August, 23 2010, 09:00am EDT
War Veterans/Military Family Members Successfully Blockade Fort Hood Deployment to Iraq
KILLEEN, Texas
Five peace activists successfully blockaded
six buses carrying Fort Hood Soldiers deploying to Iraq outside Fort
Hood's Clarke gate this morning at around 4 a.m. While the activists
took the width of Clarke Rd. and slowed the buses to a halt, police made
no arrests, but instead beat the activists out of the streets using
automatic weapons and police dogs so the deploying Soldiers could
proceed.
Among
those blockading were three veterans of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan and one military spouse. (See attached bios) The action,
organized by a group calling themselves "Fort Hood Disobeys," was aimed
at preventing the deployment of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment
Soldiers to what the veterans termed an illegal and immoral occupation.
While
standing in the street, the activists held banners reading "Occupation
is a Crime" and "Please Don't Make the Same Mistake We Did. RESIST NOW."
From the TX HW-190 overpass, additional supporters attempted to hang
larger banners that read, "Tell the Brass: 'KISS MY ASS' Your family
needs you more" "Sick of Fighting Your Wars" and "Col. Allen [3 ACR
Commander]: Do not deploy wounded Soldiers."
This
latest deployment comes less than two weeks after President Obama
announced the second end to combat operations in Iraq. FHD organizers
denounced this as a lie, and pointed to the deployment of the 3rd ACR, a
combat regiment, to Iraq as clear proof. They have stated they will
continue to organize direct action in the Fort Hood community to oppose
the wars as long as troops continue to deploy.
The action organizers have established a website at forthooddisobeys.blogspot.com
where they will be posting statements, photographs and video from the
actions as they become available during the next 48 hours. As well, for
the length of the day, FHD ran live webcasts updating their supporters
and depicting portions of the direct action. All live broadcasts from
the day are archived at https://bit.ly/b1WEyv.
For more information or to arrange coverage of today's events, call 347-613-8964 or write to forthooddisobeys@hushmail.com. See attached bios for more information on those who participated in today's action.
------------------
Participant Bios:
I
am Bobby Whittenberg-James, a Marine veteran of the war against the
people of Iraq, a Purple Heart recipient and a third generation military
service member. I joined the Marines in June of 2003, believing the
lies about weapons of mass destruction and an imminent threat to our
safety. I have since come to learn that these wars and occupations do
not keep the people of the United States or the Middle East safe, but
instead serve the interests of politicians, capitalists and
corporations; the ruling elite.
These
unjust wars and occupations rob the people of Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan and Yemen of their dignity and their right to
self-determination and serve to make the people of both the Middle East
and the United States less safe. They also serve to further destabilize a
region that has suffered under the boot-heel of western colonialism for
over a century. The US Empire also supports both financially and
militarily the brutal apartheid regime that occupies Palestine. All of
this is done in our name with our money, and I am here to say "Not in my
name!"
The
recent information leaks about the US Empire's wars lay bare their war
crimes and crimes against humanity. We must face the truth, even if it
makes us uncomfortable or shows us something about ourselves that we
don't want to see. When we find the truth, we must respond accordingly. I
will not be complicit in the killing of people. Since I do not believe
that the government or the capitalists will end these wars, I will vote
with my body.
Bobby Whittenberg-James
Disobedient
------------------------------
I
am Crystal Colon. I was a sergeant in the Army for five years,
stationed at Fort Hood the entire time, save two deployments to Iraq
totaling 26 months. I was a Signal Support Systems Noncommissioned
Officer, coordinating communications for various commands. I was
honorably discharged in Jan., 2010, and have been organizing in the
veterans peace movement ever since.
I
first began to question the war in Iraq during my first deployment in
'05-'06. After my friend Robbie was killed, I was very deeply affected. I
started questioning why we were in Iraq. It felt like he had died for
nothing. After returning from Iraq, I planned to leave the military. I
was stop-lossed and forced to return to Iraq for 15 months, in total
held beyond the length of my enlistment more than 450 days. Since
leaving the military, I have been active with the veterans peace
movement, speaking out about my experiences and supporting troops who
refuse to fight.
I
am doing this today because I can't allow this war in which I have
fought to continue. I can't allow other Soldiers to make the same
mistake I did, deploying in support of a war crime. As a veteran of
Iraq, how could I not do this today? For the people I helped occupy, for
the friends I lost and stilI have over there, for the Soldiers on those
buses. How could I not do this today? I should have disobeyed. I should
have never boarded those buses to Iraq. I wish someone had tried to
stop me.
Crystal Colon
Disobedient
----------------------
I
am Matthis Chiroux, former Army sergeant and War Resister. I was
press-ganged into the Army by the Alabama Juvenile "Justice" System in
2002. While in the military, I occupied the nations of Japan and Germany
for more than four years, with shorter tours in the Philippines and
Afghanistan. I was a Public Affairs Noncommissioned Officer specializing
in strategic communications. In reality, I was a propaganda artist. I
was discharged honorably to the Individual Ready Reserve in 2007.
While
I have always been against the war in Iraq, I began resisting it
actively in 2008, after I received mobilization orders for a year-long
deployment to Iraq. I refused those orders in Congress in May of 2008,
calling my orders illegal and unconstitutional. I believed appealing to
Congress would end the war. When 13 Members signed a letter of support
for my decision and sent it to Bush, I thought we had won a victory for
peace. This was more than two years ago. The president has changed, and
the wars and destruction drag on.
Today,
I am blocking the deployment of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment with
my fellow vets and military family members because the wars will
continue to victimize our communities until we halt this bloody machine
from within. I am putting my body on the line in solidarity with the
people of the Middle East, whose bodies have been shot, burned,
tortured, raped and violated by our men and women in and out of uniform.
I cannot willfully allow Americans in uniform to put their lives and
the lives of Iraqis in jeopardy for a crime. We are here because we have
a responsibility to ourselves as veterans and as humans of the world. I
will not rest until my people, ALL PEOPLE, are free.
In Struggle and Solidarity,
Matthis Chiroux
Disobedient
------------------------------
I
am Cynthia Thomas, and I have been an Army Wife for 18 years. My
husband has been deployed three times since the wars began. During his
second deployment, he was severley wounded and medevaced to Walter Reed
Army Hospital on Life Support. Even though he had Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder, Traumatic Brain Injury, suffered three fractures in his back,
three fractures on his pelvis and countless other injuries, the Army
deployed him a third time. This was devastating to our two daughters,
our step-son and to me.
Three
months after my husband deployed for the third time, our step-son
called to inform me he was joining the Marines. That was the exact
moment I realized that our children would be fighting these endless
wars. I decided that I needed to start resisting.
The
reason I am doing this today is because for the past 3 years that I
have been speaking out and advocating for Soldiers, things have only
gotten worse. I have heard countless stories from Vets and Active Duty
Soldiers that give people nightmares. I have heard stories from family
members that would shock people awake if they would just listen! Our
military community is being destroyed!
If
these wars are destroying our Soldiers and military families with 12 to
15-month, often repeat deployments, how do you think the Iraqi and
Afghan people doing? They have been living these wars 24/7, 365 days a
year for nearly a decade! My youngest daughter is an Operation Iraqi
Freedom baby. She was less than one-year-old when her father left to
invade Iraq. I look at her, and I see an Iraqi or Afghan child having to
live in constant fear with no end in sight! I am doing this for our
community, for my girls, for my husband and our Marine. I am doing this
for the Iraqi and Afghan People. Enough is enough. If Soldiers really
want to go fight, they'll have to go through me.
Cynthia Thomas
Disobedient
---------------------
Photograph
ID: All five participants in the blockade action. From left to right
are Iraq Veterans Bobby Whittenberg-James and Crystal Colon, Jeff Grant,
Military Spouse Cynthia Thomas and Afghanistan Veteran Matthis Chiroux.
LATEST NEWS
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


