By Jan Kinner

This article is written by Jan Kinner. I’ve been happy to get to know Jan the last few months and help him with his campaign. He is seeking to be the Democratic Party candidate to challenge and replace Republican Mike Turner in the US House. The Primary is May 5. Jan is exceptionally qualified and a person of great character. He is the one who can retire Turner. He has my vote. See his bio below.

It must be hard for Congressman Turner to sleep at night or look at himself in the mirror these days. He knows the truth — but he keeps having to spin stories to make sure what comes out of his mouth doesn’t contradict the lies being told by Trump and his administration.

Think of it in terms everyone understands: we, the voters of OH-10, are the employer. Mike Turner is the employee. We hired him. We’ve reelected him eleven times. For years we gave him our trust and asked for little in return — just the basic expectation that he’d put our interests first. That arrangement is now broken. Turner has done something so disqualifying we have no choice but to let him go.

He lied. Not a small mistake — a deliberate, repeated lie, told to justify an illegal war and protect a reckless president from accountability. Any employee caught red-handed deceiving his employer on a matter this serious would be walked out the door the same day. Turner should be no different.

Fifteen Times in Twenty Minutes

On CBS’s Face the Nation, Turner claimed the U.S. and its allies faced an “imminent threat” from Iran, and that this justified Trump’s military strike on February 28th. He used the phrase “imminent threat” at least 15 times across two interviews totaling just 20 minutes.

Turner knows — he absolutely knows, given his years on national security committees — what “imminent” means under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. It means a situation where immediate action is necessary to prevent an attack on the United States, its territories, or its armed forces. Not “someday.” Not “they have missiles.” Immediate. About to happen. Now.

To date, no official source has provided any evidence that Iran was preparing to attack the United States or its armed forces. If that evidence exists, show it — show it to the American people, who oppose this conflict by a wide margin.

Instead, Turner offered this: “Imminent here really is that the Iranian regime continues to be a sponsor of terrorism, an amassing of missiles and inventory, where they have declared themselves an enemy of the United States and of our allies.”

By that definition, Russia, North Korea, and China are all “imminent threats.” Should we bomb them tomorrow? Turner didn’t make a legal argument. He invented a new definition of a word to cover for a president whose actions didn’t meet the legal standard. He confused — or pretended to confuse — a potential threat with an imminent one. I’m willing to bet he knew exactly what he was doing.

The Facts Don’t Add Up

Look at what we actually know:

• The Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard ,testified on March 18, 2026 that Iran had not resumed enriching uranium. So how was “ongoing nuclear enrichment” an imminent threat when enrichment had already stopped?
• Trump himself called Operation MIDNIGHT HAMMER in June 2025 the “total obliteration” of Iran’s nuclear sites. If they were obliterated, why have we been bombing a wider range of targets across Iran for the past 49 days? And why didn’t we simply strike Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan again if the first round wasn’t enough?
• A May 2025 Defense Intelligence Agency report found that Iran could not develop a missile capable of reaching the United States before 2035 — nine years from now. Turner called that imminent. Something isn’t adding up. And Turner knows it.

What This Is Costing You

This isn’t just a legal or political argument. You are paying for this war right now, today, at the pump and at the grocery store.
According to researchers at Brown University’s Climate Solutions Lab:

• Americans have spent $10.94 billion extra on gasoline since February 28th — Ohio gas prices are up 90 cents a gallon.
• Americans have spent $10.00 billion extra on diesel — diesel is up nearly $2 a gallon.
• Everything shipped by truck gets marked up when diesel prices rise. That’s most of what’s on your grocery store shelves.
• Fertilizer prices are up 45% since February 28th — and farmers will have to pass that along to you in the months ahead.

The Pentagon puts the direct military cost at $54 billion and rising every second. On top of that, the Pentagon has hinted at requesting a $200 billion emergency authorization just to restock its weapons — on top of the $1.5 trillion defense budget already requested for Fiscal Year 2027. Our kids and grandkids will be paying off that national debt in higher taxes and reduced benefits for the rest of their lives.

All of this launched without consulting Congress. Without notifying Republican congressional leaders. Without coordinating with NATO. No authorization. No debate. No accountability.

Time to Vote Him Out

I can’t stand the dishonesty. The lying. The alternate facts. The bending of truth to protect one man’s career and another man’s ego. Mike Turner is more interested in what’s good for his party than what’s good for the people he’s supposed to represent.

Lying to sell an illegal war is a firing offense. Lying to protect your own career is a firing offense. Giving cover to a president who has claimed — without contradiction from Turner or any Republican — the authority to destroy an entire civilization at his discretion, is a betrayal of the oath Turner swore to us and to the Constitution.

The voters of OH-10 hired Mike Turner. It’s time we fired him.
Case closed.

Jan enlisted in the Air Force in 1974 in Springfield Massachusetts at age 19. Within six years, he had earned his Bachelors degree and had been commissioned Second Lieutenant. He eventually earned three Master degrees and attended the Air War College. At the time of his retirement in 2005, Jan was in charge of Information Technology (IT) for the whole Air Force with a budget of over $1.2 billion, and a team of over 500 members. After his retirement, Jan had positions at Deloitte Consulting and also with Computer Science Corporation, and in 2008 became a professor for the Defense Acquisition University where he taught for fourteen years, until 2022.

Jan and his wife, Susan, have been married for 51 years and have two adult sons. They have traveled all over the world — mountain climbing, hiking long distances in exotic places like Kilimanjaro — amazingly, they have traveled in over twenty-five countries. Jan is a long-distant bicyclist and last summer had a 1200 mile trip lasting 23 days from Seattle to Jackson Hole, Wyoming. To focus on this campaign, Jan cancelled a 500 mile bike trip planned for April that was to start in the Florida Keys

 

Imminent: about to happen, impending, at hand, close, near, approaching, fast approaching, coming, forthcoming, on the way, about to happen, upon us

Wow. We keep descending into greater depths of absurdity. Mike Turner, on “Face the Nation,” urged listeners to step away from a truth-based reality and join with him in an alternative reality — Trump world — where the truth is whatever the leader declares it to be.

In his February 28 speech initiating this war, President Trump said, “Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.”

The word “imminent” has an accepted meaning and Margaret Brennan’s first question to Congressman Turner was: “Were you informed of a specific and imminent threat to the United States?”

What proceeded in the interview was sad, and alarming. Sad to see an intelligent, mature man, at this point in his life,  demeaning himself so. Alarming, because more and more it is clear that Trump is establishing authoritarian control — demonstrated here by having a mature congressman from Ohio act ridiculous by defending the un-defendable.

The truthful answer to Margaret’s question would have been: No— there was no specific or imminent threat — not if “imminent” means “about to happen.”

Turner’s answer required an alternative definition. He said,

“Imminent, here, really is that the Iranian regime continues to be a sponsor of terrorism and an amassing of missiles and inventory where they have declared themselves, an enemy of the United States and of our allies.”

Turner, in this interview, criticized Obama and the “Democrat side” for having an attitude that “imminent” is “where people have their hand almost on the button with something that has been completely assembled.” He praised Trump: “This administration has declared that they had information, an imminent aspect of that — that um Iran was a threat both to us and to um to Israel, our our ally, and had the opportunity to take an action to eliminate that threat. That’s important. We don’t have wait. We don’t have to wait.”

He is saying that unlike the Democrats, who would wait to attack Iran, until an attack might be justified, Trump doesn’t have to wait. He can do whatever he wants to do and can change the meaning of words as needed

“Imminent,” here, is defined by Turner as anything that is a threat — even if it is a threat only in the long-term. In his State of the Union address, Trump claimed the Iranians were a threat because they were “working on missiles that will soon reach the United States.” What is “soon”? The best guess is the Iranians would need almost ten years — to 2035.

Margaret Brennan: Which threat?

Mike Turner: We don’t have to wait

Margaret. Brennan: The president said the nuclear threat was obliterated and none of the nuclear sites …

Mike Turner: (speaking over) No no he said that at those sites that we had taken action to eliminate, the nuclear enrichment sites, that we had obliterated those sites. But they had continued to amass missile technology and missile inventory. They had continued, as has had been declared, to um pursue um their intention of nuclear uh enrichment. They had continued …

Margaret Brennan: Rubio said they weren’t enriching.

Mike Turner: They had continued their intention to pursue nuclear enrichment. They had had said and declared that they were going to do that. Their programs had not been completely abolished and their intention had not been abolished.

Again, WOW. Turner, by sanctioning Trumps’ unconstitutional attack, is stooping to new levels of absurdity. He admits that the nuclear program was obliterated and that they had stopped enriching, but,  he maintains, regardless, America was justified in attacking Iran because we don’t like Iran’s intentions — “their intention had not been abolished.” This sounds like a comedy routine. Mike Turner must realize that this makes no sense.

Turner has no objection to Trump starting a war without congressional approval.
He vigorously defends, to the point of absurdity, the spending of tons of money to attack a sovereign nation, an attack he knows breaks international law, killing hundreds and probably thousands. What he says makes no sense.

Here are the most significant words in Trump’s February 28 address:

This regime will soon learn that no one should challenge the strength and might of the United States Armed Forces. I built and rebuilt our military in my first administration, and there is no military on earth even close to its power, strength or sophistication

Heaven help us. What have we done? How could we have given such power to this man? How could congress — How could Mike Turner — be so irresponsible and fail so miserably to uphold and defend the constitution?

I’ve got to think that if we could look deep enough and understand with clarity what is actually motivating this attack on Iran, we’d find the true motive driving Trump to make this attack is what always drives Trump — his lust for personal wealth.  $4 billion in the first year is a pretty good start.  It’s a good bet that there is some angle in pushing this war of choice where, somehow, Trump will gain $ Billions. This government is more and more like a mafia family. Lots of pay-offs. Turner seems to be trying awfully hard to please his boss.

Turner prepared for this interview — and this is what he came up with. He followed the rule for a standard Republican opening — start by blaming or trashing the Democrats, however nonsensical. He then demonstrated that, like so many others, he was happy to enter an alternative world, Trump world,  — where the truth is whatever the leader declares it to be, where everyone knows the party line, and where America is so great, we can do what we want. International law does not apply to us.

This interview adds to the already strong evidence that Ohio’s tenth congressional district badly needs new representation in the US House.

 

Face The Nation

Margaret Brennan We’re joined now by Ohio Republican Congressman Mike Turner. Uh,Congressman, you are on the Armed Services Committee. I know you’ve been in contact with the administration to understand what is going on. The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner, was briefed by Secretary Rubio, and he is calling this, Warner is, a war of choice. He said there was no evidence of imminent harm to Americans or an imminent threat to our country. Were you informed of a specific and imminent threat to the United States?

Mike Turner: Well, this issue of of imminent is really this fallacy of the really that comes from the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons, nuclear enrichment negotiations where the Obama administration and the JCPOA set up this fallacy that we were just going to set up um you know cameras and watch Iran do this nuclear enrichment until they got all the way to a nuclear weapon and then they were going to kick to the next administration whether or not there was going to be a military conflict which is what we’ve come down to

Margaret Brennan: It was a detailed international accord with stages there were parts were to sunset um …but…

Mike Turner: (interrupting) But this this concept of imminent I mean as we just saw

Margaret Brennan: But That’s definitely apart from the from meaning of imminent as a threat to justify US military

Mike Turner: No but it’s not because it goes to really this, this inherent policy that we see — that has you know, a thread that’s come through the Democrat side, that we still see from the Democratic Obama administration’s policies of what is imminent. Imminent, here, really is that the um Iranian regime continues to be a a sponsor of uh terrorism and an amassing of um missiles and inventory uh where they have declared themselves, an enemy of the United States and of our allies.

Margaret Brennan: Yes.

Mike Turner: where they’ve committed themselves to nuclear enrichment and refused to declare themselves as not pursuing a nuclear weapon

Margaret Brennan: They said they were not

Mike Turner: Well actually they have they have not

Margaret Brennan: they have.. ( garbled )

Mike Turner: we have seen even just last year we had the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency saying that they were just mere months away from being able to have several nuclear warheads.

Margaret Brennan: But they didn’t have enough material …

Mike Turner: So this — this imminent issue this imminent this imminent issue is one where people want to to have them you know be you know with their hand almost on the button to to something that has been completely assembled. In this instance, the administration has declared that they had information, an imminent aspect of that — that um Iran was a threat both to us and to um to Israel, our our ally, and had the opportunity to take an action to eliminate that threat.That’s important. We don’t have wait. We con’t have to wait …

Margaret Brennan: Which threat?

Mike Turner: We don’t have to wait

Margaret Brennan: The president said the nuclear threat was obliterated and none of the nuclear sites …

Mike Turner: (speaking over) No no he said that at those sites that we had taken action to eliminate, where their nuclear enrichment sites, that we had obliterated those sites. But they had continued to amass missile technology and missile inventory. They had continued, as has had been declared, to um pursue um their intention of nuclear uh enrichment. They had continued …

Margaret Brennan: Rubio said they weren’t enriching.

Mike Turner: They had continued their intention to pursue nuclear enrichment. They had had said and declared that they were going to do that. Their programs had not been completely abolished and their intention had not been abolished.
They remained a threat and the fact that we had the ability um to to intervene that imminence is incredibly important. This this this standard of what is imminent.

Margaret Brennan: Well, people want to know why. Why now?
That’s that’s why I’m asking

Mike Turner: Because the opportunity is there to eliminate an imminent threat that is a imminent threat to the United States and our operations and and in the area and our ally.

….

Margaret Brennan: Um, can I ask you in that targeting of the Supreme Leader uh that secret thatSenator Cotton talked about, did the US carry out that strike?

Mike Turner: Well,I think this is very important. Um, the what’s what’s very clear here and and I think this is important to discuss. You know, the president of the United States indicated that we were targeting uh the military, military infrastructure um and and not the regime and not regime change. And yesterday when I had the opportunity to talk to uh Secretary Rubio, you know, I asked that question and he was very clear in the answer that we did not um target um uh Khamenei and um the and we were not targeting um the uh the leadership uh in Iran. Uh so the the aspect of that the United States was not undertaking regime change is very important. Our aspect of what the president of the United States has undertaken was this imminent threat that he described in his announcement and and that um I think um his response and his statement to the United States is is an important aspect.

Margaret Brennan: But you just to be clear, you’re not saying that Israel carried out that strike without the US permission, green-lighting, buy in.

Mike Turner: you know, the fact that that um Khamenei has been a murderous authoritarian who has killed an unbelievable number of uh Israelis, uh they have an absolutely uh I think a strong basis in which to to do so. I think it certainly shows that if you’re a murderous authoritarian and you are and you um that you you’re at risk and you it’s better to be a friend of the United States than a murderous authoritarian. You know, it’s also interesting that that Putin just said that he lost dictator that he lost a friend in in um in losing Khamenei. And uh we we certainly didn’t see Khamenei as a friend.

Margaret Brennan: We will leave it there. Congressman Turner, we’ll be back in a moment with more Face the Nation.

 

At the MCDP Reorganization Meeting to be held in June, I’m hoping that the delegates will focus on coming up with a plan for electing Democrats in districts now controlled by Republicans.

A successful plan, I believe, must be based on the reality that politics has boiled down to two forces: one force is anti-democracy, one force is for-democracy. The anti-democracy side is winning. My suggestion is that Reorganization should focus on democracy — and should offer a plan to upgrade the system, starting in the party itself.  The representative democracy we have today empowers only a handful of citizens to meaningfully participate in politics. We need an upgrade to the system so that every interested citizen is empowered to participate. The message from Reorganization should be that the Democratic Party is committed to “advancing participatory democracy.” 

I’m advocating that Reorganization ratify a new MCDP Constitution that empowers rank-and-file Democrats to directly electDemocratic Party officers.  Currently, in the representative democracy system, the Central Committee elects MCDP officers. Direct election would be a victory for democracy, even as the direct election of US Senators, via the 17th Amendment, was a victory.

The direct election of officers would make the MCDP the one and only county organization in the state, and probably the nation, that gives rank-and-file Democrats this power. I believe this democratization of the Democratic Party in Montgomery County would be a catalyst to greatly increase the membership of the local party organization and hopefully would help inspire the reformation of  the state and national Democratic Party organizations. 

The way forward for the Democratic Party, I am proposing, is to do everything possible to get voters to see elections as contests about democracy, seeing:

• On one side, a candidate who offers transparency and accountability and a plan to empower rank-and-file citizens to meaningfully participate.
• On the other side, a candidate that defends his or her failure to be transparent and accountable, failure to engage rank-and-file citizens, etc.

In a Democratic candidate’s platform, the big point to make, I believe, is that the proposals for public policies in the platform are not Democratic Party proposals, not the candidate’s proposals, but, reflect what a big majority of Ohio citizens want.

If the public sees elections as contests about democracy, then, I believe that Democratic candidates will start gaining the votes of those citizens who truly are concerned that our system is corrupt, ineffective, and headed for destruction. Of key importance, to influence such citizens, is advocating for a system of participatory democracy where all citizens have a voice, not just Democrats. We need to show that we oppose the “winner takes it all” system practiced by the Republicans, and, instead, that we offer a 21st century system that empowers all interested rank-and-file citizens to meaningfully participate. 

A participatory democracy party should offer a vision of a future democracy that the party is working to actualize. I think a vision of a future system of participatory democracy would appeal to a large majority of voters. My goal is to make a detailed proposal in the little book I aspire to write — currently titled, “The Way Forward For The Democratic Party: Becoming The ‘Participatory Democracy Party’ “ — with the hope that this will be the basis for a plan agreed to at Reorganization — a plan for electing Democrats in districts now controlled by Republicans.