November, 02 2010, 12:25pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Drew Courtney or Josh Glasstetter,Phone: 202-467-4999,Email:,media@pfaw.org
What the 2010 Elections Say About America: Stories People For the American Way is Watching
Statement by Michael B. Keegan, President, People For the American Way
WASHINGTON
The
national elections being held this week bring together a number of historic
story lines and analysts will no doubt be sorting through the results for
weeks. It will take some time to assess the full impact of the virtual merger
between Fox News and the GOP, and weigh the success of efforts by Religious
Right leaders, GOP strategists, and big business to co-opt the Tea Party
movement. But before election night is over, we'll get answers to some of the
most important questions about where our country is headed.
Here's
PFAW's guide to races to watch and to what the outcomes mean for America.
Will
Scapegoating Latinos Backfire?
The
Republicans could win this battle but lose the war. Sharron Angle, arguably the
most high-profile of the Tea Party's Senate candidates, built her pre-election
strategy on flooding Nevada airwaves with toxic, divisive, racially tinged
television ads that feature menacing dark-skinned people threatening
vulnerable white children and families. The national GOP's embrace of Angle
will make it hard for them to distance themselves from her destructive,
scapegoating ads targeting the fastest-growing demographic group in American
society. The outcome of her campaign may depend on whether she was right in
guessing that her ads would win her more votes in this election than they would
cost her. Louisiana Senator David Vitter has also run what some consider the
most offensive anti-immigrant ads of the campaign season.
America's
Voice has identified another dozen or so candidates who have used
distortions and stereotypes regarding immigrants and Latinos. Among races to
watch where candidates have made outrageous statements on immigration:
- Sharron Angle - U.S. Senate candidate, Nevada, ran divisive
anti-immigrant ads, then claimed she didn't know if the scary people
sneaking through the border fence in the ad were Latinos. - David Vitter - U.S. Senator, Louisiana, also ran
offensive ads. - Meg Whitman - Gubernatorial candidate, California, who had
called her former housekeeper an "extended member of the
family," later urged that she be deported. - Joe Miller - U.S. Senate candidate, Alaska, looked to Iron
curtain for border control inspiration, saying, "If East Germany could do it, we could
do it." - Kris Kobach - Secretary of State candidate, Kansas, claimed the illegal voter registration by aliens has
become "pervasive," then later admitted he didn't know the
extent of the alleged problem. - Allen West - U.S. House candidate, Florida, mixed
anti-government and anti-immigrant rhetoric: "You must be
well-informed and well-armed, because this government we have right now is
a tyrannical government. And it starts with illegal immigration."
While
some GOP strategists and Religious Right leaders are worried about the
long-term impact of the Party alienating Latino voters, those concerns seem to
have been pushed aside in the hopes that demagoguery on the immigration issue
will win enough votes this year to help put the GOP in control of Congress. But
playing to the Tea Party base of the party, and its hostility to any
comprehensive approach to immigration reform, will put the GOP in a long-term
bind. Most Americans support reform that includes a path to citizenship for
people living, working, and raising their families here; GOP candidates
answering to right-wing ideologues denounce any such provisions as
"amnesty." Immigration is likely to be one of the issues on which the
newly expanded far-right congressional caucus will find governing more
complicated than campaigning.
Will
Voters Overlook Right-Wing Violence and Calls for Violence?
Tea Party
candidates and right-wing pundits have introduced a frightening amount of
violent rhetoric into this year's campaigns, suggesting that if right-wing
voters don't get their way they should consider resorting to violence or even
revolution against a "tyrannical" federal government. They have
portrayed the president and Democratic congressional leaders not only as
political opponents but as enemies of America bent on crushing individual
liberty and undermining the nation's interest. With that kind of example and
inflammatory rhetoric from right-wing leaders, it's hardly surprising that
members of Congress have faced death threats, or that violence and thuggish
behavior have broken out on the campaign trail:
Among the
races to watch:
- U.S. Senate, Kentucky:
Campaign supporters of Senate candidate Rand Paul's knocked a woman to the
cement, and another stomped on her shoulder and pressed her head to the
ground with his foot, landing her in the hospital with a concussion and
multiple sprains. Paul called the attack a "crowd control
problem." - U.S. Senate, Alaska:
Candidate Joe Miller's paramilitary security team manhandled, handcuffed, and illegally detained a journalist who
was trying to ask the candidate a question. - U.S. House, Florida 22nd Congressional District:
Republican Congressional candidate Allen West has used violent rhetoric in his campaign, used members of a biker gang for protection, and defended the harassment and bullying of a Democratic
staffer attempting to video a public event. - U.S. Senate, Nevada:
GOP candidate Sharron Angle famously suggested that if the elections don't go the way Tea
Party activists want, there may be need to resort to "Second
Amendment remedies."
All
indications point to widespread Republican gains on Election Day, which should
mitigate against inflammatory charges that President Obama and his Democratic
allies had somehow stolen the election. But if a number of close and heated
races are won by Democrats, don't be surprised by violent reactions among those
who have been amped up by Glenn Beck and other purveyors of paranoia.
Will Right-Wing
'Grassroots' Campaigns Mean Big Win for Government by Big Business?
With a
big push from a Supreme Court granting corporations the same right as citizens
to influence American elections, big business interests are pouring huge
amounts of their record-breaking profits and cash-on-hand into buying a
government that is even more willing to sacrifice the interests of individual
Americans to the demands from corporate America. A coalition of right-wing
groups coordinating with each other to lead the GOP-supporting effort dumped an
additional $50 million into ads in competitive House races in the final weeks
of the campaign. Unless and until a constitutional amendment addresses the
extraordinary damage created by Citizens United and other Supreme Court
decisions that have undermined campaign finance laws, we can count on corporate
America to invest whatever it takes to elect politicians pledged to implement policies
that sacrifice the health of American consumers and workers, and the well-being
of American communities, on the altar of ever-greater profits and wealth for
those who already have the most.
Among the
biggest investments by corporate interests dropped in competitive races are:
- U.S. Senate, Colorado
- Ken Buck v. Sen. Michael Bennet.
American Crossroads alone has spent more than $5 million attacking Bennet; reportedly this race featured a record3.9 million in
outside funding on just one day in October. - U.S. Senate, Illinois
- Mark Kirk v. Alexi Giannoulias.
Crossroads GPS poured more than4.4 million into this race to attack
Giannoulias. - U.S. Senate, Washington - Dino Rossi v. Sen. Patty Murray. On
October 21, Rossi reportedly passed Illinois' Mark Kirk to take the top
spot in secret money being spent on his behalf - more than 4.5 million at
that point. - U.S. Senate, California
- Carly Fiorina v. Sen. Barbara Boxer.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has spent more than5 million to attack Sen. Boxer.
How Many Anti-Government Extremists
Will Take Seats in Congress?
Cheered on by right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck, Tea Party and GOP candidates
are portraying this election as a choice between "socialism" and
"constitutional conservativism." They are embracing a radically
right-wing view of the U.S. Constitution, one that ignores the Constitution's -
and the nation's - history, to promote a misguided nostalgia for a time when
huge numbers of elderly Americans lived in poverty and when the federal
government could not protect workers with safety regulations or minimum wage
requirements. Meanwhile, Beck and Religious Right figures are promoting the
idea that this radically restricted view of government is grounded in
Christianity and the Bible. In essence, they are trying to make the size and
scope of government the new culture war, and to convince Americans that relying
on government assistance in hard times is not only un-American but
un-Christian.
Many
Americans who end up voting for Tea Party-backed Republicans because they are
worried about the state of the economy or size of the deficit will be shocked
to find the kind of gridlock that will be caused if and when candidates get
elected to office who have pledged not to support anything they don't find in
their 19th Century view of the Constitution.
A few of
the many races to watch:
- Mike Lee, U.S. Senate Candidate from Utah:
Lee, virtually guaranteed a win in this heavily Republican state, will
bring to the Senate a remarkably reactionary view of the Constitution and
the U.S.
government's role in society. He has denounced as "domestic enemies" those who
disagree with his radically limited view of the (divinely inspired)
Constitution. He would abolish the federal departments of Energy and
Education, dismantle the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and phase out Social Security. He says earmarks are
unconstitutional. Lee could be one of a number of new senators who take
the GOP's already unprecedented campaign of partisan obstruction to a
damaging new level. - Joe Miller, U.S. Senate candidate from Alaska: Miller says the
Department of Education should be eliminated because it's not in the
Constitution. Also violating the Constitution, in Millers mind, was health care reform
and legislation to extend jobless benefits to out-of-work Americans. He says he
would phase out social security and Medicare. - Ken Buck, U.S. Senate candidate from Colorado: Buck calls
for the elimination of the federal Department of Energy and Department of
Education, the privatization of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, and the elimination of student loans. He says he "doesnt
know" whether Social Security is constitutional, but calls it a "horrible policy" and says the
federal government should not be running health care or retirement
programs. - Marco Rubio, U.S. Senate candidate from Florida:
Rubio calls "statism" the "fastest-growing
religion in America." - Rand Paul, U.S. Senate candidate from Kentucky: Paul has suggested that Congress should not be making mine
safety rules. He says Medicare is socialized medicine. He wants to eliminate the Departments of Education and Agriculture,
do away with the Federal Reserve, and abolish the Americans with
Disabilities Act. - David Hamer, U.S. House candidate from California's 11th
Congressional District: Hamer, who calls public schools
"socialism in education," wants to abolish public schools entirely and return education
to "the way things worked through the first century of American
nationhood," when an awful lot of people had no access to educational
opportunities.
Will Voter
Suppression and False Charges of Voter Fraud Help GOP Candidates Win?
Right-wing
strategists have a multi-faceted strategy on voting issues. One tactic is to
depress possible turnout among groups more likely to support Democratic and
progressive candidates, particularly people of color, with disinformation and
intimidation. News outlets have reported on a variety of voter suppression
efforts aimed at lowering turnout among African Americans, including Pennsylvania
Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett telling the Delaware County GOP to keep the Philadelphia
Democratic vote below 50 percent; billboards in Milwaukee showing people behind
bars warning against "voter fraud," and the planned deployment by Illinois Senate candidate Mark Kirk of
"voter integrity squads" in Black neighborhoods in. In Wisconsin, the
Republican Attorney General reportedly colluded with
the state GOP, local Tea Party, and Americans for Prosperity in a voter
"caging" operation designed to purge people from voting rolls. In
Harris County, Texas, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee has asked the DOJ to investigate
voter intimidation efforts during early voting
Watch for
stories on and after Election Day involving registered voters who are turned
away because they had been purged from voter lists, stories of intimidation by
"voter integrity" operations. Meanwhile, while there is no credible
evidence that voter fraud - the way right-wing strategists use the term,
meaning individuals casting ballots they aren't eligible to cast - has played
any significant role in any recent election, GOP strategists and right-wing
pundits have made it an article of faith among many Tea Party and right-wing
activists that ACORN somehow stole the 2008 election for President Obama and
that Democrats and people of color are conspiring once again to try to steal
elections. Sharron Angle and right-wing groups have already suggested that
Democrats are making plans to steal the close election. The extent of voter
suppression activities, and the extent to which right-wing pundits and
politicians make irresponsible charges of voter fraud, could tell us a lot
about the extent to which inflammatory and racially divisive politics will
continue to drive right-wing political strategy.
Among the
races to watch:
- U.S. Senate race in Illinois,
where GOP candidate Kirk has said he will deploy the largest "voter
integrity" program in almost two decades - Gubernatorial race in Texas,
where Democratic officials have asked the DOJ to investigate reports of
voter intimidation - Numerous races in Wisconsin,
including the U.S. Senate race, where GOP officials have engaged in
"voter caging" to purge voting lists
People For the American Way works to build a democratic society that implements the ideals of freedom, equality, opportunity and justice for all. We encourage civic participation, defend fundamental rights, and fight to dismantle systemic barriers to equitable opportunity. We fight against right-wing extremism and the injustice it fosters.
1 (800) 326-7329LATEST NEWS
British Activist Blasts 'Sociopathic Greed' of Big Tech After US Judge Blocks His Detention
"I chose to take on the biggest companies in the world, to hold them accountable, to speak truth to power. There is a cost attached to that," said Imran Ahmed, one of five Europeans targeted by the Trump administration.
Dec 26, 2025
After a US judge on Thursday blocked President Donald Trump's administration from detaining one of the European anti-disinformation advocates hit with a travel ban earlier this week, Imran Ahmed suggested that he is being targeted because artificial intelligence and social media companies "are increasingly under pressure as a result of organizations like mine."
Ahmed is the CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). The 47-year-old Brit lives in Washington, DC with his wife and infant daughter, who are both US citizens. While the Trump administration on Tuesday also singled out Clare Melford of the Global Disinformation Index, Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg of HateAid, and Thierry Breton, a former European commissioner who helped craft the Digital Services Act, Ahmed is reportedly the only one currently in the United States.
On Wednesday, Ahmed, who is a legal permanent resident, sued top Trump officials including US Attorney General Pam Bondi, Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting Director Todd Lyons, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the District Court for the Southern District of New York.
"Rather than disguise its retaliatory motive, the federal government was clear that Mr. Ahmed is being 'SANCTIONED' as punishment for the research and public reporting carried out by the nonprofit organization that Mr. Ahmed founded and runs," the complaint states. "In other words, Mr. Ahmed faces the imminent prospect of unconstitutional arrest, punitive detention, and expulsion for exercising his basic First Amendment rights."
"The government's actions are the latest in a string of escalating and unjustifiable assaults on the First Amendment and other rights, one that cannot stand basic legal scrutiny," the filing continues. "Simply put, immigration enforcement—here, immigration detention and threatened deportation—may not be used as a tool to punish noncitizen speakers who express views disfavored by the current administration."
Just a day later, Judge Vernon Broderick, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, issued a temporary restraining order, blocking the administration from arresting or detaining Ahmed. The judge also scheduled a conference for Monday afternoon.
The US Department of State said Thursday that "the Supreme Court and Congress have repeatedly made clear: The United States is under no obligation to allow foreign aliens to come to our country or reside here."
Ahmed's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, said that "the federal government can't deport a green-card holder like Imran Ahmed, with a wife and young child who are American, simply because it doesn't like what he has to say."
In the complaint and interviews published Friday, Ahmed pointed to his group's interactions with Elon Musk, a former member of the Trump and administration and the richest person on Earth. He also controls the social media platform X, which sued CCDH in 2023.
"We were sued by Elon Musk a couple of years ago, unsuccessfully; a court found that he was trying to impinge on our First Amendment rights to free speech by using law to try and silence our accountability work," Ahmed told the BBC.
Months after a federal judge in California threw out that case last year, Musk publicly declared "war" on the watchdog.
CCDH's work is being targeted by the U.S. State Department trying to sanction and deport our CEO, Imran Ahmed. This is an unconstitutional attempt to silence anyone who dares to criticize social media giants. But a federal judge has temporarily blocked his detention.More in BBC ⤵️
[image or embed]
— Center for Countering Digital Hate (@counterhate.com) December 26, 2025 at 4:05 PM
"What it has been about is companies that simply do not want to be held accountable and, because of the influence of big money in Washington, are corrupting the system and trying to bend it to their will, and their will is to be unable to be held accountable," Ahmed told the Guardian. "There is no other industry, that acts with such arrogance, indifference, and a lack of humility and sociopathic greed at the expense of people."
Ahmed explained that he spent Christmas away from his wife and daughter because of the Trump administration's track record of quickly sending targeted green-card holders far away from their families. He said: "I chose to take on the biggest companies in the world, to hold them accountable, to speak truth to power. There is a cost attached to that. My family understands that."
The British newspaper noted that when asked whether he thought UK politicians should use X, the former Labour Party adviser told the Press Association, "Politicians have to make decisions for themselves, but every time they post on X, they are putting a buck in Mr. Musk's pocket and I think they need to question their own consciences and ask themselves whether or not they think they can carry on doing that."
Ahmed also said that it was "telling that Mr. Musk was one of the first and most vociferous in celebrating the press release" about the sanctions against him and the others.
"He said it was great, and it is great, but not for the reasons that he thinks," the campaigner said. "Because what it has actually done is give a chance for the system to show that the advocacy that we do is both important and protected by the First Amendment."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Free Them All': One Year After Dr. Abu Safiya Abducted, Israel Urged to Release Gaza Health Workers
"We won't forget him nor the 360+ health workers Israel has abducted from Gaza since October 2023," said CodePink.
Dec 26, 2025
Ahead of Saturday's one-year anniversary of Israel abducting Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya from the Gaza hospital he ran, advocates demanded the release the scores of health workers still imprisoned by Israeli occupation forces.
"One year ago, Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya was abducted by the Israeli military along with dozens of other medical staff during a horrific raid on the Kamal Adwan Hospital in Gaza," Dr. Yipeng Ge, a member of Doctors Against Genocide, said Friday on social media. "Free Hussam Abu Safiya. Free them all."
Activist Petra Schurenhofer said on X: "It's been a year since Israel abducted and illegally detained Dr Hussam Abu Safiya. And since then he has been languishing in an Israeli jail, being subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment. Don't forget him. And don't stop calling for his release."
Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya was abducted by the IOF from Kamal Adwan Hospital one year ago this week.Israel has detained & tortured Dr. Abu Safiya for one whole year.We won't forget him nor the 360+ health workers Israel has abducted from Gaza since October 2023.
[image or embed]
— CODEPINK (@codepink.bsky.social) December 24, 2025 at 6:53 PM
Abu Safiya, the 52-year-old director of Kamal Adwan Hospital, was seized on December 27, 2024 as Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops continued their yearlong siege and raids on the facility in Beit Lahia, northern Gaza. The IDF claimed without evidence that Kamal Adwan—the last major functioning hospital in northern Gaza at the time—was a Hamas command center.
During a previous Israeli attack on Kamal Adwan, Abu Safiya's 15-year-old son was killed in a drone strike. Abu Safiya was seriously wounded in a separate drone attack that left six pieces of shrapnel in his leg.
After his capture, Abu Safiya was first jailed at the notorious Sde Teiman prison in Israel's Negev Desert—where dozens of detainees have died and where torture, rape, and other abuses have been reported—and then Ofer Prison in the illegally occupied West Bank.
Abu Safiya said he has endured torture by his captors—including beatings with batons and electric shocks—and suffered severe weight loss, broken ribs, and other injuries, for which he was allegedly denied adequate medical care.
Israeli authorities deny these accusations. However, there have been many documented and otherwise credible reports of health and medical workers being tortured by Israeli forces—sometimes fatally, as in the case of Dr. Adnan al-Bursh, who headed the orthopedic department at al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.
According to Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, al-Bursh was "likely raped to death," a fate allegedly suffered by multiple Palestinians imprisoned by Israel.
Abu Safiya remains in Israeli custody, despite having not been charged with any crimes. Israeli courts have extended his detention multiple times under so-called “unlawful combatant” legal provisions.
In January, Abu Safiya’s mother died of a heart attack that MedGlobal, the Illinois-based nonprofit for which Abu Safiya worked as lead Gaza physician, attributed to “severe sadness” over her son’s plight.
According to United Nations agencies and other experts, Israeli forces have destroyed or damaged nearly all of Gaza's hospitals in hundreds of attacks since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. More than 1,500 Palestinian health workers have been killed.
Last year, an independent United Nations commission found that “Israel has perpetrated a concerted policy to destroy Gaza’s healthcare system as part of a broader assault on Gaza, committing war crimes and the crime against humanity of extermination with relentless and deliberate attacks on medical personnel and facilities.”
Israel is currently facing an ongoing genocide case filed by South Africa at the International Court of Justice. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes including murder and forced starvation.
Albina Abu Safiya, the imprisoned doctor's wife, pleaded last week: “Save my husband before it is too late. His only ‘crime’ was saving the wounded and tending to the wounds of children.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Argue Striking Nigeria Won't 'Make Americans Safer' as US Warns of 'More to Come'
"Seems like the Armed Services committees ought to do some oversight regarding the expensive and pointless Christmas fireworks display in Nigeria," said one legal expert.
Dec 26, 2025
After the Trump administration bombed alleged Islamic State targets in Nigeria on Christmas Day, Gen. Dagvin Anderson of US Africa Command claimed that "our goal is to protect Americans and disrupt violent extremist organizations wherever they are," and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned of "more to come," while critics advocated against any more American violence.
President Donald Trump said Thursday that he launched a "powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians, at levels not seen for many years, and even Centuries!"
Specifically, according to the New York Times, which spoke with an unnamed US military source, "the strike involved more than a dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles fired off a Navy ship in the Gulf of Guinea, hitting insurgents in two ISIS camps in northwest Nigeria's Sokoto State."
The Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs acknowledged cooperation with the United States that "includes the exchange of intelligence, strategic coordination, and other forms of support."
However, Nigerian Foreign Minister Yusuf Maitama Tuggar also countered the Trump administration's framing of the airstrikes as part of a battle against a "Christian genocide."
The minister stressed during a Friday appearance on CNN that "terrorism in Nigeria is not a religious conflict; it is a regional security threat."
The Associated Press spoke with residents of Jabo, a village in Sokoto, about the confusion and panic spurred by the strikes:
They... said the village had never been attacked by armed gangs as part of the violence the US says is widespread, though such attacks regularly occur in neighboring villages.
"As it approached our area, the heat became intense," recalled Abubakar Sani, who lives just a few houses from the scene of the explosion.
"Our rooms began to shake, and then fire broke out," he told AP. "The Nigerian government should take appropriate measures to protect us as citizens. We have never experienced anything like this before."
Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, a US think tank that that promotes restraint, and diplomacy, said in a statement that "the US action taken in Nigeria while Americans celebrated the Christmas holiday is an unnecessary and unjustified use of US military force that violates Mr. Trump's promises to his supporters to put American interests first and avoid risky and wasteful military campaigns abroad."
As Common Dreams reported after the strikes, despite dubbing himself the "most anti-war president in history" and even seeking a Nobel Peace Prize, Trump has now bombed not only Nigeria but also Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, plus alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, since the start of his first term in 2017.
The Dove
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) December 25, 2025 at 9:06 PM
"Airstrikes in Nigeria will not make Americans safer, no matter the target," Kavanagh argued. "There are no real US interests at stake in Nigeria, a country that is an ocean and over 5,000 miles away. The country is home to a long-running insurgency, but violence and unrest in Nigeria pose no threat to the US homeland or national security interests abroad. Furthermore, despite Mr. Trump's claims, there is no evidence that Christians are targeted by Nigeria's extremist groups at a rate higher than any other religious or ethnic group in the country. Killings of civilians, to the extent they occur, are indiscriminate."
As CNN reported:
"Yes, these (extremist) groups have sadly killed many Christians. However, they have also massacred tens of thousands of Muslims," said Bulama Bukarti, a Nigerian human rights advocate specializing in security and development.
He added that attacks in public spaces disproportionately harm Muslims, as these radical groups operate in predominantly Muslim states...
Out of more than 20,400 civilians killed in attacks between January 2020 and September 2025, 317 deaths were from attacks targeting Christians while 417 were from attacks targeting Muslims, according to crisis monitoring group Armed Conflict Location & Event Data.
Kavanagh noted that "the United States has been conducting strikes on ISIS and other terrorist group targets in Africa now for over two decades and the number and power of militant groups on the continent has only increased. The whack-a-mole strategy is ineffective at controlling insurgencies or eliminating terrorist groups. It also needlessly expends scarce US resources and does so at a time when Americans are concerned about economic challenges at home."
"Chasing terrorist groups around the globe is the opposite of the 'America First' foreign policy voters expected when they returned Mr. Trump to the White House," she added. "To keep his commitment, he must make the attack in Nigeria a one-off."
Medea Benjamin of the anti-war group CodePink similarly says in a video shared on social media Friday: "We have to ask, is this Donald Trump's idea of America First? The American people do not want to be dragged into yet another conflict, and this was done without congressional approval, without public debate, without any transparency."
Former libertarian US Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.) has also emphasized in multiple social media posts since Thursday that "to carry out an offensive military action in another country, the approval the president of the United States needs is from the Congress of the United States, not from a foreign government."
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group and nonresident senior fellow at the New York University School of Law, suggested congressional action, saying that it "seems like the Armed Services committees ought to do some oversight regarding the expensive and pointless Christmas fireworks display in Nigeria."
Meanwhile, progressive campaigner Melissa Byrne asked, "What kind of Christianity murders people on Christmas?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


