Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

I do solemnly swear

I do solemnly swear
Getty Images

Escobar served honorably for four years in the Air Force. Following his time as a skilled F-15 Fighter Jet mechanic, he contributed to military justice, assisting attorneys in upholding military discipline. He recently founded a company called True College with a mission to help low-income students navigate the college application process.

“I, Isaiah Escobar, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”


Since the founding of this nation, this very same oath of enlistment has been taken by countless Americans who served this country. There was a time when this oath was unable to be said by women, and there was a time when this oath was said by a minority population that was segregated and seen differently in the eyes of the law. Nevertheless, these Americans, these protectors of their nation, have fought and died to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. As well, these brave Americans have obeyed the orders of their commander and chief. The President.

Our duty as service members is to defend the freedoms granted to us by the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and other sacred documents written by the founders of the United States.

But what happens when these words and laws stated in such sacred documents come under attack? What happens when these documents become obsolete and the ideals in them are called “fake news?" Also, the most disturbing question is: what happens when the Commander and Chief pose a threat to the legitimacy and standing of such documents that military members took an oath to defend?

What happened at the Capitol Building on January 6th, 2021, has truly made me sad and deeply disappointed. Not only does the Capitol Building represent one of our three branches of government, but it also represents the citizens of the United States of America, whom I, once again, took an oath to defend.

America, like any other nation in the world, is not perfect. But, for centuries, America has been a beacon and a leader in the ideals and principles of freedom, justice, and democracy. What transpired in our nation’s capital on January 6, 2021, should frighten us all and serve as a lesson as we approach the presidential election of 2024. What happened at the Capitol Building was not simply another political act. It was an attack on our democracy.

We must learn from this tragedy, which, like Pearl Harbor, will be remembered as a day which will live in infamy. If we don’t, I believe the country I love will cease to be a country of liberty, justice, and democracy. This should not be thought of as a political statement. It is instead a statement of defending and protecting our constitution and protecting freedom, justice, and our democratic republic. Don’t be misled by those who speak of freedom yet refuse to accept the rule of law. Free, fair and secure elections are the backbone of our democratic republic. Only if all Americans, whether from the left, center or right stand up for the Constitution will our nation be free of injustice and prejudice.

The deadliest war in our country’s history was the Civil War. 498,332 American citizens died in that war. This war was fought because a large portion of the country’s population was opposed to applying the same freedoms and principles granted to the majority to the minority. The nation was split then, and it scares me to say that I believe this nation is possibly just as split today.

Yet, I believe we can recover from this if We the People pledge to uphold the rule of law and defend and protect our democracy. Democracy is not a partisan issue.

Read More

Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors

If approved, the Democracy Voucher program would bring in $4.5 million each year through a property tax.

Road Red Runner/Adobe Stock

Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors

A public funding mechanism for Seattle elections is up for renewal in next week's election.

The Democracy Voucher program was passed 10 years ago. It offers voters four $25 vouchers to use each election cycle for candidates who accept certain fundraising and spending limits. Supporters said it is a model for more inclusive democracy, touting higher turnout, increased participation from more small donors and a more diverse candidate field.

Spencer Olson, spokesperson for the group People Powered Elections Seattle, which supports Proposition 1, said the program helps level the playing field.

"It's really important that people's voices are heard and that candidates can run being supported by their constituents," Olson contended. "Versus just listening to those wealthiest donors, those special interests that have historically been the loudest voices at the table and really dominated what priorities rise to the top."

The voucher is supported by a property tax. Olson and other supporters hope to bring the model statewide. Critics said the program is not big enough to make a difference in elections and has not curbed outside spending. Ballots are due by 8 p.m. Tuesday.

Olson pointed out the vouchers have succeeded in encouraging more diverse participation in local elections.

"The intention of the program was to bring a public financing program to Seattle elections to help empower more candidates -- more diverse candidates, women, renters, people of color -- to have equal access to be able to run, and run competitive elections without having to rely on wealthy donors, special interests," Olson emphasized.

Olson noted because the money comes from a dedicated tax levy, unused vouchers roll over to the next election.

"The goal isn't to create an unlimited pot of money but to be able to provide resources for candidates to run with the community's support," Olson stressed. "But it's not a blank check at the same time."

Eric Tegethoff is a journalist covering the Northwest for Public News Service.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defining The Democracy Movement: Rahmin Sarabi
- YouTube

Defining The Democracy Movement: Rahmin Sarabi

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engages diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This initiative is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.

The latest interview in this series features Rahmin Sarabi, founder and Director of the American Public Trust, an organization dedicated to promoting and implementing deliberative democracy practices, such as citizen assemblies.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”
An Israeli airstrike hit Deir al-Balah in central Gaza on Jan. 1, 2024.
Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”

President Donald Trump finally acknowledged there is “real starvation” in Gaza—a reality that has generated momentum among holdout countries to recognize a State of Palestine, as 147 of 193 U.N. members have already done. Trump claims that this impermissibly “rewards Hamas.” Concerns about the optics of “rewarding” a militant group that is not the country’s government should not drive the decision to recognize Palestine as a state or the decision to maintain diplomatic relations with its government.

Countries that have already recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the fact that the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) forms a defined geographic area with a government and a population—the traditional criteria for statehood. Countries that have not recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) lack of effective control over parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and to the idea that recognition can be used as future diplomatic leverage. But waiting to recognize a state of Palestine until after there is a negotiated agreement between Israel and the PA is an outdated position that amounts to “kicking the can” down an interminable road.

Keep ReadingShow less