Orleans residents in the face of disasters – first Hurricane Katrina, then the great economic recession, and now the Gulf of Mexico’s Deep Water Horizon oil spill – demonstrates how unique and precious this city is to the greater United States.  No other US city has known such repeated devastation, or has demonstrated such noble resistance to defeat, such an immense capacity to endure.  Although the city and its residents have not been broken by the continued assaults, many are still picking up the pieces.  

In the midst of recovery, NOLA residents are hopeful but scars from the hurricane are still visible, according to a new survey by Kaiser Family Foundation, “New Orleans Five Years After the Storm.”  Read more in the August Public Opinion Monthly.

Think Progress has compiled an enlightening list of all the primary races they could find where a defeated Republican has failed to endorse the winner. Almost every case involves a Tea Party candidate vs. an Establishment candidate, although both sides have come out on top. It has been a brutal primary season for the Republicans, and not just in the high profile cases involving dispatched incumbents. If the past is prologue, I think we can see where this is going. Here are some excerpts from Linda Killian’s wonderful 1998 book: The Freshmen: What Happened to the Republican Revolution?

First, there’s the similar lack of focus on actual policy and the nuts and bolts of legislating:

So much of went wrong with the 104th Congress came down to the fact that the Republicans just hadn’t given any thought to how they were going to run things once they took over. They came up with a nifty campaign plan, some good slogans and buzzwords, some basic tenets about balancing the budget and cutting government. But Gingrich and company had no real game plan for what came next. They were making it up as they went along…

…Gingrich had focused for so many years on the struggle of overthrowing the Democrats that he hadn’t paid too much attention to how a bill becomes a law. It isn’t by one party in one house in one branch of government attempting to dictate its will to everyone else.

In a way, this same criticism can applied to a lot of progressives who struggled so long to overthrow the Republicans only to discover that Washington still knows how to prevent substantial change. But it is the current crop of radical Republicans who are going to find themselves in a familiar tussle when they get to Washington next year.

Gingrich may have been impatient with the freshmen’s stubbornness, but he understood that he held the Speakership because of them, and he knew that to hold on to it the freshmen would have to keep their seats…

…Gingrich may have wondered what kind of genie he had unleashed by empowering the freshmen, but it was too late to shove them back in the bottle. When Ross Perot announced in August that he planned to form a third party, Gingrich quipped that he already had a third party in the House: “It’s called the freshmen class.”

A lot of the class of 1994 is still around in DC, but now they are the Establishment. They may recognize earlier versions of themselves in next year’s class.

These Republican freshmen were different from any that had come before them; they were different from senior members of their own party. For one thing, [Rep. Van] Hilleary and his classmates were considerably younger. Almost 60 percent of them had not yet turned forty-five. They were a new generation. The first Republican president of their adult lives was Ronald Reagan. Reagan was a God to them, a religion. He represented a shining example of what the Republican Party should stand for. Most of them would say without hesitation that he was one of the finest presidents in history.

Never mind that they had arrived in Washington specifically to fix the mess that Ronald Reagan had begun, with his tax cuts, military spending on steroids, and unchecked government growth. It was under Reagan that the federal deficit first hit $200 billion. But never mind that. It was what Reagan represented, not what he really was, that they loved- that clean-cut, gung-ho, America-first, pro-business, shining-city-on-a-hill thing he had going. They loved it because that was who they who they were, too. They did seem much angrier than Reagan ever was, though. And louder.

Obviously, we’ve been through this before. A two-term Republican president creates massive deficits which he leaves to a Democratic successor. Conservatives go crazy about the deficit once their guy is no longer in power. A riled-up base elects a bunch of whack-a-doodles to Congress who feel like they are on some kind of messianic mission to tear apart the federal government. Let’s just hope Obama isn’t getting any extracurricular fellatio, cuz we know how that’ll turn out.

Steve Benen thinks the Republicans, next year, are more likely than not to shut down the government like they did in 1995.

Likely Senate candidate Joe Miller (R) in Alaska told Fox News last week that GOP lawmakers must have the “courage to shut down the government” in order to eliminate government programs he doesn’t like. Right-wing CNN personality Erick Erickson said with child-like excitement yesterday, “I’m almost giddy thinking about a government shutdown next year. I cannot wait!”

And sleazy GOP consultant Dick Morris told activists late last week that Republicans should do exactly as Gingrich/Dole did 15 years ago, but this time it’ll work out better.

If the Republicans gain control of either house of Congress, it will be very unlikely that they will produce a budget that Obama is willing to sign. I just don’t see how Boehner or McConnell could persuade their freshmen to produce a reasonable budget. But it’s more likely that the Republicans will fall short of winning majorities. Even in that scenario, however, it’s unlikely that the Senate could produce the votes for a reasonable budget.

On the other hand, the Republicans know that they got burned the last time they couldn’t produce a budget that a Democratic president would sign, so they aren’t going to be eager to repeat that mistake.

The problem is, I don’t think the GOP has control of its base and it won’t have control of the freshman class, either. They probably will create another impasse that involves continuing resolutions to keep the government operating. Whether they will back down before or after the government actually shuts up shop is unknowable right now.

One thing that is different is that the 1995 freshman class had actual demands, like the elimination of the Commerce Department, that they were holding out for. This time, there is no single issue that unites the candidates. They don’t like bail-outs. Whoop-de-doo. Government is too big. Yeah…And?

What we’re looking at is basically a train-wreck. The only way to avoid it is to win a net senate seat and maintain control of the House. That’s a tall order, but the stakes are high.

What’s making political news lately? Other than the unrelenting debate over the Islamic community center in lower Manhattan, all the news has been about radical Republicans winning primaries over less radical Republicans. It’s been good news from a Democratic point of view, because it is obviously easier to beat candidates who espouse radical ideas. But, the polls have continued to go south for the Democrats anyway. So, what gives?

Is the Muslim-bashing working? Is it something else? Perhaps the poor economic news that has rolled out during August had led people to turn against incumbents?

We’ve had two years since the end of the Bush regime. What have we learned about ourselves and our politicians, left, right and those who claim to be in the center. Here are my thoughts for those who are interested.

Obama was not the magic bullet to change America.

I know this seems like stating the obvious to a lot of people, but Barack Obama, while he has passed more of his legislative agenda in the last 2 years than any President since LBJ, did not bring about the radical shift in our politics that many (though not all) had predicted or hoped. He made a number of rookie mistakes:

1. Trying for too long to play nice with the National Republican leadership. The National republicans never had any interest in compromise on health care, the economy, job creation, climate change legislation or financial reform. And why should they have? Any legislative successes would go to the benefit of the Democrats, and any failures would have to have been shared by both parties. He should have realized sooner that an aggressive posture and a full out campaign mode blitz to win favor for his proposals was the better way to go.

Instead he left himself and his Democratic colleagues wide open to the tactics that the Republicans employed so effectively against Bill Clinton in the run-up to the 1994 mid-term elections, only magnified by a factor of 10: Total obstructionism in Congress, astro-turf generated opposition to his agenda (i.e. the “Tea Party”), orchestrated thuggish behavior directed against his party’s elected officials at town hall meetings, outrageous lies and distortions regarding health care, the economic stimulus, etc. and personal ad hominem attacks against himself and his party that encouraged fear and back-peddling by the more weak minded and conservative Democrats in Congress.

It was not like this “bad behavior” by the GOP and conservatives should have been unexpected. It was there for all to see based on the campaign republicans ran against him in the Fall and the stories they spread about him even before his inauguration.

2. Following poor poltical advice. His deliberate distancing of himself and his policies from the progressive left that played such as huge part in his success demoralized his base supporters, the ones who volunteer. Whether this was his own policy or a decision taken on the advice of his political advisers, it led to news cycles in which he was portrayed as out of touch and waffling to his most fervent supporters. It gave the appearance of a President and an administration that cared more about what the Washington punditocracy thought of them than their own supporters.

Whatever Bush’s faults, he never fell into that trap. Bu making a point never to alienate his base on the religious right and by touting his policies and “values” at every opportunity he deliberately ignored what the Beltway press was saying about him and thus was able to take advantage of 9/11 to neuter the beltway elites and promote his agenda.

This served him well in 2004 when he was reeling from his numerous failures and scandals regarding Iraq, torture, corruption and a sluggish job situation and was extremely vulnerable. An election that he and his party should have lost he managed to win, and much of the credit for that went to his outreach to his base supporters who turned out both as volunteers for Republican campaigns and to vote for him and fellow Republicans.

3. Re-nominatiing the inept (at best) Ben Bernanke as Chair of the Federal Reserve and appointing Wall Street insiders Tim Geithner (Treasury Secretary) and Larry Summers (Director of National Economic Council) as his chief economic messages. They have been consistently wrong in their predictions of what the policies they advanced would actually accomplish. Their appointment to these high positions of influence may have soothed the Investment Bankers and the markets in the short term, but it also placed large roadblocks against anyone advocating for economic policies to increase demand for goods and services, stimulate job creation, financial regulation and consumer protection.

If the Democrats lose the House or Senate, it will be primarily the failure to “go big” on economic programs that would have actually benefited most Americans rather than the large financial institutions that have emerged even more powerful and profitable than when the collapse of the housing market bubble began.

Instead the half measures adopted by the administration often were watered down even further by timid conservative democrats and the administration’s failed attempts to win anymore than token support from a few vulnerable Republicans. In short, Obama and his economic team was often negotiating against themselves.

Some of this was not all Obama’s fault. He couldn’t control the economic mess he was presented with on January 2009 by the outgoing Bush administration. He had also had a loose confederation of conservative Democrats in Congress with which to contend as well as Republicans determined to see him fail.

However, his own political missteps were also largely responsible our current economic stagnation, especially his failure to use the “bully pulpit” to vigorously push for a larger and better targeted economic stimulus. In other words, he should have employed campaign style advocacy — as Bush did for the Iraq war for example — for the most radical progressive economic policies so that when the compromises in Congress are done he still would have gotten most of what was needed.

Instead, his approach to curry favor with Republicans and conservative Democrats was his most significant domestic mistake. It contributed to less economic growth, particularly in the job sector, than I believe was reasonably possible had he adopted a more confrontational strategy on domestic affairs.

Palin likened the rally participants to the civil rights activists from 1963. She said the same spirit that helped them overcome oppression, discrimination and violence would help this group as well.”We are worried about what we face. Sometimes, our challenges seem insurmountable,” Palin said. “Look around you. You’re not alone.” – Yahoo News

Many of the pundits and talking heads were concerned today about what the motive was for Glenn Beck’s rally over the weekend. Many questioned why Mr. Beck who has been one of the staunchest critics of this president would hold a political rally without the politics? By all accounts the rally was a cross between a revival meeting and a church picnic. There were no political speeches extolling the shortcomings of this president and his administration. There were no references to liberalism, socialism, or Obamacare in any of the speeches. So with one of the largest captive audiences in recent memory why was there no demagoguery by two of the best in the business?
The answer is really very simple. All one has to do is look at the demographics of the rally goers to understand that there was no need for these types of speeches. The majority of the participants were white, over 50, and evangelicals. With this group there was no need for over the top rhetoric, racists signs, or t-shirts. Just as the Pope does not have to detail the tenets of the Catholic faith during Mass at St. Peters Basilica neither did Glenn Beck have to give the tenets to those gathered at the rally? Is there any doubt what the political leanings of those people in that demographic would be? The people who showed up at that rally are conservative right-wing voters and their politics is their religion. In their minds there is no separation of religion and state or religion and politics. America in their minds is a Christian country and anyone who does not share their brand of Christianity is an outsider. One of the reasons that President Obama’s religion is questioned and is treated with skepticism is because he does not espouse or demonstrate their brand of Christianity. So we get “He says he is a Christian and I take him at his word.”

When groups of like minded individuals get together there are certain ideas or values that don’t require being spoken. Your very presence at the event signals your agreement with the group’s positions on politics, social values, and community mores. We are God’s people and everyone else are godless infidels who are not worthy of our compassion but instead they are worthy of our contempt. The thing to remember with group dynamics is that certain words can carry special meaning that the majority of the group understands so even a non-political rally can carry political significance. So instead of talking about liberals or foreigners we talk about those who share our version of religion and those who don’t. To the folks in the crowd the meaning is crystal clear and there is no difference.

“When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some.” – Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun

The question that continues not to be asked today is not why more people think that President Obama is a Muslim today than when he was elected. The question that needs to be asked is in a country where we supposedly have freedom of religion why does it matter what religion he is. So we have these endless conversations on the television about what the poll numbers mean to the President’s ability to do his job and no conversation about the hypocrisy of this whole conversation. The thing that should scare the hell out of all Americans who value freedom about the Glenn Beck rally is that today it is the liberals tomorrow it will be the Methodists or the Catholics. A prime example of this is the fall-out from some Christian religious groups that stated following the rally that because Glenn Beck is a Mormon he is unfit and offering a false gospel. You see that once the hate mongering starts it becomes contagious and it will infiltrate and contaminate everyone it comes in contact with.

What Glenn Beck was attempting to do was to marry religion with politics. He is seeking to rally the troops under the cross, the flag, and oh yeah a little gold wouldn’t hurt. America has a history of following these Elmer Gantry wannabes promoting that good ole time religion. The problem with these charlatans is that their version of ole time religion is not very old. I truly believe that no group has done more to divide the Church in the history of the Church than the Evangelicals. According to them God is constantly providing new revelations that only they can hear and decipher which of course makes it next to impossible to dispute. Glenn Beck decries the liberation theology of others yet as you can see from Ms. Palin’s remarks that this is exactly what they are promoting only it is liberation for those who are the most liberated in the country. Who is more liberated than middle-aged white people? What they don’t realize is Beck, Palin and their rich cronies are the ones who are oppressing them.

You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. – Anne Lamott
The Disputed Truth

This is odd. I had read somewhere that drinking red wine in moderation was good for your heart, but I’ve never before encountered anything that suggested that it’s healthier to be a heavy drinker than to completely abstain from alcohol. But, apparently, never drinking alcohol is a bad idea if you want to have a very long life. According to this study, moderate drinking (which they define as one to three drinks a day) is the healthiest course. Heavy drinking comes in second place, although it is obviously associated with car crashes and general clumsiness, as well as significant health risks and behavioral problems. It’s also expensive and can lead to dependency. So, best to keep things in moderation.

This is not good enough:

Asked if the stimulus bill was too small, [White House press secretary Robert] Gibbs says: “I think it makes sense to step back just for a second. … Nobody had, in January of 2009, a sufficient grasp of … what we were facing.” He adds that any stimulus was “unlikely to fill” the hole the financial meltdown created.

“What the Recovery Act did was prevent us from sliding even into a deeper recession with greater economic contraction, with greater job loss than we have experienced because of it,” he says.

This answer has the dubious distinction of being erroneous and stupid. Plenty of people had a sufficient grasp of the situation to recommend a much bigger stimulus bill. The no one could have predicted line of argument is not a political winner under any circumstances but it really stinks when it isn’t true.

Now, the best answer here may not have been the most truthful one, which is that Congress wasn’t offering a significantly bigger stimulus, but it is now clear that it is not going to be enough to significantly bring down high unemployment. Rather than looking helpless, the administration should just start making the argument that we have a choice between prolonged high unemployment or another big stimulus package. Make the election a referendum on that choice.

Setting aside that his delivery was uncharacteristically terrible, the president’s statement on the economy today was pretty pathetic.

This ain’t getting it done on any level.

Originally posted on Citizen Orange.

The “DREAM Now Series: Letters to Barack Obama” is a social media campaign that launched Monday, July 19, to underscore the urgent need to pass the DREAM Act. The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, S. 729, would help tens of thousands of young people, American in all but paperwork, to earn legal status, provided they graduate from U.S. high schools, have good moral character, and complete either two years of college or military service.  With broader comprehensive immigration reform stuck in partisan gridlock, the time is now for the White House and Congress to step up and pass the DREAM Act!

Dear Mr. President,

My name is Lizbeth Mateo and I am undocumented. On May 17th, on the 56th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, I, along with Mohammad Abdollahi, Yahaira Carrillo and two others, became the first undocumented students to risk deportation by staging a sit-in inside Senator McCain’s office in Tucson, Arizona, to demand the immediate passage of the DREAM Act. As a result of that sit-in we were arrested, turned over to ICE, and we now face deportation
I came to this country when I was fourteen-years-old from Oaxaca, Mexico.  It was the late nineties and Mexico was, and is still, facing one of the worst socio-economic and political periods in recent history. For my parents – a taxi driver and a stay-at-home-mom that were struggling to make ends meet-  it was clear that they would have to choose between seeing their children starve and get sick, or risk it all, leave everything behind and relocate the family to Southern California with hopes of a better future. In 1998 we moved to Los Angeles and have lived here, since. 

Their choice and sacrifice paid-off.  I didn’t only become the first one in my family to graduate from high school, but a couple of years ago I became the first one in my family to graduate from college. I graduated from California State University, Northridge and I am currently in the process of applying to law school. My dream is to become an attorney and defend the most vulnerable in the courts of law.

Life as an undocumented student has not been easy, it’s been filled with tough choices and a lot of uncertainty. At one point I felt like the only way to fulfill my dream of higher education was to leave my family behind and go back to Mexico. But California had become my home and so I chose to stay despite the uncertain future ahead. Against all odds I enrolled in college, and it was there that I first learned about the DREAM Act. From the moment I heard about this piece of legislation I decided to work hard and advocate for its passage. It’s now been seven years since that day and the DREAM Act has yet to become a reality.

Despite overwhelming support, Congress has been unwilling to pass the DREAM Act. It is because of that inaction that earlier this year I had to decide whether committing civil disobedience would be worth the risk of being forcibly separated from my family, and deported to a place I no longer consider home. I made a choice, forced in part by the lack of courage from our leaders in Congress and inspired by your call to change, the “change [that] will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time.” Just as I had chosen to work on your campaign inspired by what you said, that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek,” I also chose to face my fears, to risk it all, to seek that change, and sit-in so that the DREAM Act could stand alone.

Some say that destiny is not a matter of chances but one of choices. My life and that of my fellow Dreamers has been filled with tough choices, some made by us and some made by others on our behalf. Two months after  five of us chose to risk it all for our futures, because we knew that without the DREAM Act we had no future, twenty-one  others chose to risk it all for a dream that belongs to us as much as it belongs to our families, our communities, and our home – the United States of America.

I firmly believe that we have made the right choice – to stand up for what we believe in and to try to fulfill the promise of the great American Dream that brought us here in the first place. I firmly believe that we, the undocumented youth, are standing on the right side of history. Now I ask that you stand with us by making the right choice. Help us pass the DREAM Act immediately. Help us free our DREAMs, which have for too long been held hostage to political rhetoric and insensitive choices by a few that have yet to recognize the potential that we have as young, educated people.

Mr. President, staying strong and facing my challenges with courage and dignity while I wait patiently is no longer an option, it’s no longer a choice I can make because I played the last card I had, and my time is running out. I put my life on the line in order to have a chance at a future out of the shadows. Now the DREAM Act is the only chance I have to stay home. Please help us pass the DREAM Act so that no more youth have to risk it all by putting their lives on the line.

Sincerely,
Lizbeth Mateo

The “DREAM Now” letter series is inspired by a similar campaign started by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network for the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  The letters are produced by Kyle de Beausset at Citizen Orange with the assistance of America’s Voice.  Every Monday and Wednesday DREAM-eligible youth will publish letters to the President, and each Friday there will be a DREAM Now recap. 

Approximately 65,000 undocumented youth graduate from U.S. high schools every year, who could benefit from passage of the DREAM Act.  Many undocumented youth are brought to the United States before they can even remember much else, and some don’t even realize their undocumented status until they have to get a driver’s license, want to join the military, or apply to college.  DREAM Act youth are American in every sense of the word — except on paper.  It’s been nearly a decade since the DREAM Act was first introduced.  If Congress does not act now, another generation of promising young graduates will be relegated to the shadows and blocked from giving back fully to our great nation.

This is what you can do right now to pass the DREAM Act:

1. Sign the DREAM Act Petition
2. Join the DREAM Act Facebook Cause
3. Send a fax in support of the DREAM Act
4. Call your Senator and ask them to pass the DREAM Act now.
5. Email kyle at citizenorange dot com to get more involved

Below is a list of previous entries in the DREAM Now Series:

Mohammad Abdollahi (19 July 2010)
Yahaira Carrillo (21 July 2010)
Weekly Recap – Tell Harry Reid You Want the DREAM Act Now (23 July 2010)
Wendy  (26 July 2010)
Matias Ramos (28 July 2010)
Weekly Recap – The CHC Has To Stand With Migrant Youth Not Against Us (30 July 2010)
Tania Unzueta (2 August 2010)
Marlen Moreno (4 August 2010)
Weekly Recap – The Ghost of Virgil Goode Possesses the Republican Party (9 August 2010)
David Cho (9 August 2010)
Ivan Nikolov (11 August 2010)
Yves Gomes (16 August 2010)
Selvin Arevalo (18 August 2010)
Weekly Recap – Latino, LGBT, Migrant Youth, and Progressive Bloggers Lead For the DREAM Act (20 August 2010)
Carlos A. Roa, Jr. (23 August 2010)
Myrna Orozco (25 August 2010)