From smderosa at cox.net Mon Oct 1 22:32:19 2007 From: smderosa at cox.net (Mike DeRosa) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 22:32:19 -0400 Subject: {news} FEEDBACK NEEDED: U.S. PIRG wants us to sign on to this Letter to Senator Lieberman - Global Warming Message-ID: <1F8766E8849E4D13AA51883D750B67E8@OwnerPC> Virginia Robnett of U.S. PIRG has called and sent me this e-mail for our consideration. They would like us to sign on to this letter that they are sending to Joe Lieberman about his proposed bill on Global Warming. Please read and give the EC and SCC some feed back so we can decide if we want to add our name to this letter. We will put it on our agendas for this month. Sincerely, Mike DeRosa _____ From: Virginia Robnett [mailto:vjrobnett at pirg.org] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 7:24 PM To: smderosa at cox.net Subject: FW: Letter to Senator Lieberman - Global Warming Letter attached this time! Virginia Robnett Assistant Field Director U.S. PIRG 218 D. St, SE Washington, DC 20003 (202) 546-9707, ext 320 www.uspirg.org _____ From: Virginia Robnett [mailto:vjrobnett at pirg.org] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 7:22 PM To: 'smderosa at cox.net' Subject: Letter to Senator Lieberman - Global Warming Hi Mike, Attached is the letter we are circulating. We hope to get several groups in Connecticut on by the middle of next week, in order to deliver the letter before his legislation is crafted. The basic this is that we want this bill to be very strong, as it is likely to be the bill that Congress works from. In order to meet our minimum criteria the bill must do three things. The most important thing the bill must do is to reduce TOTAL U.S. emissions from today's levels by at least 15% by 2020. (Lieberman's draft outline only covers about 80% of the economy, meaning that the emission reductions they claimed are not accurate; look at the chart in our press release (attached) for the details.) Next, the bill can't allow bogus actions to claim credit as emission reductions, eroding the actual emission reductions that will be achieved under the bill. And, third, the bill must help consumers - not give windfalls to polluters. Thanks so much for looking into your support on this, I'll follow up soon. gynnie Virginia Robnett Assistant Field Director U.S. PIRG 218 D. St, SE Washington, DC 20003 (202) 546-9707, ext 320 www.uspirg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter to SLieberman_Global Warming.doc Type: application/msword Size: 34816 bytes Desc: not available URL: From efficacy at msn.com Tue Oct 2 05:55:40 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 05:55:40 -0400 Subject: {news} Mayoral foes disagree on what's best for city Message-ID: http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18873697&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=7576&rfi=6 Mayoral foes disagree on what's best for city Abram Katz, Register Staff 10/02/2007 NEW HAVEN - The candidates for mayor agreed on several points during their debate Monday evening at Gateway Community College: Crime is bad, development is good and education is paramount. But Mayor John DeStefano Jr., Republican Town Chairman Rick Elser and Green Party candidate Ralph Ferrucci had dramatically different visions on how to bolster New Haven's economy, safety and well-being. None of the candidates raised his voice or ruffled feathers during the 75-minute debate before an audience of about 75 supporters, unaffiliated citizens and Gateway students. DeStefano played to his strength as the seven-term incumbent, contending that housing, public schools and development have surged during his 14-year tenure. Elser hammered away at the high property tax rate and opaque development deals, arguing that spending must be controlled and independence of the Board of Aldermen restored. Ferrucci counterpunched, blaming Democratic domination for most of New Haven's ills. Gateway psychology students assigned to analyze the debate sat on the floor and scribbled intently as the three groups of supporters left the room in loose packs. The consensus among the students was that DeStefano presented his opinions well, rarely responding directly to the other candidates' criticisms. Elser got high marks for intelligence and smooth delivery, while Ferrucci struck some as a little nervous and a bit tongue-tied. Questioners were Paul Bass, of the New Haven Independent; Andy Bromage, editor of the New Haven Advocate; Angela Carter, reporter for the New Haven Register; Hernando Diosa, of La Voz Hispania; and N'Zinga Shani, whose 21st century conversations show appears on CPT and public access television. Candidates answered questions, responded to one another's answers; and asked each other questions. All vowed to improve public education, cut crime and prime the economy. DeStefano defended city spending, including a proposed $20 million increase, pointing out that 88 percent of the budget goes to personnel such as teachers, firefighters and police officers. Elser said spending must be brought under control to prevent property taxes from rising. Responding to another question about the lopsided majority of registered Democrats to Republicans in New Haven, he said, "The Republican Party has done a disservice over the years. Both the Democrats and Republicans are losing their relevance." Ferrucci said that continued Democratic control of New Haven all but stifles the chance for reforms. Few responses raised eyebrows, although DeStefano suggested that he will appeal to the state government for law changes to permit expansion of Tweed New Haven Regional Airport in East Haven. Ferrucci said Tweed has no chance of success, regardless of the length of the runways. "Tweed will always be a failure. Tweed has just drained us of money," he said. Efficacy PO Box 1234 860 657 8438 Hartford, CT 06143 efficacy at msn.com www.Efficacy-online.org "THE DRUG WAR IS MEANT TO BE WAGED NOT WON" Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit 501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are tax deductible -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: trans.gif?PRAd=1011811&PRplcmt=517599 Type: application/octet-stream Size: 44 bytes Desc: not available URL: From j.desmet at att.net Tue Oct 2 08:49:37 2007 From: j.desmet at att.net (Jean de Smet) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 08:49:37 -0400 Subject: {news} FEEDBACK NEEDED: U.S. PIRG wants us to sign on to this Letterto Senator Lieberman - Global Warming In-Reply-To: <1F8766E8849E4D13AA51883D750B67E8@OwnerPC> Message-ID: <004a01c804f2$b1d0d870$2473f34c@jean1oa1rgr0ov> This letter doesn't mention funding conservation first and foremost. This can reduce carbon based emissions up to 50%. This will allow us to close dirty plants instead of building new power plants. The focus of the letter is towards big polluters, and helping them clean up. That's just setting up a money pool for the big corps. So, unless there is another venue to push conservation, I think we need to add it to the letter. Jean -----Original Message----- From: ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org [mailto:ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org] On Behalf Of Mike DeRosa Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 10:32 PM To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Subject: {news} FEEDBACK NEEDED: U.S. PIRG wants us to sign on to this Letterto Senator Lieberman - Global Warming Virginia Robnett of U.S. PIRG has called and sent me this e-mail for our consideration. They would like us to sign on to this letter that they are sending to Joe Lieberman about his proposed bill on Global Warming. Please read and give the EC and SCC some feed back so we can decide if we want to add our name to this letter. We will put it on our agendas for this month. Sincerely, Mike DeRosa _____ From: Virginia Robnett [mailto:vjrobnett at pirg.org] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 7:24 PM To: smderosa at cox.net Subject: FW: Letter to Senator Lieberman - Global Warming Letter attached this time! Virginia Robnett Assistant Field Director U.S. PIRG 218 D. St, SE Washington, DC 20003 (202) 546-9707, ext 320 www.uspirg.org _____ From: Virginia Robnett [mailto:vjrobnett at pirg.org] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 7:22 PM To: 'smderosa at cox.net' Subject: Letter to Senator Lieberman - Global Warming Hi Mike, Attached is the letter we are circulating. We hope to get several groups in Connecticut on by the middle of next week, in order to deliver the letter before his legislation is crafted. The basic this is that we want this bill to be very strong, as it is likely to be the bill that Congress works from. In order to meet our minimum criteria the bill must do three things. The most important thing the bill must do is to reduce TOTAL U.S. emissions from today's levels by at least 15% by 2020. (Lieberman's draft outline only covers about 80% of the economy, meaning that the emission reductions they claimed are not accurate; look at the chart in our press release (attached) for the details.) Next, the bill can't allow bogus actions to claim credit as emission reductions, eroding the actual emission reductions that will be achieved under the bill. And, third, the bill must help consumers - not give windfalls to polluters. Thanks so much for looking into your support on this, I'll follow up soon. gynnie Virginia Robnett Assistant Field Director U.S. PIRG 218 D. St, SE Washington, DC 20003 (202) 546-9707, ext 320 www.uspirg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kumfry at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 10:36:53 2007 From: kumfry at yahoo.com (Kenneth Humphrey) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:36:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} FEEDBACK NEEDED: U.S. PIRG wants us to sign on to this Letterto Senator Lieberman - Global Warming In-Reply-To: <004a01c804f2$b1d0d870$2473f34c@jean1oa1rgr0ov> Message-ID: <828026.11999.qm@web32804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lieberman can't be relied on concerning corporate interests. Despite his supposed environmentalism (he always comes out smelling like a rose from the Conservation League of Voters)a closer check of his voting track record reveals some mighty big holes in his environmental concerns. A very big environmental negative on Lieberman's part for me is his warmongering zealotry, not only pushing the continuance of the Iraq War but his strident calling for attacks on Iran. War is just about the biggest threat to the environment I can imagine. Again, Lieberman, as are the megacorporations that underwrite Lieberman in the Senate, is very hollow indeed on protecting world environment. Ken Humphrey --- Jean de Smet wrote: > Connecticut Green Party - Part of the GPUS > http://www.ctgreens.org/ - > http://www.greenpartyus.org/ > > to unsubscribe click here > mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org> This letter doesn't mention funding conservation > first and foremost. This > can reduce carbon based emissions up to 50%. This > will allow us to close > dirty plants instead of building new power plants. > > > > The focus of the letter is towards big polluters, > and helping them clean up. > That's just setting up a money pool for the big > corps. > > > > So, unless there is another venue to push > conservation, I think we need to > add it to the letter. > > > > Jean > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org > [mailto:ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org] On Behalf > Of Mike DeRosa > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 10:32 PM > To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org > Subject: {news} FEEDBACK NEEDED: U.S. PIRG wants us > to sign on to this > Letterto Senator Lieberman - Global Warming > > > > Virginia Robnett of U.S. PIRG has called and sent me > this e-mail for our > consideration. They would like us to sign on to > this letter that > > > > they are sending to Joe Lieberman about his proposed > bill on Global Warming. > > > > Please read and give the EC and SCC some feed back > so we can decide if we > want to add our name to this letter. We will put it > on our > > > > agendas for this month. > > > > Sincerely, > > Mike DeRosa > > > > _____ > > From: Virginia Robnett [mailto:vjrobnett at pirg.org] > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 7:24 PM > To: smderosa at cox.net > Subject: FW: Letter to Senator Lieberman - Global > Warming > > > > Letter attached this time! > > > > Virginia Robnett > > Assistant Field Director > > U.S. PIRG > > 218 D. St, SE > > Washington, DC 20003 > > (202) 546-9707, ext 320 > > www.uspirg.org > > _____ > > From: Virginia Robnett [mailto:vjrobnett at pirg.org] > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 7:22 PM > To: 'smderosa at cox.net' > Subject: Letter to Senator Lieberman - Global > Warming > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > Attached is the letter we are circulating. We hope > to get several groups in > Connecticut on by the middle of next week, in order > to deliver the letter > before his legislation is crafted. The basic this > is that we want this bill > to be very strong, as it is likely to be the bill > that Congress works from. > In order to meet our minimum criteria the bill must > do three things. > > > > The most important thing the bill must do is to > reduce TOTAL U.S. emissions > from today's levels by at least 15% by 2020. > (Lieberman's draft outline > only covers about 80% of the economy, meaning that > the emission reductions > they claimed are not accurate; look at the chart in > our press release > (attached) for the details.) Next, the bill can't > allow bogus actions to > claim credit as emission reductions, eroding the > actual emission reductions > that will be achieved under the bill. And, third, > the bill must help > consumers - not give windfalls to polluters. > > > > Thanks so much for looking into your support on > this, I'll follow up soon. > > > > gynnie > > > > Virginia Robnett > > Assistant Field Director > > U.S. PIRG > > 218 D. St, SE > > Washington, DC 20003 > > (202) 546-9707, ext 320 > > www.uspirg.org > > > > > To be removed please > mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org > _______________________________________________ > CTGP-news mailing list > CTGP-news at ml.greens.org > http://ml.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/ctgp-news > > ATTENTION! > The information in this transmission is privileged > and confidential and intended only for the recipient > listed above. If you have received this > transmission in error, please notify us immediately > by email and delete the original message. The text > of this email is similar to ordinary or face-to-face > conversations and does not reflect the level of > factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be > applied in the case of a formal legal opinion and > does not constitute a representation of the opinions > of the CT Green Party. The responsibility for any > messages posted herein is solely that of the person > who sent the message, and the CT Green Party hereby > leaves this responsibility in the hands of it's > members. > > NOTE: This is an inherently insecure forum, please > do not post confidential messages and always realize > that your address can be faked, and although a > message may appear to be from a certain individual, > it is always possible that it is fakemail. This is > mail sent by a third party under an illegally > assumed identity for purposes of coercion, > misdirection, or general mischief. > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this > e-mail in error, please immediately notify the > sender by e-mail at the address shown. This e-mail > transmission may contain confidential information. > This information is intended only for the use of the > individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even > if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from > your files if you are not the intended recipient. > Thank you for your compliance. > > To be removed please mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org ____________________________________________________________________________________ Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html From dbedellgreen at hotmail.com Wed Oct 3 22:48:07 2007 From: dbedellgreen at hotmail.com (David Bedell) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 22:48:07 -0400 Subject: {news} GP RELEASE Green Party chooses candidates for campaign support Message-ID: Congratulations to Jean and Ronna on qualifying for national GP support! ------------------------------------------------- GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES http://www.gp.org For Immediate Release: Wednesday, October 3, 2007 Contacts: Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, mclarty at greens.org Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene at gp.org Green Party chooses 2007 Green candidates for campaign support WASHINGTON, DC -- The Green Party of the United States has selected nine Green candidates for special campaign aid in the 2007 election. The Coordinated Campaign Committee of the party chose candidates from all over the US based on winnability, the organizational strength of their campaigns, prior fundraising by the candidates, and other criteria. The assistance given to the chosen candidates include financial contributions, donor and volunteer lists, and web site help and promotion. A list of the candidates is appended below. There are currently at least 121 Green candidates running for public office in the 2007 election. For a complete list of the candidates, visit the Green Party election page at . "I really appreciate the Green Party support for my campaign," said Windham, Connecticut candidate Jean de Smet. "Greens will grow small, sustainable businesses, stabilize our tax base, and plan for a positive future everywhere we're elected. Our towns and our country need our leadership right now." Howie Hawkins stressed the importance of his Council campaign in Syracuse, New York: "While the 8-2 Democratic majority on the Common Council and the Democratic Mayor continually approve tax breaks for corporate developers, what has actually developed in Syracuse is a recurring structural fiscal deficit and the highest poverty rates among America's 100 largest cities, including the highest black poverty rate, the third highest overall poverty rate, and a 45% child poverty rate. My alternatives to these failed trickle-down economic policies include progressive tax reform, fully funded schools, a municipal bank to plan, finance, and develop worker co-ops in green building and sustainable manufacturing, and a radically expanded living wage ordinance that includes a community hiring hall to insure city residents and people of color get their fair share of jobs with the city and city contractors." Jennaro Pullano, Green candidate for Mayor of Reading, Pennsylvania, is promoting a plan to eliminate blight and crime and to invest in neighborhoods: "The people in this city do not believe that this city is heading in the right direction... We will stop using taxpayers' money to build banks and movie theaters downtown, and redirect our tax money back to the neighborhoods." List of chosen candidates: California Janice Brittain, Candidate for City Council, Hermosa Beach http://www.janicebrittain.com $300 Connecticut Jean de Smet, Candidate for First Selectman, Windham http://www.VoteJean.com Ronna Stuller, Candidate for Board of Education, New London http://www.nlgreens.org Maryland Maria Allwine, Candidate for President of the Baltimore City Council http://www.takebge.org/main.htm Massachusetts Grace Ross, Candidate for Councilor-at-large, Worcester http://www.grace4worcester.org New York Howie Hawkins, Candidate for Councilor At-Large, City of Syracuse http://www.howiehawkins.org Margaret Human, Candidate for New Paltz Town Councilman (At-Large) http://www.humanfornewpaltz.org David Lussier, Candidate for Albany County Legislature, District 7 http://albanygreens.pbwiki.com/Dave Pennsylvania Jennaro Pullano, Candidate for Mayor, Reading http://www.pullanoformayor.org MORE INFORMATION Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org 202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN Fax 202-319-7193 Green Party News Center http://www.gp.org/newscenter.shtml Green Party Speakers Bureau http://www.gp.org/speakers 2007 national Green Party meeting in Reading, Pa.: video footage, blog and media coverage http://www.gp.org/meeting2007/ ~ END ~ From efficacy at msn.com Fri Oct 5 10:04:52 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:04:52 -0400 Subject: {news} ReconsiDer Tidbit: "...want to get serious, seriously serious about crime and violence ?" Message-ID: reconsiDer: TIDBIT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- San Francisco's mayor Gavin Newsome held a press conference to tell reporters that the war on drugs has failed. "You want to get serious, seriously serious about crime and violence end this war on drugs." the mayor said. The US Conference of Mayors came to this same conclusion this past June and passed a resolution to that effect but mayors have been reluctant to stand up in their hometowns. Perhaps this will have some effect. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- click here for this article's associated links Oct 4, 2007 7:38 pm US/Pacific SF Mayor Gavin Newsom: War On Drugs Is A Failure Related Content: Raw Video: SF's Mayor Blasts Drug War Local Pot Candy Maker Free On Bail Hank Plante Reporting (CBS 5 / KCBS) SAN FRANCISCO San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom proclaimed the nation's war on drugs a total failure and insisted the crime rate would go down if the government spent money on treatment as opposed to jailing people with drug problems. "If you want to get serious, if you want to reduce crime by 70% in this country overnight, end this war on drugs," he told reporters at City Hall on Thursday. "You want to get serious, seriously serious about crime and violence end this war on drugs." The mayor maintained local jails are overcrowded with people incarcerated for drug offenses, taking up room that could be used to hold more violent criminal offenders. He said violent criminals with lengthy felony records are being turned loose, too often. San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessey, who has run the county jail for 28 years, told CBS 5 that 60 to 75 percent of the 2,000 inmates currently held are there for drug crimes or have underlying substance abuse problems. He also agreed with Newsom. "No, the war on drugs is not working. The war on drugs is not working because we are relying on law enforcement instead of on treatment," Hennessey said. In a ten-minute tirade about the drug war's failure, Newsom told reporters that most politicians - including those in his own party - just don't have the guts to admit the obvious. "It's laughable that anyone could look at themselves with a straight face and say 'oh,we're really succeeding.' I mean it's comedy. And as I say, shame on my party, the democratic party, because they don't have the courage of their private thoughts, because we don't want to appear weak on this topic," Newsom said. The mayor said the 'politicizing' of the illegal drug use issue prevents a discussion about real solutions to the drug epidemic. "End this war on drugs. Now, that is an attack ad by any politician, what I just said, they would be desperate to find that tape of what I just said," Newsom said. The mayor insisted, however, that he wasn't calling for the legalization of all drugs - just a recognition that the current approach isn't working. "I'm not saying (legalization). I'm saying get real about it," he explained. "So what does that mean? Well, it means a lot of things. It means this war on drugs is an abject failure." Local substance abuse counselors welcomed Newsom's candor, while critics rejected it. "I think the mayor probably has the right idea as far as turning the money away from the current approach, incarceration, and hopefully he's talking about turning the money toward more prevention programs," said Meredith Charpantier, a former drug counselor. But Gary Delagnes, who heads the San Francisco Police Officers Association, said ending the war on drugs wouldn't bring an end to crime. "I don't think that you give in to a problem by just acquiesing. I think that there does have to be control and I don't think legalizing drugs is the answer," he said. Delagnes pointed to three murders occuring in San Francisco on Wednesday alone, which means the city has already surpassed last year's homicide total. "When we see the homicides in San Francisco, I mean this all centers around drugs," Delagnes continued. "This is gangs and drug violence, this is money. It's all about money all the time." There have been 89 murders in San Francisco so far in 2007, up from 85 murders during all of 2006. (? MMVII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.) Efficacy PO Box 1234 860 657 8438 Hartford, CT 06143 efficacy at msn.com www.Efficacy-online.org "THE DRUG WAR IS MEANT TO BE WAGED NOT WON" Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit 501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are tax deductible -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efficacy at msn.com Fri Oct 5 11:53:38 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:53:38 -0400 Subject: {news} Connecticut: Drug Money?=Corrupticut Message-ID: US CT: Drug Money? URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07.n1134.a01.html Newshawk: Forfeiture Endangers American Rights www.fear.org Votes: 0 Pubdate: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 Source: Hartford Advocate (CT) Copyright: 2007 New Mass. Media, Inc. Contact: editor at hartfordadvocate.com Website: http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/182 Author: Jennifer Abel Photo: A mural in Willimantic says it all. http://www.mapinc.org/images/DrugSeizure.jpg Cited: Drug Policy Alliance http://www.drugpolicy.org Cited: Marijuana Policy Project http://www.mpp.org Cited: National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws http://www.norml.org Cited: Forfeiture Endangers American Rights http://www.fear.org Cited: West Hartford Town Councilors http://www.west-hartford.com/government/TownCouncil/TownCouncilors1.htm Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Marijuana) DRUG MONEY? Welcome to the World of Civil Asset Forfeiture: Enriching the Local Police at Your Expense Even if you're a law-abiding citizen who's never been convicted of a crime, local police are allowed to confiscate your property and money and keep up to 80 percent of it for themselves, with the legal stipulation that this windfall be spent only on programs likely to result in additional confiscations where the police can keep up to 80 percent of the booty for themselves. That's addressed to you. And it's no joke. "The money can only be used for the police department ... it gets recycled back into drug work [and] it can't supplant normally budgeted items," says Detective Tom Gameli, who handles these confiscations for the West Hartford police department. The police in West Hartford had a profitable year; at the last council meeting on Sept. 25, a resolution passed that moved close to $180,000 in money made from property taken in forfeiture cases in West Hartford, into the local drug enforcement fund. But the cops can't just sit back and wait for fate to shower them with such largess, Gameli said. "For us to get the money, we have to seize the stuff." He's talking about asset forfeiture, one of the more devastating weapons in the government's drug war arsenal. The rationale behind it sounds sensible enough: if you make money from criminal activities, you shouldn't get to keep your ill-gotten gains. And whether you agree with the law or not, intoxicants other than alcohol are illegal, so money made from the sale of such is ( legally ) fair game for confiscation. But so is anything else that has any involvement with drug activity. If you want to buy a joint, you can lose the car you drove to make the deal. The same holds true if a friend or spouse borrows your car for the same purpose. The confiscated car is sold at auction, and the police force that nabbed it gets to keep 70 or 80 percent of the proceeds, depending upon the car's value. "Most of the money we get from state asset forfeiture, because the feds have higher [monetary] standards," Gameli said. "If you're gonna take a house, you go through the feds, if you take $250 from a knucklehead on the street, you go state ... the federal threshold is $2,000 for cash, $5,000 for cars." If it's a federal case the town police get to keep 80 percent of the proceeds, but they only get 70 percent on the state level. "We've done polls," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "Two things about asset forfeiture the public dislikes: first, that when cops and prosecutors seize property they get to keep it for their own departments, the public finds that corrupting .. and second, that you could lose your property without a criminal conviction." How can the government take your money or property if you haven't been convicted of a crime? "These are civil cases," Gameli said, and they differ from criminal ones. "It bolsters the case if he's convicted [of a crime]," Gameli said, but "a civil case has a lower standard of proof ... I know of cases where the guy walked on the charges, but still lost his car or his money." Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project finds that disturbing. "What he's saying, it sounds like, is that he thinks it's just fine for the government to take property from people who have been found innocent of the alleged crime ... In what parallel universe is that fair, just or reasonable?" Calling these "civil" cases implies that they are reviewed by the courts, but that's not necessarily true. "Generally speaking ... approximately 80 percent or more of civil forfeiture cases are not contested," says Allen St. Pierre, executive director of NORML ( National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws ). This is in part because contesting the process can cost more than the value of what's been confiscated. "The average vehicle seized is worth about $4,000," said Brenda Grantland, president of FEAR ( Forfeiture Endangers American Rights ). "To defend a case, especially when you're out of state, they've pretty much made it cost prohibitive. I don't take cases of less than $20,000 . it'll cost more than that to defend it." Neither Gameli nor the DEA could say what percentage of their confiscations came from people actually convicted of a crime, or from folks who lost in-court civil cases. Remember Gameli's hypothetical "knucklehead" who enriched the local constabulary? Chances are he had drugs on him too. But not necessarily -- under asset forfeiture laws, the simple possession of cash, with no drugs or other contraband, can be considered evidence of criminal activity. You'll find no shortage of examples throughout the country. Two recent examples, chosen only because they're so unremarkable, are as follows: in October 2006, two men driving through Davidson County, North Carolina, were stopped by sheriff's deputies and found to have $88,000 hidden in their car. The men told the sheriffs they were on their way to buy a house in Atlanta. Although no drugs were found, the sheriffs confiscated the money anyway. And just last August, a truck driver at a weigh station in El Paso had $23,700 confiscated; once again, no drugs or contraband were found, but the cash led to an assumption of guilt. Naturally, police and the DEA insist they're not infringing upon the rights of innocent people. "The police won't take [the money] if they have a good excuse," says Steve Robertson, a DEA spokesman down in D.C., when asked about cases like the one in El Paso. "I would assume he was listed in a database where he might be drug-related." "Databases contain errors," said Mirken. "Just look at the TSA's no-fly list, which at one point almost kept Sen. Edward Kennedy off a flight as a suspected terrorist ... the idea that government should be able to simply take a person's money, house or car without having to prove the person did anything wrong is obscene." Allen St. Pierre says that in such cases, "the onus and total burden is entirely on the citizen/business to disprove the government's case" in such situations. Robertson of the DEA agrees. If you can prove the money wasn't acquired illegally, then the police won't take it. But that leads to a problem. Say that every week when you cash your paycheck you stick a $100 bill in a coffee can. If the police want to confiscate this cash years later, the onus should be on them to prove the money is illegal, because you might not be able to prove it isn't. "Property rights are not considered as important as personal liberty, so due process is often reduced," Grantland said. "We've been fighting for years to get [asset forfeiture] under control, but there's no way it'll go away because the government gets too much money doing it." Even proving where you got the money might not save you, Grantland said. "Some victims called us a few years ago ... he'd just won a medical malpractice settlement ... he and his friends, low-income black guys, decided to go to Las Vegas [and] got as far as Plano, Texas. It got confiscated. They even showed them the settlement ... I don't know if they ever got their money back." West Hartford probably has a few residents who like to smoke the occasional unlicensed cigarette behind closed doors. And from the cops' perspective, there's a lot of money to be made cracking down on these criminals. So one of the items on the agenda at last week's town council meeting said this: "Resolution appropriating drug asset forfeiture money in the Drug Enforcement Fund." The measure passed unanimously. Deputy Mayor Art Spada was not in attendance, but Mayor Scott Slifka and all seven members of the council were. Do the council members know that some of that windfall money could have been confiscated from folks who were not found guilty of any crimes? We sent an e-mail asking "do you, as elected officials, have any Constitutional and/or ethical qualms about the police confiscating property from town residents who were not convicted of a crime?" As of press time, four days later, none had responded. Efficacy PO Box 1234 860 657 8438 Hartford, CT 06143 efficacy at msn.com www.Efficacy-online.org "THE DRUG WAR IS MEANT TO BE WAGED NOT WON" Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit 501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are tax deductible -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rate.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1720 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dbedellgreen at hotmail.com Fri Oct 5 18:26:52 2007 From: dbedellgreen at hotmail.com (David Bedell) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 22:26:52 +0000 Subject: {news} Ralph Nader at Waterbury library 10/6 Message-ID: http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2007/10/04/lifestyle/289190.txt Thursday, October 4, 2007 8:19 PM EDT Nader promoting new book in Waterbury BY BRYNN MANDEL REPUBLICAN-AMERICAN Amid a flurry of recalls for everything from hazardous cribs to Thomas the Tank Engine toys, and weeks before major political parties' presidential front runners emerge, consumer advocate and former commander-in-chief candidate Ralph Nader makes a visit to Waterbury. Nader, 73, will appear at the Silas Bronson Library on Grand Street Saturday at 2 p.m. He will swing into town to talk about his most recent book, "The Seventeen Traditions" (HarperCollins, $19.95). The book is an ode to his upbringing in the northwest Connecticut town of Winsted, and a love letter of sorts to his Lebanese immigrant parents. But a bigger question lingers in politicos' and some voters' minds: Will the man dubbed "The Spoiler" by opponents run again in 2008? In June, Nader told The New York Times he would decide this fall whether to enter the presidential fray. The decision rested on whether he could muster enough volunteers and lawyers to secure spots on the ballot in all 50 states, he had said. Some quick reading on Nader: Ralph Nader for... selectman? In August, the Independent Party in Nader's hometown of Winsted nominated him for office after the local party fell short of compiling a full slate of candidates. In early September the Independents pressed onward ? without Nader. Despite trying to notify him of his selected status, local party officials never heard back from their nominee. Nader rose to national prominence following the 1965 book "Unsafe at Any Speed," which highlighted safety concerns with GM's Corvair. He won a $475,000 settlement after GM admitted to having hired private investigators to try to discredit Nader. Time magazine named Nader to its list of 100 Most Influential Americans of the Twentieth Century. Growing up in Winsted, Nader was classmates with David Halberstam, a former New York Times writer who won the Pulitzer Prize for his reporting from Vietnam during the early- to-mid-1960s. As a boy, Nader never daydreamed about being president. Rather, his "when I grow up" fantasy revolved around becoming a lawyer, which he did. He earned his law degree from Harvard University. Both of Nader's parents, whom he credits for instilling in him the values that shaped who he is today, lived to be nearly 100 years old. The Nader family ran a well-known local restaurant, the Highland Arms, on Winsted's Main Street for many years. Nader peripherally involved himself in presidential politics as early as 1992, when he emerged as a write-in candidate in New Hampshire's Democratic primary election. His first full-fledged foray into presidential campaigning came in 1996. In 1996, Nader spent about $5,000 on his campaign and received 700,000 votes. Four years later, he spent considerably more ? about $7.7 million ? and won 2.8 million votes. In 1996, Nader spent about $5,000 on his campaign and received 700,000 votes. Four years later, he spent considerably more ? about $7.7 million ? and won 2.8 million votes. Sources: Republican-American archive, nader.org, Open Secrets Associated Press and other published reports. If You Go: Ralph Nader will talk about his most recent book, "The Seventeen Traditions," and will follow with a book signing Sat., Oct. 6 2 p.m. The event is free and open to the public. Silas Bronson Library, Grand Street, Waterbury _________________________________________________________________ Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us From efficacy at msn.com Sun Oct 7 09:09:53 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 09:09:53 -0400 Subject: {news} Ron Paul On Race And Drugs Message-ID: Why the leading Republicans skiped the debate hosted by Tavis Smiley http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/10/ron_paul_on_rac.html Connecticut's breakdown by race and gender http://www.crim.ccsu.edu/sac/contact.html July 1, 2007 Statistics Incarcerated Population Total 18,892 Male 17,484 Female 1,408 Black 8,102 White 5,581 Hispanic 5,091 Other 118 Sentenced 14,611 Accused 3,871 Federal Charges 410 Below 16 27 16-17 417 18-20 1,478 21 629 22-24 2,127 25-27 2,202 28-30 1,968 31-35 2,665 36-45 4,778 46-60 2,383 Above 60 218 Incarcerated Sentenced Population Top Ten Offenses Violation of Probation or Conditional Discharge 1,957 Sale of Hallucinogen/Narcotic Substance 1,706 Possession of Narcotics 771 Robbery, First Degree 762 Murder 538 Assault, First Degree 518 Burglary, Third Degree 490 Conspiracy 457 Sexual Assault, First Degree 454 Criminal Attempt 399 Community Population Total 4,870 Halfway House 1,076 Transitional Supervision 1,096 Parole 2,521 Re-Entry Furlough 174 http://www.ct.gov/doc/cwp/view.asp?a=1505&q=265600 Average Daily Expenditure Per Inmate 2005-06: $ 83.65 http://www.ct.gov/doc/cwp/view.asp?a=1505&q=265614 Total Supervised Population (As Of July 1 of Each Year) Year Number of Incarcerated Inmates Number of Community Inmates Total Supervised Inmates 1990 9,589 6,379 15,968 1991 10,814 6,587 17,401 1992 11,022 5,699 16,721 1993 11,769 4,640 16,409 1994 14,125 1,704 15,829 1995 14,889 1,205 16,094 1996 14,967 1,215 16,182 1997 15,588 1,593 17,181 1998 15,909 1,608 17,517 1999 16,776 1,702 18,478 2000 17,459 1,336 18,795 2001 17,700 1,401 19,101 2002 18,873 1,656 20,529 2003 19,121 1,737 20,858 2004 18,583 4,381 22,964 2005 18,150 4,802 22,952 2006 18,568 4,653 23,221 2007 18,892 4,870 23,762 Recidivism in CT: "Property offenders and those offenders incarcerated for criminal justice process offenses have the highest reconviction rates (45%). These were followed by violation of probation (42%), weapon offenses (41%), personal offenses (38%), and drug offenses (36%). The offense types with the lowest reconviction rates were motor vehicle offenses (31%) and sexual offenses (22%)." Source: STATE OF CONNECTICUT Recidivism Study, Annual Report, March 1, 2007, OFFICE OF POLICY & MANAGEMENT, Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division, p. 5. Efficacy PO Box 1234 860 657 8438 Hartford, CT 06143 efficacy at msn.com www.Efficacy-online.org "THE DRUG WAR IS MEANT TO BE WAGED NOT WON" Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit 501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are tax deductible -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Sun Oct 7 12:22:18 2007 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:22:18 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT Sara Roy's review of Hamas book censored Message-ID: <00ba01c808fe$3b9e3ac0$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> ----- Original Message ----- From: Justine McCabe To: USGP International Committee Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 12:12 PM Subject: USGP-INT Sara Roy's review of Hamas book censored Dear all, I encourage you to read this book review by Harvard scholar Sara Roy not only for a brief overview of the evolution of Hamas, but also--as her author's note explains--as a disgraceful example of censorship where Israel is concerned. (The fact that Roy is Jewish and the child of holocaust survivors provides no pause from this bias.) For a more extensive look at Hamas, read the work that Roy cites, Khaled Hroub's, "A `New Hamas' Through Its New Documents," Journal of Palestine Studies at this URL: http://www.palestine-studies.org/final/en/journals/printer.php?aid=7087 . Despite the evolution and complexity of Hamas documented by Roy and Hroub that goes beyond the 1988 Hamas charter, the media and talking heads continue to regard Hamas only through that earlier lens. Justine ============================================================================================================== BOOK REVIEW > Hamas: Politics, Charity and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad by > Matthew Levitt. Yale University Press, in cooperation with the > Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2006. 324 pages, $26.00, > hardcover. > > Sara Roy > Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University > http://mepc.org/journal_vol14/0707_roy.asp > > Author's Note: > This review, published here in its entirety, was originally > commissioned by The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, the official > foreign-policy journal at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. > Between the time I was invited to write the review and the time I was > told it would be published, over two months had passed during which I > had had several exchanges, some of them difficult, with the editorial > staff. However, by the end of the process the editor-in-chief, with > whom I had been working, was pleased with the review, and so was I. He > sent me an e-PDF of the review as it would appear in the journal > (Volume 31:1 Winter 2007). The PDF version of the page proofs revealed > that the editor had excerpted two relevant sentences (featured in > sidebars) to highlight observations that I had offered in the review: > > 1. "While there can be no doubt that, since its inception, Hamas has > engaged in violence and armed struggle, and has been the primary force > behind the horrific suicide bombings inside Israel, Levitt's > presentation reduces this increasingly complex and sophisticated > organization to an insular, one-dimensional...entity dedicated solely > to violence...and Israel's destruction." > 2. "The ability of Hamas to reinterpret itself over time through > processes of radicalization, de-radicalization, de-militarization, and > re-radicalization is a pronounced and common theme in its historical > evolution." > During a subsequent exchange the editor-in-chief wrote, "Thank you for > your hard work as well. It's a good review." I believed that was the > end of the matter. Just a few days later, I received the following > e-mail message from the same editor-in-chief: > > Dear Ms. Roy: > After careful review and much consideration of the merits of your > piece, we have decided that we are ultimately unable to publish your > review for this edition. Your review was evaluated by several of our > editors and an external editor for objectivity. Unfortunately, they > disagreed with my decision to publish your review for the following > reasons: despite their agreement with many of your points, all > reviewers found the piece one-sided. This one-sidedness dissuaded > readers from reading the piece to the end; ultimately, this last point > is the most important. Although I found your arguments valuable, if > readers consistently feel this way, I am unable to move forward with a > piece. My apologies for the way in which this process was carried out, > and for the time that you spent on editing the piece. Thank you once > again for your submission and your efforts. If you would like to > discuss this further, please feel free to e-mail me. > > In more than 20 years of writing and publishing I have never > experienced such behavior or encountered what to me, at least, is so > blatant a case of censorship. I am therefore extremely grateful to > Anne Joyce and Stephen Magro for agreeing to publish the review in > Middle East Policy. > > === > > At the beginning of the first Palestinian uprising, I was living in > Gaza and spent much time in the refugee camps interviewing families > about the political and socioeconomic changes taking place around > them. Despite the harsh living situation, Palestinians were filled > with a palpable sense of hope and possibility that has since > evaporated. Hamas was then struggling to create a popular > constituency, despite overwhelming support among Palestinians for > secular nationalism. That was 18 years ago, and neither I nor anyone > else ever thought that Hamas would one day emerge as a major political > actor: democratically winning legislative elections, defeating the > majority Fatah party and heading a Palestinian government. > > In his recent book, Matthew Levitt, who is deputy assistant secretary > for intelligence and analysis at the U.S. Department of the Treasury > and an expert in financial counterterrorism, argues that Hamas is > strictly a terrorist organization that is not only a domestic threat > but a global one, a part of an international jihad network with links > to al-Qaeda that must be met with force. He further argues ? and this > is the core of his book ? that despite the existence of differentiated > political, social and military sectors within Hamas, they are all part > of the same "apparatus of terror." > > Levitt devotes significant attention to attacking the Islamist social > sector (dawa) and Hamas's charitable institutions. It is the principle > aim of his book to show how Hamas uses its extensive social-service > network-mosques, schools, kindergartens, orphanages, hospitals, > clinics, sports clubs, youth clubs-to further its primary political > agenda, which he claims is the destruction of Israel. He argues that > through its social support structure and services, "Hamas leverages > the appreciation (and indebtedness) it earns through social welfare > activities to garner support ? both political and logistical ? for its > terrorist activities." Levitt summarizes his argument as follows: "The > general deprivation of the Palestinian people in the Israeli-occupied > territories predisposes them to favor the much-needed social support > that Hamas provides." He continues, "In addition to purchasing > goodwill, charities also create a built-in logistical support umbrella > underneath which terrorist operations are sheltered and operate." He > explains that the dawa network operationally supports terrorism > through recruitment, employment and financing and by providing > institutional legitimacy. > > His evidence, at times interesting, particularly with regard to > Hamas's external sources of financing, is more often than not based on > assumption, extrapolation and generalization. For example, as evidence > for how religious organizations raise money for Palestinian terrorism, > Levitt quotes from a pamphlet produced by a Quranic memorization > center that was sponsored by the Ramallah-al Bireh charity committee. > The pamphlet listed 30 ways to enter heaven, including "Jihad for the > sake of Allah by fighting with one's soul and money." > > In another example of how hospitals are used to support terrorism, > Levitt briefly describes the Dar al-Salam Hospital: "According to > information cited by the FBI," the hospital is considered a Hamas > institution because it was founded with "Hamas funds and protection." > But Levitt fails to provide any real evidence of these funds or how > and why they are considered "Hamas." The assumption is that these > ties, even if they are shown to exist, are inherently evil and can be > nothing else. > > In a chapter on how the dawa teaches terror and radicalizes > Palestinian society, Levitt writes, "Recipients of Hamas financial aid > or social services are less likely to turn down requests from the > organization such as allowing their homes to serve as safe houses for > Hamas fugitives, ferrying fugitives, couriering funds or weapons, > storing and maintaining explosives, and more." He cites as evidence > for this sweeping statement one resident of Jabalya refugee camp in > Gaza who fed Hamas militants daily. The possibility that Palestinians > receive support from Hamas institutions without preconditions or that > popular support requires more than the lure of financial incentives > and free social services does not enter Levitt's argument. Levitt also > claims, "When angry, frustrated or humiliated Palestinians regularly > listen to sermons in mosques in which Jews, Israelis and even > Americans are depicted as enemies of Islam and Palestine, Hamas's > official policy may not restrain individual enthusiasm." One wonders > how Mr. Levitt knows these things, given that he appears never to have > stepped inside a Hamas institution in Gaza or the West Bank or to have > conducted any fieldwork at all. > > While these arguments are oft-repeated in today's media, Levitt does > little to address research that supports a very different conclusion > regarding the Hamas dawa. Some of the key findings of this research > point to institutional features that demonstrate no preference for > religion or politics over other ideologies, particularly in > programmatic work; an approach to institutional work that advocates > incrementalism, moderation, order and stability; a philosophical and > practical desire for productivity and professionalism that shuns > radical change and emphasizes community development and civic > restoration over political violence; and no evidence of any formal > attempt to impose an Islamic model of political, social, legal or > religious behavior, or to create an alternative Islamic or Islamist > conception of society. > > While there can be no doubt that, since its inception, Hamas has > engaged in violence and armed struggle and has been the primary force > behind the horrific suicide bombings inside Israel, Levitt's > presentation reduces this increasingly complex and sophisticated > organization to an insular, one-dimensional and seemingly mindless > entity dedicated solely to violence, terrorism and Israel's > destruction. To fully understand the current political stature of > Hamas, it is necessary to closely examine the dramatic transitions > that have occurred within the organization itself, among Palestinians > with respect to their society, and in Palestine's relationship with > Israel. > >> From the point of view of Hamas, Palestine is an Arab and Islamic land > that fell to colonial control with the demise of the Ottoman Empire. > The establishment of the State of Israel is viewed as a way to > perpetuate colonial authority over the Muslim homeland and is > therefore illegitimate. As victims of colonialism, Hamas argues that > Palestinians have the right to resist and struggle to regain their > homeland and freedom, viewing this as a local and nationalist > struggle. Now, almost two decades after its birth, Hamas has grown in > size and popularity. While changes have not been made to its frame of > reference or objectives, its political discourse has become more > refined and streamlined, particularly with regard to its relations > with local groups, political factions, other religious communities and > other nations. > > Unfortunately, Matthew Levitt's book does not address the critical > evolutionary processes ? particularly with regard to its > organizational structure and political, social and economic role in > Palestinian society ? that have characterized the Palestinian Islamist > movement and Hamas's rise to power. The ability of Hamas to > reinterpret itself over time through processes of radicalization, > de-radicalization, de-militarization and re-radicalization is a > pronounced and common theme in its historical evolution. Levitt > neglects to address the significance behind this commitment to > reinterpretation. His analysis aims simply to demonize Hamas, and he > discounts the critical connections between changing patterns of > protest and structures of society, competing visions of a Palestinian > social and political order, and contesting Islamic and secular > definitions of meaning and legitimacy. The synergy among these forces > has characterized the history and growth of Palestinian Islamism. > > Israel's military occupation, which has long been the defining context > for Palestinian life, is almost absent from Levitt's book. Hamas's > popularity and growing empowerment derive from its role as a > resistance organization, fighting against an occupation that is now 40 > years old. Israel's steady expropriation, fragmentation and division > of Palestinian lands; settlement construction and expansion; closure > restrictions and destruction of the Palestinian economy are not part > of Levitt's discussion, nor is the right of the Palestinians to resist > these measures. In those few instances where the occupation is > mentioned, it is couched in terms that acknowledge Palestinian > hardship ? a reality exploited by Hamas ? but justified as a response > to terrorism. In the absence of any serious examination of Israel's > occupation, Levitt's portrayal of the rise of Hamas is completely > detached from the context within which it was produced and shaped. > > Despite evidence to the contrary, the organization is also described > as a movement incapable of transformation, ignoring the improvements > in Hamas's political discourse regarding political compromise with the > State of Israel and resolution of the conflict. During the period of > the Oslo peace process, for example, some dramatic changes occurred > within Hamas. The organization was moving away from the extreme and a > position of confrontation towards one that was more centrist and > moderate. This shift was characterized by a reorientation in policy > and strategic emphasis from political/military action to social works > and community development. Accompanying this shift was a redefinition > of the nature of the Palestinian struggle, which was no longer for > political or military power per se but for defining new social > arrangements and appropriate cultural and institutional models that > would meet social needs without resort to violence. Similarly, the > Islamist movement was not advancing a policy of isolation but was > calling for greater accommodation and cooperation with both domestic > and international actors. > > Since Hamas's victory in the January 2006 legislative elections, there > has been a further evolution in its political thinking ? as evidenced > in some of its key political documents ? characterized by a strong > emphasis on state-building and programmatic work, greater refinement > with regard to its position on a two-state solution and the role of > resistance, and a progressive de-emphasis on religion. (See Khaled > Hroub, "A `New Hamas' Through Its New Documents," Journal of Palestine > Studies, 34 (4) (Summer 2006)). These are absent from Levitt's > discussion. Levitt also overlooks questions that are vital to any > analysis of Hamas, especially at present. To name just a few, what > were Hamas's ideological, philosophical and structural boundaries? How > and why were they reset and expanded? What is the role of religion as > opposed to politics in Islamist thought and practice, particularly in > the public sphere? Are religion and politics truly unified? Can Hamas > reconcile faith and ideology with a demand for a place in the > political system? > > Levitt's book has many serious flaws and merits a detailed critique > that extends well beyond the scope of this review. His is not a work > of analysis or scholarship, to say the least, and despite certain > points that are interesting and accurate, anyone wishing to gain a > substantive, reasoned and critical understanding of Hamas would do > well to look elsewhere. > > ********************************************************************* -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ usgp-int mailing list usgp-int at gp-us.org http://forum.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-int -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.4/1055 - Release Date: 10/7/2007 10:24 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amyvasnunes at hotmail.com Sun Oct 7 18:27:10 2007 From: amyvasnunes at hotmail.com (Amy Vas Nunes) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 18:27:10 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT Sara Roy's review of Hamas book censored Message-ID: Hamas does provide Social Services food and medical for people. They also run slanted Islamic schools where children are taught hate. Nowhere in the documents below do they renounce violence such as suicide "martyr" bombings or aligning with Hezbollah to fight inLebanon.What about payments to bombers families? These views of the IC co-chair are not the main stream views of yhr CTGP, Also the women's caucus as noted above exists only in the computer has not met for over 2 years most members quit the CTGP , Amy From: justinemccabe at earthlink.netTo: gpcwc at lists.riseup.net; ctgp-news at ml.greens.orgDate: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:22:18 -0400CC: Subject: {news} Few: USGP-INT Sara Roy's review of Hamas book censored ----- Original Message ----- From: Justine McCabe To: USGP International Committee Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 12:12 PM Subject: USGP-INT Sara Roy's review of Hamas book censored Dear all, I encourage you to read this book review by Harvard scholar Sara Roy not only for a brief overview of the evolution of Hamas, but also--as her author's note explains--as a disgraceful example of censorship where Israel is concerned. (The fact that Roy is Jewish and the child of holocaust survivors provides no pause from this bias.) For a more extensive look at Hamas, read the work that Roy cites, Khaled Hroub's, "A `New Hamas' Through Its New Documents," Journal of Palestine Studies at this URL: http://www.palestine-studies.org/final/en/journals/printer.php?aid=7087 . Despite the evolution and complexity of Hamas documented by Roy and Hroub that goes beyond the 1988 Hamas charter, the media and talking heads continue to regard Hamas only through that earlier lens. Justine ============================================================================================================== BOOK REVIEW > Hamas: Politics, Charity and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad by> Matthew Levitt. Yale University Press, in cooperation with the> Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2006. 324 pages, $26.00,> hardcover.> > Sara Roy> Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University> http://mepc.org/journal_vol14/0707_roy.asp> > Author's Note:> This review, published here in its entirety, was originally> commissioned by The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, the official> foreign-policy journal at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. > Between the time I was invited to write the review and the time I was> told it would be published, over two months had passed during which I> had had several exchanges, some of them difficult, with the editorial> staff. However, by the end of the process the editor-in-chief, with> whom I had been working, was pleased with the review, and so was I. He> sent me an e-PDF of the review as it would appear in the journal> (Volume 31:1 Winter 2007). The PDF version of the page proofs revealed> that the editor had excerpted two relevant sentences (featured in> sidebars) to highlight observations that I had offered in the review:> > 1. "While there can be no doubt that, since its inception, Hamas has> engaged in violence and armed struggle, and has been the primary force> behind the horrific suicide bombings inside Israel, Levitt's> presentation reduces this increasingly complex and sophisticated> organization to an insular, one-dimensional...entity dedicated solely> to violence...and Israel's destruction."> 2. "The ability of Hamas to reinterpret itself over time through> processes of radicalization, de-radicalization, de-militarization, and> re-radicalization is a pronounced and common theme in its historical> evolution."> During a subsequent exchange the editor-in-chief wrote, "Thank you for> your hard work as well. It's a good review." I believed that was the> end of the matter. Just a few days later, I received the following> e-mail message from the same editor-in-chief:> > Dear Ms. Roy:> After careful review and much consideration of the merits of your> piece, we have decided that we are ultimately unable to publish your> review for this edition. Your review was evaluated by several of our> editors and an external editor for objectivity. Unfortunately, they> disagreed with my decision to publish your review for the following> reasons: despite their agreement with many of your points, all> reviewers found the piece one-sided. This one-sidedness dissuaded> readers from reading the piece to the end; ultimately, this last point> is the most important. Although I found your arguments valuable, if> readers consistently feel this way, I am unable to move forward with a> piece. My apologies for the way in which this process was carried out,> and for the time that you spent on editing the piece. Thank you once> again for your submission and your efforts. If you would like to> discuss this further, please feel free to e-mail me.> > In more than 20 years of writing and publishing I have never> experienced such behavior or encountered what to me, at least, is so> blatant a case of censorship. I am therefore extremely grateful to> Anne Joyce and Stephen Magro for agreeing to publish the review in> Middle East Policy.> > ===> > At the beginning of the first Palestinian uprising, I was living in> Gaza and spent much time in the refugee camps interviewing families> about the political and socioeconomic changes taking place around> them. Despite the harsh living situation, Palestinians were filled> with a palpable sense of hope and possibility that has since> evaporated. Hamas was then struggling to create a popular> constituency, despite overwhelming support among Palestinians for> secular nationalism. That was 18 years ago, and neither I nor anyone> else ever thought that Hamas would one day emerge as a major political> actor: democratically winning legislative elections, defeating the> majority Fatah party and heading a Palestinian government.> > In his recent book, Matthew Levitt, who is deputy assistant secretary> for intelligence and analysis at the U.S. Department of the Treasury> and an expert in financial counterterrorism, argues that Hamas is> strictly a terrorist organization that is not only a domestic threat> but a global one, a part of an international jihad network with links> to al-Qaeda that must be met with force. He further argues ? and this> is the core of his book ? that despite the existence of differentiated> political, social and military sectors within Hamas, they are all part> of the same "apparatus of terror."> > Levitt devotes significant attention to attacking the Islamist social> sector (dawa) and Hamas's charitable institutions. It is the principle> aim of his book to show how Hamas uses its extensive social-service> network-mosques, schools, kindergartens, orphanages, hospitals,> clinics, sports clubs, youth clubs-to further its primary political> agenda, which he claims is the destruction of Israel. He argues that> through its social support structure and services, "Hamas leverages> the appreciation (and indebtedness) it earns through social welfare> activities to garner support ? both political and logistical ? for its> terrorist activities." Levitt summarizes his argument as follows: "The> general deprivation of the Palestinian people in the Israeli-occupied> territories predisposes them to favor the much-needed social support> that Hamas provides." He continues, "In addition to purchasing> goodwill, charities also create a built-in logistical support umbrella> underneath which terrorist operations are sheltered and operate." He> explains that the dawa network operationally supports terrorism> through recruitment, employment and financing and by providing> institutional legitimacy.> > His evidence, at times interesting, particularly with regard to> Hamas's external sources of financing, is more often than not based on> assumption, extrapolation and generalization. For example, as evidence> for how religious organizations raise money for Palestinian terrorism,> Levitt quotes from a pamphlet produced by a Quranic memorization> center that was sponsored by the Ramallah-al Bireh charity committee.> The pamphlet listed 30 ways to enter heaven, including "Jihad for the> sake of Allah by fighting with one's soul and money."> > In another example of how hospitals are used to support terrorism,> Levitt briefly describes the Dar al-Salam Hospital: "According to> information cited by the FBI," the hospital is considered a Hamas> institution because it was founded with "Hamas funds and protection."> But Levitt fails to provide any real evidence of these funds or how> and why they are considered "Hamas." The assumption is that these> ties, even if they are shown to exist, are inherently evil and can be> nothing else.> > In a chapter on how the dawa teaches terror and radicalizes> Palestinian society, Levitt writes, "Recipients of Hamas financial aid> or social services are less likely to turn down requests from the> organization such as allowing their homes to serve as safe houses for> Hamas fugitives, ferrying fugitives, couriering funds or weapons,> storing and maintaining explosives, and more." He cites as evidence> for this sweeping statement one resident of Jabalya refugee camp in> Gaza who fed Hamas militants daily. The possibility that Palestinians> receive support from Hamas institutions without preconditions or that> popular support requires more than the lure of financial incentives> and free social services does not enter Levitt's argument. Levitt also> claims, "When angry, frustrated or humiliated Palestinians regularly> listen to sermons in mosques in which Jews, Israelis and even> Americans are depicted as enemies of Islam and Palestine, Hamas's> official policy may not restrain individual enthusiasm." One wonders> how Mr. Levitt knows these things, given that he appears never to have> stepped inside a Hamas institution in Gaza or the West Bank or to have> conducted any fieldwork at all.> > While these arguments are oft-repeated in today's media, Levitt does> little to address research that supports a very different conclusion> regarding the Hamas dawa. Some of the key findings of this research> point to institutional features that demonstrate no preference for> religion or politics over other ideologies, particularly in> programmatic work; an approach to institutional work that advocates> incrementalism, moderation, order and stability; a philosophical and> practical desire for productivity and professionalism that shuns> radical change and emphasizes community development and civic> restoration over political violence; and no evidence of any formal> attempt to impose an Islamic model of political, social, legal or> religious behavior, or to create an alternative Islamic or Islamist> conception of society.> > While there can be no doubt that, since its inception, Hamas has> engaged in violence and armed struggle and has been the primary force> behind the horrific suicide bombings inside Israel, Levitt's> presentation reduces this increasingly complex and sophisticated> organization to an insular, one-dimensional and seemingly mindless> entity dedicated solely to violence, terrorism and Israel's> destruction. To fully understand the current political stature of> Hamas, it is necessary to closely examine the dramatic transitions> that have occurred within the organization itself, among Palestinians> with respect to their society, and in Palestine's relationship with> Israel.> >> From the point of view of Hamas, Palestine is an Arab and Islamic land> that fell to colonial control with the demise of the Ottoman Empire.> The establishment of the State of Israel is viewed as a way to> perpetuate colonial authority over the Muslim homeland and is> therefore illegitimate. As victims of colonialism, Hamas argues that> Palestinians have the right to resist and struggle to regain their> homeland and freedom, viewing this as a local and nationalist> struggle. Now, almost two decades after its birth, Hamas has grown in> size and popularity. While changes have not been made to its frame of> reference or objectives, its political discourse has become more> refined and streamlined, particularly with regard to its relations> with local groups, political factions, other religious communities and> other nations.> > Unfortunately, Matthew Levitt's book does not address the critical> evolutionary processes ? particularly with regard to its> organizational structure and political, social and economic role in> Palestinian society ? that have characterized the Palestinian Islamist> movement and Hamas's rise to power. The ability of Hamas to> reinterpret itself over time through processes of radicalization,> de-radicalization, de-militarization and re-radicalization is a> pronounced and common theme in its historical evolution. Levitt> neglects to address the significance behind this commitment to> reinterpretation. His analysis aims simply to demonize Hamas, and he> discounts the critical connections between changing patterns of> protest and structures of society, competing visions of a Palestinian> social and political order, and contesting Islamic and secular> definitions of meaning and legitimacy. The synergy among these forces> has characterized the history and growth of Palestinian Islamism.> > Israel's military occupation, which has long been the defining context> for Palestinian life, is almost absent from Levitt's book. Hamas's> popularity and growing empowerment derive from its role as a> resistance organization, fighting against an occupation that is now 40> years old. Israel's steady expropriation, fragmentation and division> of Palestinian lands; settlement construction and expansion; closure> restrictions and destruction of the Palestinian economy are not part> of Levitt's discussion, nor is the right of the Palestinians to resist> these measures. In those few instances where the occupation is> mentioned, it is couched in terms that acknowledge Palestinian> hardship ? a reality exploited by Hamas ? but justified as a response> to terrorism. In the absence of any serious examination of Israel's> occupation, Levitt's portrayal of the rise of Hamas is completely> detached from the context within which it was produced and shaped.> > Despite evidence to the contrary, the organization is also described> as a movement incapable of transformation, ignoring the improvements> in Hamas's political discourse regarding political compromise with the> State of Israel and resolution of the conflict. During the period of> the Oslo peace process, for example, some dramatic changes occurred> within Hamas. The organization was moving away from the extreme and a> position of confrontation towards one that was more centrist and> moderate. This shift was characterized by a reorientation in policy> and strategic emphasis from political/military action to social works> and community development. Accompanying this shift was a redefinition> of the nature of the Palestinian struggle, which was no longer for> political or military power per se but for defining new social> arrangements and appropriate cultural and institutional models that> would meet social needs without resort to violence. Similarly, the> Islamist movement was not advancing a policy of isolation but was> calling for greater accommodation and cooperation with both domestic> and international actors.> > Since Hamas's victory in the January 2006 legislative elections, there> has been a further evolution in its political thinking ? as evidenced> in some of its key political documents ? characterized by a strong> emphasis on state-building and programmatic work, greater refinement> with regard to its position on a two-state solution and the role of> resistance, and a progressive de-emphasis on religion. (See Khaled> Hroub, "A `New Hamas' Through Its New Documents," Journal of Palestine> Studies, 34 (4) (Summer 2006)). These are absent from Levitt's> discussion. Levitt also overlooks questions that are vital to any> analysis of Hamas, especially at present. To name just a few, what> were Hamas's ideological, philosophical and structural boundaries? How> and why were they reset and expanded? What is the role of religion as> opposed to politics in Islamist thought and practice, particularly in> the public sphere? Are religion and politics truly unified? Can Hamas> reconcile faith and ideology with a demand for a place in the> political system?> > Levitt's book has many serious flaws and merits a detailed critique> that extends well beyond the scope of this review. His is not a work> of analysis or scholarship, to say the least, and despite certain> points that are interesting and accurate, anyone wishing to gain a> substantive, reasoned and critical understanding of Hamas would do> well to look elsewhere.> > ********************************************************************* _______________________________________________usgp-int mailing listusgp-int at gp-us.orghttp://forum.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-int No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.4/1055 - Release Date: 10/7/2007 10:24 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From greenpartyct at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 08:45:16 2007 From: greenpartyct at yahoo.com (Green Party-CT) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 05:45:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: MISSUSE OF NEWS LISTSERVE__F RE: {news} Fw: USGP-INT Sara Roy's review of Hamas book censored In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <372126.32842.qm@web81413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Greens, The misuse of NEWS listserves continues to be a probem. This list is NOT for comments or personal attacks. Their is a FORUM list serve for discussion, but it also is not place for personal attacks, CO Chairs should take note of personal attacks and adress those issues. in service, Tim McKee Amy Vas Nunes wrote: Connecticut Green Party - Part of the GPUS http://www.ctgreens.org/ - http://www.greenpartyus.org/ to unsubscribe click here mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } Hamas does provide Social Services food and medical for people. They also run slanted Islamic schools where children are taught hate. Nowhere in the documents below do they renounce violence such as suicide "martyr" bombings or aligning with Hezbollah to fight inLebanon.What about payments to bombers families? These views of the IC co-chair are not the main stream views of yhr CTGP, Also the women's caucus as noted above exists only in the computer has not met for over 2 years most members quit the CTGP , Amy --------------------------------- From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net To: gpcwc at lists.riseup.net; ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:22:18 -0400 CC: Subject: {news} Few: USGP-INT Sara Roy's review of Hamas book censored ----- Original Message ----- From: Justine McCabe To: USGP International Committee Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 12:12 PM Subject: USGP-INT Sara Roy's review of Hamas book censored Dear all, I encourage you to read this book review by Harvard scholar Sara Roy not only for a brief overview of the evolution of Hamas, but also--as her author's note explains--as a disgraceful example of censorship where Israel is concerned. (The fact that Roy is Jewish and the child of holocaust survivors provides no pause from this bias.) For a more extensive look at Hamas, read the work that Roy cites, Khaled Hroub's, "A `New Hamas' Through Its New Documents," Journal of Palestine Studies at this URL: http://www.palestine-studies.org/final/en/journals/printer.php?aid=7087 . Despite the evolution and complexity of Hamas documented by Roy and Hroub that goes beyond the 1988 Hamas charter, the media and talking heads continue to regard Hamas only through that earlier lens. Justine ============================================================================================================== BOOK REVIEW > Hamas: Politics, Charity and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad by > Matthew Levitt. Yale University Press, in cooperation with the > Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2006. 324 pages, $26.00, > hardcover. > > Sara Roy > Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University > http://mepc.org/journal_vol14/0707_roy.asp > > Author's Note: > This review, published here in its entirety, was originally > commissioned by The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, the official > foreign-policy journal at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. > Between the time I was invited to write the review and the time I was > told it would be published, over two months had passed during which I > had had several exchanges, some of them difficult, with the editorial > staff. However, by the end of the process the editor-in-chief, with > whom I had been working, was pleased with the review, and so was I. He > sent me an e-PDF of the review as it would appear in the journal > (Volume 31:1 Winter 2007). The PDF version of the page proofs revealed > that the editor had excerpted two relevant sentences (featured in > sidebars) to highlight observations that I had offered in the review: > > 1. "While there can be no doubt that, since its inception, Hamas has > engaged in violence and armed struggle, and has been the primary force > behind the horrific suicide bombings inside Israel, Levitt's > presentation reduces this increasingly complex and sophisticated > organization to an insular, one-dimensional...entity dedicated solely > to violence...and Israel's destruction." > 2. "The ability of Hamas to reinterpret itself over time through > processes of radicalization, de-radicalization, de-militarization, and > re-radicalization is a pronounced and common theme in its historical > evolution." > During a subsequent exchange the editor-in-chief wrote, "Thank you for > your hard work as well. It's a good review." I believed that was the > end of the matter. Just a few days later, I received the following > e-mail message from the same editor-in-chief: > > Dear Ms. Roy: > After careful review and much consideration of the merits of your > piece, we have decided that we are ultimately unable to publish your > review for this edition. Your review was evaluated by several of our > editors and an external editor for objectivity. Unfortunately, they > disagreed with my decision to publish your review for the following > reasons: despite their agreement with many of your points, all > reviewers found the piece one-sided. This one-sidedness dissuaded > readers from reading the piece to the end; ultimately, this last point > is the most important. Although I found your arguments valuable, if > readers consistently feel this way, I am unable to move forward with a > piece. My apologies for the way in which this process was carried out, > and for the time that you spent on editing the piece. Thank you once > again for your submission and your efforts. If you would like to > discuss this further, please feel free to e-mail me. > > In more than 20 years of writing and publishing I have never > experienced such behavior or encountered what to me, at least, is so > blatant a case of censorship. I am therefore extremely grateful to > Anne Joyce and Stephen Magro for agreeing to publish the review in > Middle East Policy. > > === > > At the beginning of the first Palestinian uprising, I was living in > Gaza and spent much time in the refugee camps interviewing families > about the political and socioeconomic changes taking place around > them. Despite the harsh living situation, Palestinians were filled > with a palpable sense of hope and possibility that has since > evaporated. Hamas was then struggling to create a popular > constituency, despite overwhelming support among Palestinians for > secular nationalism. That was 18 years ago, and neither I nor anyone > else ever thought that Hamas would one day emerge as a major political > actor: democratically winning legislative elections, defeating the > majority Fatah party and heading a Palestinian government. > > In his recent book, Matthew Levitt, who is deputy assistant secretary > for intelligence and analysis at the U.S. Department of the Treasury > and an expert in financial counterterrorism, argues that Hamas is > strictly a terrorist organization that is not only a domestic threat > but a global one, a part of an international jihad network with links > to al-Qaeda that must be met with force. He further argues ? and this > is the core of his book ? that despite the existence of differentiated > political, social and military sectors within Hamas, they are all part > of the same "apparatus of terror." > > Levitt devotes significant attention to attacking the Islamist social > sector (dawa) and Hamas's charitable institutions. It is the principle > aim of his book to show how Hamas uses its extensive social-service > network-mosques, schools, kindergartens, orphanages, hospitals, > clinics, sports clubs, youth clubs-to further its primary political > agenda, which he claims is the destruction of Israel. He argues that > through its social support structure and services, "Hamas leverages > the appreciation (and indebtedness) it earns through social welfare > activities to garner support ? both political and logistical ? for its > terrorist activities." Levitt summarizes his argument as follows: "The > general deprivation of the Palestinian people in the Israeli-occupied > territories predisposes them to favor the much-needed social support > that Hamas provides." He continues, "In addition to purchasing > goodwill, charities also create a built-in logistical support umbrella > underneath which terrorist operations are sheltered and operate." He > explains that the dawa network operationally supports terrorism > through recruitment, employment and financing and by providing > institutional legitimacy. > > His evidence, at times interesting, particularly with regard to > Hamas's external sources of financing, is more often than not based on > assumption, extrapolation and generalization. For example, as evidence > for how religious organizations raise money for Palestinian terrorism, > Levitt quotes from a pamphlet produced by a Quranic memorization > center that was sponsored by the Ramallah-al Bireh charity committee. > The pamphlet listed 30 ways to enter heaven, including "Jihad for the > sake of Allah by fighting with one's soul and money." > > In another example of how hospitals are used to support terrorism, > Levitt briefly describes the Dar al-Salam Hospital: "According to > information cited by the FBI," the hospital is considered a Hamas > institution because it was founded with "Hamas funds and protection." > But Levitt fails to provide any real evidence of these funds or how > and why they are considered "Hamas." The assumption is that these > ties, even if they are shown to exist, are inherently evil and can be > nothing else. > > In a chapter on how the dawa teaches terror and radicalizes > Palestinian society, Levitt writes, "Recipients of Hamas financial aid > or social services are less likely to turn down requests from the > organization such as allowing their homes to serve as safe houses for > Hamas fugitives, ferrying fugitives, couriering funds or weapons, > storing and maintaining explosives, and more." He cites as evidence > for this sweeping statement one resident of Jabalya refugee camp in > Gaza who fed Hamas militants daily. The possibility that Palestinians > receive support from Hamas institutions without preconditions or that > popular support requires more than the lure of financial incentives > and free social services does not enter Levitt's argument. Levitt also > claims, "When angry, frustrated or humiliated Palestinians regularly > listen to sermons in mosques in which Jews, Israelis and even > Americans are depicted as enemies of Islam and Palestine, Hamas's > official policy may not restrain individual enthusiasm." One wonders > how Mr. Levitt knows these things, given that he appears never to have > stepped inside a Hamas institution in Gaza or the West Bank or to have > conducted any fieldwork at all. > > While these arguments are oft-repeated in today's media, Levitt does > little to address research that supports a very different conclusion > regarding the Hamas dawa. Some of the key findings of this research > point to institutional features that demonstrate no preference for > religion or politics over other ideologies, particularly in > programmatic work; an approach to institutional work that advocates > incrementalism, moderation, order and stability; a philosophical and > practical desire for productivity and professionalism that shuns > radical change and emphasizes community development and civic > restoration over political violence; and no evidence of any formal > attempt to impose an Islamic model of political, social, legal or > religious behavior, or to create an alternative Islamic or Islamist > conception of society. > > While there can be no doubt that, since its inception, Hamas has > engaged in violence and armed struggle and has been the primary force > behind the horrific suicide bombings inside Israel, Levitt's > presentation reduces this increasingly complex and sophisticated > organization to an insular, one-dimensional and seemingly mindless > entity dedicated solely to violence, terrorism and Israel's > destruction. To fully understand the current political stature of > Hamas, it is necessary to closely examine the dramatic transitions > that have occurred within the organization itself, among Palestinians > with respect to their society, and in Palestine's relationship with > Israel. > >> From the point of view of Hamas, Palestine is an Arab and Islamic land > that fell to colonial control with the demise of the Ottoman Empire. > The establishment of the State of Israel is viewed as a way to > perpetuate colonial authority over the Muslim homeland and is > therefore illegitimate. As victims of colonialism, Hamas argues that > Palestinians have the right to resist and struggle to regain their > homeland and freedom, viewing this as a local and nationalist > struggle. Now, almost two decades after its birth, Hamas has grown in > size and popularity. While changes have not been made to its frame of > reference or objectives, its political discourse has become more > refined and streamlined, particularly with regard to its relations > with local groups, political factions, other religious communities and > other nations. > > Unfortunately, Matthew Levitt's book does not address the critical > evolutionary processes ? particularly with regard to its > organizational structure and political, social and economic role in > Palestinian society ? that have characterized the Palestinian Islamist > movement and Hamas's rise to power. The ability of Hamas to > reinterpret itself over time through processes of radicalization, > de-radicalization, de-militarization and re-radicalization is a > pronounced and common theme in its historical evolution. Levitt > neglects to address the significance behind this commitment to > reinterpretation. His analysis aims simply to demonize Hamas, and he > discounts the critical connections between changing patterns of > protest and structures of society, competing visions of a Palestinian > social and political order, and contesting Islamic and secular > definitions of meaning and legitimacy. The synergy among these forces > has characterized the history and growth of Palestinian Islamism. > > Israel's military occupation, which has long been the defining context > for Palestinian life, is almost absent from Levitt's book. Hamas's > popularity and growing empowerment derive from its role as a > resistance organization, fighting against an occupation that is now 40 > years old. Israel's steady expropriation, fragmentation and division > of Palestinian lands; settlement construction and expansion; closure > restrictions and destruction of the Palestinian economy are not part > of Levitt's discussion, nor is the right of the Palestinians to resist > these measures. In those few instances where the occupation is > mentioned, it is couched in terms that acknowledge Palestinian > hardship ? a reality exploited by Hamas ? but justified as a response > to terrorism. In the absence of any serious examination of Israel's > occupation, Levitt's portrayal of the rise of Hamas is completely > detached from the context within which it was produced and shaped. > > Despite evidence to the contrary, the organization is also described > as a movement incapable of transformation, ignoring the improvements > in Hamas's political discourse regarding political compromise with the > State of Israel and resolution of the conflict. During the period of > the Oslo peace process, for example, some dramatic changes occurred > within Hamas. The organization was moving away from the extreme and a > position of confrontation towards one that was more centrist and > moderate. This shift was characterized by a reorientation in policy > and strategic emphasis from political/military action to social works > and community development. Accompanying this shift was a redefinition > of the nature of the Palestinian struggle, which was no longer for > political or military power per se but for defining new social > arrangements and appropriate cultural and institutional models that > would meet social needs without resort to violence. Similarly, the > Islamist movement was not advancing a policy of isolation but was > calling for greater accommodation and cooperation with both domestic > and international actors. > > Since Hamas's victory in the January 2006 legislative elections, there > has been a further evolution in its political thinking ? as evidenced > in some of its key political documents ? characterized by a strong > emphasis on state-building and programmatic work, greater refinement > with regard to its position on a two-state solution and the role of > resistance, and a progressive de-emphasis on religion. (See Khaled > Hroub, "A `New Hamas' Through Its New Documents," Journal of Palestine > Studies, 34 (4) (Summer 2006)). These are absent from Levitt's > discussion. Levitt also overlooks questions that are vital to any > analysis of Hamas, especially at present. To name just a few, what > were Hamas's ideological, philosophical and structural boundaries? How > and why were they reset and expanded? What is the role of religion as > opposed to politics in Islamist thought and practice, particularly in > the public sphere? Are religion and politics truly unified? Can Hamas > reconcile faith and ideology with a demand for a place in the > political system? > > Levitt's book has many serious flaws and merits a detailed critique > that extends well beyond the scope of this review. His is not a work > of analysis or scholarship, to say the least, and despite certain > points that are interesting and accurate, anyone wishing to gain a > substantive, reasoned and critical understanding of Hamas would do > well to look elsewhere. > > ********************************************************************* --------------------------------- _______________________________________________ usgp-int mailing list usgp-int at gp-us.org http://forum.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-int --------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.4/1055 - Release Date: 10/7/2007 10:24 AM To be removed please mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org _______________________________________________ CTGP-news mailing list CTGP-news at ml.greens.org http://ml.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/ctgp-news ATTENTION! The information in this transmission is privileged and confidential and intended only for the recipient listed above. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by email and delete the original message. The text of this email is similar to ordinary or face-to-face conversations and does not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the case of a formal legal opinion and does not constitute a representation of the opinions of the CT Green Party. The responsibility for any messages posted herein is solely that of the person who sent the message, and the CT Green Party hereby leaves this responsibility in the hands of it's members. NOTE: This is an inherently insecure forum, please do not post confidential messages and always realize that your address can be faked, and although a message may appear to be from a certain individual, it is always possible that it is fakemail. This is mail sent by a third party under an illegally assumed identity for purposes of coercion, misdirection, or general mischief. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown. This e-mail transmission may contain confidential information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from your files if you are not the intended recipient. Thank you for your compliance. To be removed please mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim McKee cell (860) 778-1304 or (860) 643-2282 National Committee Member of the Green Party(Connecticut) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Mon Oct 8 09:34:05 2007 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 09:34:05 -0400 Subject: {news} USGP-INT: German Greens Slide into Turmoil Message-ID: <01ac01c809af$e60f5370$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> From: Mike Feinstein Date: September 22, 2007 2:23:51 PM EDT To: natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org Subject: Re: [usgp-dx] "War and Peace and the Greens of Germany" Reply-To: mfeinstein at feinstein.org http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,506473,00.html German Greens Slide Into Turmoil By David Crossland in Berlin Germany's pacifist Greens are divided over whether to back the country's military mission in Afghanistan. Their infighting, weak leadership and gradual retreat from Realpolitik has cast doubt on the party's chances of returning to power. Even though the Greens haven't been in government since 2005, their in-fighting is significant because it could thwart the party's chances of returning to power for a long time to come. Grassroots members rebelled against the leadership at a congress last Saturday when co-leaders Reinhard B?tikofer and Claudia Roth asked delegates to vote in favour of prolonging Germany's military mission in Afghanistan. But delegates rejected the motion, effectively abandoning the pragmatism which former leader Joschka Fischer had stamped on the party to make it electable and fit to govern as junior partner to the Social Democrats from 1998 until 2005. The mandate for Germany's 3,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan comes up for renewal in a parliamentary vote next month, as does the mandate for the deployment of a handful of Tornado reconnaissance jets that have been helping NATO forces combat Taliban fighters in the war-torn south of the country. It is virtually certain to be approved with the votes of the grand coalition of conservatives and Social Democrats. But if the Greens now oppose it, they will be signalling a departure from the center ground where the party had been regarded as a kingmaker in a future German government. Sending German troops abroad runs counter to the Greens' pacifist roots but Fischer, as foreign minister, browbeat them into doing it twice -- during the 1999 Kosovo crisis when they backed the deployment of German fighter jets to help bomb Serbia, and in 2001, when they voted in favor of sending German troops to Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa to help the US-led war on terror. Painful Transformation They finally ditched pacifism at a party congress in 2002 which approved a motion that the use of force could not be ruled out as a last resort to combat genocide and terrorism. The move merely sealed on paper a painful transformation that the Greens have undergone in practice, led by 1970s street-fighter Fischer, one of Germany's most popular and eloquent politicians. Fischer's departure from active politics after the 'Red-Green' coalition lost the 2005 election deprived the party of its biggest electoral asset. Saturday's vote and the evident weakness of the current Green leadership have cast further doubt on its outlook. "The party which had in the public's perception moved into the center ground in recent years and had to many seemed indispensable in every conceivable alternative to the grand coalition will no longer be able to carry on playing that role in the foreseeable future," Hubert Kleinert, political scientist at the Hesse college for state administration, wrote in an opinion piece for SPIEGEL ONLINE. "In addition, the party leadership has failed to show a united front or leadership ability." Rivals have been pouring scorn on the Greens. The general secretary of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats, Ronald Pofalla, said: "The Greens are apparently unwilling and unable to take responsibility for the people of Afghanistan." Several conservatives said the vote precluded a future coalition between the conservatives and Greens. Farewell Realpolitik Birgit Homburger, a member of parliament for the opposition liberal Free Democrats, said: "They have finally said goodbye to Realpolitik." Most Greens support Germany's involvement in Afghanistan as part of the NATO-led International Security and Assistance Force, in which around 3,000 German troops are stationed in Afghanistan, mainly in the safer north of the country where they are helping with infrastructure projects. But many in the party oppose the deployment since March of German Tornado jets in an active combat role. The problem is that the government has combined the two mandates for renewal in a single parliamentary vote. As a result, delegates at Saturday's congress refused the leadership's request to recommend a 'Yes' vote by MPs in October. Several of the 51 Greens MPs have said they plan to vote Yes regardless, even at the risk of being deselected by the party base when candidates are chosen for the next general election, expected in 2009. "The Greens are in a difficult position. The party hasn't made things easy for itself," said MP Priska Hinz. "But I haven't changed my personal opinion." She plans to vote in favour of prolonging the mandate. The Greens have become victims of their own success in the two decades since they emerged as a movement of scruffy rebels bent on making a conservative industrial society more environmentally friendly and tolerant. Mission Accomplished They have helped to make the water cleaner and the air purer, and with global warming topping the global agenda their stance on the environment is now part of mainstream politics and has been eagerly adopted by Merkel. They have been scoring a steady 9 percent in opinion polls and are neck-and-neck with the opposition Left Party. But since Saturday's congress, analysts have been warning that the Greens are setting themselves up to be a perennial opposition party rather than a viable partner in government. No clear successor to Fischer has emerged and the party's complicated leadership structure reflects that. The two co-leaders, Roth from the left wing and B?tikofer from the 'pragmatic' wing, are vying for influence with each other and with prominent former ministers in the form of J?rgen Trittin and Renate K?nast, who now shares duties as floor leader with Fritz Kuhn. "The entire leadership was so helpless and lacking in courage at the congress that they all have disqualified themselves from leading the party into the next general election," wrote left-wing newspaper Frankfurter Rundschau in an editorial. "Now everyone knows that no one has the stuff to replace Joschka Fischer." _______________________________________________ Natlcomaffairs mailing list To send a message to the list, write to: Natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org To unsubscribe or change your list options, go to: http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomaffairs You must know your password to do this. If you can't figure out how to unsubscribe, as a last resort only, send a message OFF LIST to steveh at olypen.com If your state delegation changes, please see: http://gp.org/committees/nc/documents/delegate_change.html To report violations of listserv protocol, write to forummanagers at lists.gp-us.org For other information about the National Committee, see: http://gp.org/committees/nc/ Julia Willebrand, NY NWC Delegate 212 877-5088 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.4/1055 - Release Date: 10/7/2007 10:24 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kumfry at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 10:28:34 2007 From: kumfry at yahoo.com (Kenneth Humphrey) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 07:28:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT Sara Roy's review of Hamas book censored In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <804075.77137.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Not a mention here from Amy recognizing the havoc rampaging Israel unleashed on innocent Lebanese civilians, above all children, with their cluster bomblets (supplied by rogue nation USA) that are STILL causing war crimes against humanity and keeping peasant farmers from working their fields. Nor does Amy comment about the Israeli bombing the oil facility on the coast of Lebanon that caused massive pollution, and then compounded the environmental damage by refusing to allow cleanup crews to start the cleanup process for weeks. (Not a word from Jingo Joe Lieberman on this either, yet he postures as a great environmentalist, and even is listed favorably by the League of Conservation Voters!) For Amy's biasted benefit, being critical of the rightwing Israeli regime is NOT antisemitic. Feeling Jingo/Chickenhawk Joe Lieberman is a disgrace to our state and needs to be somehow removed from his sinecure as senator so that Connecticut residents and this nation can be spared more than five more years of this Bush clone as he caters to the rightist Israeli regime. As I've noted, we need a recall or impeachment law in the case of a self-serving type like warmonger Lieberman ( harping for assaults upon Iran, thus extending this war as Nixon and Kissinger did in making war on Cambodia). Ken Humphrey --- Amy Vas Nunes wrote: > Connecticut Green Party - Part of the GPUS > http://www.ctgreens.org/ - > http://www.greenpartyus.org/ > > to unsubscribe click here > mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org> > Hamas does provide Social Services food and medical > for people. They also run slanted Islamic schools > where children are taught hate. Nowhere in the > documents below do they renounce violence such as > suicide "martyr" bombings or aligning with Hezbollah > to fight inLebanon.What about payments to bombers > families? These views of the IC co-chair are not the > main stream views of yhr CTGP, Also the women's > caucus as noted above exists only in the computer > has not met for over 2 years most members quit the > CTGP , Amy > > > From: justinemccabe at earthlink.netTo: > gpcwc at lists.riseup.net; ctgp-news at ml.greens.orgDate: > Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:22:18 -0400CC: Subject: {news} > Few: USGP-INT Sara Roy's review of Hamas book > censored > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Justine McCabe > To: USGP International Committee > Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 12:12 PM > Subject: USGP-INT Sara Roy's review of Hamas book > censored > > Dear all, > > I encourage you to read this book review by Harvard > scholar Sara Roy not only for a brief overview of > the evolution of Hamas, but also--as her author's > note explains--as a disgraceful example of > censorship where Israel is concerned. (The fact that > Roy is Jewish and the child of holocaust survivors > provides no pause from this bias.) > > For a more extensive look at Hamas, read the work > that Roy cites, Khaled Hroub's, "A `New Hamas' > Through Its New Documents," Journal of Palestine > Studies at this URL: > http://www.palestine-studies.org/final/en/journals/printer.php?aid=7087 > . Despite the evolution and complexity of Hamas > documented by Roy and Hroub that goes beyond the > 1988 Hamas charter, the media and talking heads > continue to regard Hamas only through that earlier > lens. > > Justine > ============================================================================================================== > BOOK REVIEW > Hamas: Politics, Charity and > Terrorism in the Service of Jihad by> Matthew > Levitt. Yale University Press, in cooperation with > the> Washington Institute for Near East Policy, > 2006. 324 pages, $26.00,> hardcover.> > Sara Roy> > Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard > University> > http://mepc.org/journal_vol14/0707_roy.asp> > > Author's Note:> This review, published here in its > entirety, was originally> commissioned by The > Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, the official> > foreign-policy journal at the Fletcher School at > Tufts University. > Between the time I was invited > to write the review and the time I was> told it > would be published, over two months had passed > during which I> had had several exchanges, some of > them difficult, with the editorial> staff. However, > by the end of the process the editor-in-chief, with> > whom I had been working, was pleased with the > review, and so was I. He> sent me an e-PDF of the > review as it would appear in the journal> (Volume > 31:1 Winter 2007). The PDF version of the page > proofs revealed> that the editor had excerpted two > relevant sentences (featured in> sidebars) to > highlight observations that I had offered in the > review:> > 1. "While there can be no doubt that, > since its inception, Hamas has> engaged in violence > and armed struggle, and has been the primary force> > behind the horrific suicide bombings inside Israel, > Levitt's> presentation reduces this increasingly > complex and sophisticated> organization to an > insular, one-dimensional...entity dedicated solely> > to violence...and Israel's destruction."> 2. "The > ability of Hamas to reinterpret itself over time > through> processes of radicalization, > de-radicalization, de-militarization, and> > re-radicalization is a pronounced and common theme > in its historical> evolution."> During a subsequent > exchange the editor-in-chief wrote, "Thank you for> > your hard work as well. It's a good review." I > believed that was the> end of the matter. Just a few > days later, I received the following> e-mail message > from the same editor-in-chief:> > Dear Ms. Roy:> > After careful review and much consideration of the > merits of your> piece, we have decided that we are > ultimately unable to publish your> review for this > edition. Your review was evaluated by several of > our> editors and an external editor for objectivity. > Unfortunately, they> disagreed with my decision to > publish your review for the following> reasons: > despite their agreement with many of your points, > all> reviewers found the piece one-sided. This > one-sidedness dissuaded> readers from reading the > piece to the end; ultimately, this last point> is > the most important. Although I found your arguments > valuable, if> readers consistently feel this way, I > am unable to move forward with a> piece. My > apologies for the way in which this process was > carried out,> and for the time that you spent on > editing the piece. Thank you once> again for your > submission and your efforts. If you would like to> > discuss this further, please feel free to e-mail > me.> > In more than 20 years of writing and > publishing I have never> experienced such behavior > or encountered what to me, at least, is so> blatant > a case of censorship. I am therefore extremely > grateful to> Anne Joyce and Stephen Magro for > agreeing to publish the review in> Middle East > Policy.> > ===> > At the beginning of the first > Palestinian uprising, I was living in> Gaza and > spent much time in the refugee camps interviewing > families> about the political and socioeconomic > changes taking place around> them. Despite the harsh > living situation, Palestinians were filled> with a > palpable sense of hope and possibility that has > since> evaporated. Hamas was then struggling to > create a popular> constituency, despite overwhelming > support among Palestinians for> secular nationalism. > That was 18 years ago, and neither I nor anyone> > else ever thought that Hamas would one day emerge as > a major political> actor: democratically winning > legislative elections, defeating the> majority Fatah > party and heading a Palestinian government.> > In > his recent book, Matthew Levitt, who is deputy > assistant secretary> for intelligence and analysis > at the U.S. Department of the Treasury> and an > expert in financial counterterrorism, argues that > Hamas is> strictly a terrorist organization that is > not only a domestic threat> but a global one, a part > of an international jihad network with links> to > al-Qaeda that must be met with force. He further > argues ? and this> is the core of his book ? that > despite the existence of differentiated> political, > social and military sectors within Hamas, they are > all part> of the same "apparatus of terror."> > > Levitt devotes significant attention to attacking > the Islamist social> sector (dawa) and Hamas's > charitable institutions. It is the principle> aim of > his book to show how Hamas uses its extensive > social-service> network-mosques, schools, > kindergartens, orphanages, hospitals,> clinics, > sports clubs, youth clubs-to further its primary > political> agenda, which he claims is the > destruction of Israel. He argues that> through its > social support structure and services, "Hamas > leverages> the appreciation (and indebtedness) it > earns through social welfare> activities to garner > support ? both political and logistical ? for its> > terrorist activities." Levitt summarizes his > argument as follows: "The> general deprivation of > the Palestinian people in the Israeli-occupied> > territories predisposes them to favor the > much-needed social support> that Hamas provides." He > continues, "In addition to purchasing> goodwill, > charities also create a built-in logistical support > umbrella> underneath which terrorist operations are > sheltered and operate." He> explains that the dawa > network operationally supports terrorism> through > recruitment, employment and financing and by > providing> institutional legitimacy.> > His > evidence, at times interesting, particularly with > regard to> Hamas's external sources of financing, is > more often than not based on> assumption, > extrapolation and generalization. For example, as > evidence> for how religious organizations raise > money for Palestinian terrorism,> Levitt quotes from > a pamphlet produced by a Quranic memorization> > center that was sponsored by the Ramallah-al Bireh > charity committee.> The pamphlet listed 30 ways to > enter heaven, including "Jihad for the> sake of > Allah by fighting with one's soul and money."> > In > another example of how hospitals are used to support > terrorism,> Levitt briefly describes the Dar > al-Salam Hospital: "According to> information cited > by the FBI," the hospital is considered a Hamas> > institution because it was founded with "Hamas funds > and protection."> But Levitt fails to provide any > real evidence of these funds or how> and why they > are considered "Hamas." The assumption is that > these> ties, even if they are shown to exist, are > inherently evil and can be> nothing else.> > In a > chapter on how the dawa teaches terror and > radicalizes> Palestinian society, Levitt writes, > "Recipients of Hamas financial aid> or social > services are less likely to turn down requests from > the> organization such as allowing their homes to > serve as safe houses for> Hamas fugitives, ferrying > fugitives, couriering funds or weapons,> storing and > maintaining === message truncated ===> To be removed please > mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org > _______________________________________________ > CTGP-news mailing list > CTGP-news at ml.greens.org > http://ml.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/ctgp-news > > ATTENTION! > The information in this transmission is privileged > and confidential and intended only for the recipient > listed above. If you have received this > transmission in error, please notify us immediately > by email and delete the original message. The text > of this email is similar to ordinary or face-to-face > conversations and does not reflect the level of > factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be > applied in the case of a formal legal opinion and > does not constitute a representation of the opinions > of the CT Green Party. The responsibility for any > messages posted herein is solely that of the person > who sent the message, and the CT Green Party hereby > leaves this responsibility in the hands of it's > members. > > NOTE: This is an inherently insecure forum, please > do not post confidential messages and always realize > that your address can be faked, and although a > message may appear to be from a certain individual, > it is always possible that it is fakemail. This is > mail sent by a third party under an illegally > assumed identity for purposes of coercion, > misdirection, or general mischief. > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this > e-mail in error, please immediately notify the > sender by e-mail at the address shown. This e-mail > transmission may contain confidential information. > This information is intended only for the use of the > individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even > if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from > your files if you are not the intended recipient. > Thank you for your compliance. > > To be removed please mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC From apbrison at hotmail.com Mon Oct 8 11:28:08 2007 From: apbrison at hotmail.com (allan brison) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:28:08 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT Sara Roy's review of Hamas book censored In-Reply-To: <804075.77137.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From greenpartyct at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 11:59:13 2007 From: greenpartyct at yahoo.com (Green Party-CT) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 08:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Joint Can.-US Greens activites opposing the SPP Message-ID: <300618.44429.qm@web81411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> From: Julia Willebrand Subject: [usgp-dx] JOINT CANADIAN-US GREEN PARTY ACTIVITIES OPPOSING THE SPP Part I To: usgp-dx Message-ID: <016F96AF-60C0-4CBB-AF65-DDC68D8B387A at verizon.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed Dear All, A long report in two parts. Justine McCabe Julia Willebrand Co-Chairs, International Committee Green Party of the US ======================================================================== ========================== REPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE, GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES ON JOINT CANADIAN-US GREEN PARTY ACTIVITIES OPPOSING THE SPP OTTAWA, CANADA AUGUST 19-20, 2007 With the endorsement of USGP leadership, IC co-chairs Julia Willebrand and Justine McCabe traveled with CT Green John Battista to Ottawa to learn more about the Canadian/Mexican/U.S. ?Security and Prosperity Partnership? (SPP) and participate in joint US-Canadian Green Party activities in opposition to the SPP, August 19-20, 2007. What is the SPP? The Council of Canadians, Canada?s largest citizens? organization provides a good summary of the ?Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America? in their anti-SPP campaign, ?Integrate this!? http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/backgrounders/guide/ABCs.html : ?In March 2005, as a result of intense lobbying from North America?s richest corporations, the leaders of Canada, Mexico and the United States met in Waco, Texas to shake hands on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The SPP was a pledge to speed up the corporate goal of continental economic integration by linking it to U.S. government security demands. In a post-9/11 world where, for the Bush administration, ?security trumps trade,? the Canadian and Mexican governments have agreed to fully integrate their security apparatuses with the U.S. and fully participate in its ?war on terror? in return for vague assurances of continued market access for their largest corporations. But the SPP goes much further than this. Plans for regulatory convergence, energy sector integration and a potential common external tariff will make independent Canadian policies on agriculture, the environment and energy impossible. Since March 2005, without public input and with little public awareness, all three North American governments have been moving quickly toward establishing a continental resource pact, a North American security perimeter, and common agricultural and other health, safety and environmental policies. Working groups comprised of government officials and corporate leaders are quietly putting this ?partnership? into action, and to date only industry ?stakeholders? have been consulted, often in private, closed-door meetings. Not even our elected Members of Parliament have been kept in the loop.? (see: SPP timeline: http://www.vivelecanada.ca/staticpages/index.php/ 20060830133702539; and GPC FAQ http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/spp_FAQ; http://www.greenparty.ca/ en/policy/documents/deeper_look_spp ) US/Canadian Green Collaboration During contacts in NYC in 2007 between IC co-chair Julia Willebrand and Canadian Green Party (GPC) leader Elaine May and GPC shadow cabinet critic for International Trade Dr. Janet Eaton, Julia and other NY Greens were introduced to the SPP about which there had been virtually no coverage in the US media. Dr. Eaton accepted our invitation to the 2007 USGP annual meeting in Reading, PA where she participated in an IC-sponsored Energy Forum with other international Green guests, presenting on the energy implications of the SPP particularly for Canada. http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/documents/ deeper_look_spp/dr_janet_eaton After Dr. Eaton?s presentation, we discussed ways to collaborate with Canadian Greens on this matter of mutual concern. In August, we accepted the invitation of Canadian Greens to participate in civil society activities and a Green Counter Summit in Ottawa organized in response to the August 20-21 SPP Summit by Presidents Bush, Calderon and Prime Minister Harper in nearby Montebello, Quebec. In anticipation of that, USGP Steering and National Committees approved an IC proposal endorsing: our participation in the Counter Summit; a call to our government to stop further implementation of the SPP until there is a democratic mandate from the citizenry via public hearings and Congressional debate and vote; and our intention to begin educating Americans about the SPP in alliance with labor, environmental and peace and justice groups. Our two parties issued a joint press release announcing our collaboration http://www.gp.org/ press/pr_2007_08_15.shtml. Mexican Greens did not respond to contacts by Julia about their position on the SPP. ?Stop the SPP? Rally/March on Parliament Hill, Ottawa, August 19, 2007: Julia, John and Justine participated with Canadian Greens and other members of civil society in a ?Stop the SPP? march/rally? on the steps of Canada?s Parliament building, and public forum at the University of Ottawa, which were organized by The Council of Canadians http://www.canadians.org/about/index.html. An estimated 2000-3000 Canadians were present at the rally. Speakers included First Nations representatives, Maude Barlow, Chairperson of The Council of Canadians, and Gustavo Iruegas, Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Legitimate Government of Mexico (shadow government of presidential candidate Lopez Obrador for whom there was enormous support as the rightful winner). Justine gave several interviews during the rally (CBC radio interview with Kurt Steele, video interview with Iranian TV/internet station IRIB, Canadian newsblog with Peter Dudley www.canadiannewsblog.blogspot.com, and CKLN Toronto FM radio (88.1 FM) with Benedicta Madawo www.ckln.fm for her programs "Rude Awakening" and "RadioActive Feminism") Also, the GPC and GPUS were mentioned in an August 20 editorial ? Bring SPP before Parliament? in The Hill Times (a government weekly like U.S. Roll Call) ? The Canadian and American Green parties have also allied against the partnership, saying that the arrangement threatens to create ?super corridors? for oil, gas and water pipelines, damaging biodiversity and increasing fossil fuel consumption. The also warn of the erosion of food safety standards, integration on military and security, and broader security surveillance.? http://www.hilltimes.com/members/login.php?fail=2&destination=/html/ index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/august/20/editorial/ The tenor of the rally was somewhat different from that of contemporary U.S. demonstrations in DC in terms of less police presence, accessibility to the Parliament building (speakers were on its steps), and even the 2 police snipers on its roof seemed out of place in the mostly friendly atmosphere. Organizers passed out three- inch no-SPP buttons and kerchiefs printed in both French and English. Still, Canada?s population (33 million) is much smaller than that of the U.S. and there was a blockade around Montebello (45 miles from Ottawa) where the SPP tripartite summit was held, keeping demonstrators far away from Bush, Calderon and Harper. Some Themes at the Rally: ?Anti-U.S. sentiment was prominent in remarks of rally speakers, expressed by affirmations of Canadian sovereignty and its different national principles (i.e., ?We are not the U.S.?): protection of the environment and sustainability; respect for First Nations and pride in Canada?s diversity; commitment to the public role in promoting social/economic justice as exemplified by pride in their single payer, publicly-funded health care system. In that regard, the Canadian health system was seen as under constant attack by U.S. investors and their Canadian allies http:// www.canadians.org/publications/CP/2007/summer/healthcare.html who seek a private ?U.S. style? health care system, including the new president of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Brian Day owner of a private, for-profit surgery clinic in British Columbia (B.C.) where there are at least 70 for-profit clinics. B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell and provincial health minister George Abbott are pushing this ?American? model including using taxpayers money to subsidize them. (http://www.profitisnotthecure.ca/documents/CMA/ BC_privatization_07.pdf; http://profitisnotthecure.ca/documents/CMA/ fs_pintc_07.pdf ) Opposition was also expressed to the already lowered Canadian food, drug and environmental standards, reduced to comply with the lower standards of the U.S.; to Canadian participation in Afghanistan and SPP plans to place the Canadian military under U.S. control, and to the already integrated security at the border. Thus, in addition to the articulated dangers of the SPP itself, the strong Canadian opposition to it also drew on long-standing fear/ resentment of U.S. domination, challenging activists to further define Canadian national ethos and identity in opposition. (However, consistent with that Canadian identity, speakers often made the distinction between being anti-US government but not against its people, and there were frequent appeals of solidarity with ?all the people of the Americas.?) Hearing how members of such a developed and in many ways more advanced society like Canada feel dominated by the U.S. was a valuable and sobering experience. If Canadians feel this way, what must people in developing countries feel about U.S. domination? ?Threats under SPP to export Canadian bulk water via pipelines south, particularly to the U.S. Most of this water is in the north of Canada, requiring massive engineering projects to deliver water south causing serious ecological disruption and damage. Throughout the SPP counter summit (rally and forum), water was repeatedly defined as a human right (consistent with the 2002 interpretation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by its supervisory body, the UN Committee on Economic, social and Cultural Rights) rather than as a ?good,? ?service,? or ?investment? described under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). [Background] Despite denials by PM Harper and Tom d'Aquino, head of the CCCE, leaked documents like the ?North American Future 2025 Project,? written under the auspices of the U.S. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in collaboration with the Conference Board of Canada and Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economicas (CIDE), suggest otherwise. http://www.canadians.org/water/documents/ NA_Future_2025_backgrounder.pdf According to a report on this document by The Council on Canadians (?Backgrounder: North American Future 2025 Project? http:// www.canadians.org/water/documents/NA_Future_2025.pdf CSIS claims that Canada has a virtually unlimited fresh water supply (?20 percent of the earth?s fresh water?), ?simply isn?t true. . . . Canada has just seven percent of the world?s available freshwater supplies. . . . There is no spare water in the Great Lakes and most of the rivers coveted by the US flow north. Using them to supply the United States would require monumental feats of engineering that would inevitably lead to ecological devastation by reversing the natural flow of water.? A main way that SPP threatens Canada?s water, health care system and energy resources is by pushing for privatization via NAFTA (Chapter 11). Re: water and oil/gas According to The Council on Canadians http://www.canadians.org/water/ documents/NA_Future_2025_backgrounder.pdf : ?Under NAFTA, water is described as a ?good.? Since under the free trade deal, ?no party may adopt or maintain any prohibition or restriction on the exportation or sale for export of any good destined for the territory of another party,? once Canada starts exporting fresh water to the U.S., we would not be able to turn off the tap. Furthermore, NAFTA?s ?National Treatment? provision would give U.S. water companies equal rights to Canada?s water as Canadian companies. This would create a situation much like what has happened to Canada?s oil and gas sector, which is over 50 percent U.S. owned and where 70 percent of Canada?s oil heads south.? (See also GPC Dr. Janet Eaton, PhD. PowerPoint with images and photos.) "Threats to Our Water: NAFTA, SPP, Super-Corridors, Atlantica" ) Under the proportional sharing clause of NAFTA, Canada cannot reduce its energy exports to the U.S. even if Canadians are in need. Ironically, Canada now imports 40-60 percent of the energy it consumes and has no national energy policy. (See Gordon Laxer, ?Easterners could freeze in the dark? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/ servlet/story/RTGAM.20070528.wcoenergy28/BNStory/specialComment/ RE: Tar sands Most of the world?s oil exists in the difficult-to-extract form of tar sands. Tar sands, also called oil sands, consist of clay, sand, water, and bitumen, a heavy black viscous oil, mined using strip mining or open pit techniques and processed to extract the oil-rich bitumen, which is then refined into oil. The largest tar sands deposits are found in Canada (Alberta) and Venezuela, each having about one-third of the world's total tar sands resources. (Most of the rest is in the Middle East; in the US, they are concentrated in Eastern Utah on public lands.). Fifty-percent of Alberta tar sands are owned by US companies, like ExonMobil. Mining and processing tar sends are harmful to the environment, including human communities. Impacts will worsen under the SPP, which seeks a five-fold increase in demand, requiring new, environmentally destructive pipelines: ?Tar sands production is destroying the environment at an alarming rate. Alberta is poised to become one of the world?s main sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Tar sands development destroys vast tracts of land, clears forests, and consumes 26 per cent of Alberta?s groundwater. It takes between three and five barrels of water to extract just one barrel of oil. The resulting toxic wastewater cannot be put back into circulation, so it sits in 50-square-kilometre pools visible from space. Supporting the U.S. energy industry means Canada cannot introduce tough measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. Energy integration and an effective Canadian environmental strategy that would meet our Kyoto targets are mutually exclusive priorities. Either we continue to integrate our energy policy with the U.S. for their interests alone?as the SPP demands?or we get serious about greenhouse gases by creating a real "made in Canada" renewable energy plan. We cannot have them both. ? http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/backgrounders/guide/ energy.html ; http://www.canadians.org/media/council/2006/18-Nov-06.html Re: Health care system Until now, health care has been exempted from NAFTA as long as it is a fully public system. However, once even part becomes privatized, the system becomes open to competition from U.S. as well as Canadian companies, including being eligible for government subsidies. According to ?Profit is not Cure?: ?Health Care in Canada is still suffering from massive federal cuts to provincial transfers in the 1990s which resulted in increased wait times and a shortage of doctors and nurses across Canada. Provincial governments, starved of federal funding are turning to the private sector for solutions even if all the evidence proves that this will be more expensive, drain the public system of resources and lead to longer wait times.? http://www.canadians.org/DI/issues/guide/ healthcare.html: Despite the fact that the system is an excellent one, beloved by Canadians (polls consistently show that when asked if they would like a U.S.-style system, over 90 percent prefer Canada?s system), conservative forces have succeeded in draining it of needed funding. For example, Dr. Gary Walls, writing back in 1996, described what happened in Canada from the 1960?s when Canada?s health plan was enacted (?The Single Payer Model? in Coalition Report, November 15, 1996, National Coalition of Mental Health Professionals and Consumers, Inc.) ?In the 1960?s, corporations paid 50% of Canada?s total federal tax revenues while individual citizens paid the other 50%. Today, individual Canadian citizens pay 92% of all tax revenues and corporations ay only 8%! The reasons for this are complex, but . . . the corporate sector has strong armed its way out of paying its share of taxes, and this is placing great financial strains on Canada?s SP plan. Then, after causing the funding problem in the first place, the corporate sector is stepping forward to warn people that the national health plan is in danger of becoming insolvent, and that the only way to save it is by giving it over to the for-profit private sector.? Maude Barlow describes the dangers the SPP represents to Canada?s single payer public health system (?How Canada-U.S. integration is leading to the privatization of the Canadian health care system? from Too Close for Comfort: Canada?s Future within Fortress North America http://www.canadians.org/about/Maude_Barlow/Too_Close_for_Comfort/ excerpt.html ): ?Canada?s social programs are not directly named by the Task Force on the Future of North America or the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) in their campaign to create a North American common market. But there is no question that deeper economic, security and foreign policy integration with the United States would put tremendous pressure on Canada to harmonize its social security system with the American model and open it up to competition from big American service corporations. . . . . Even without the [Canadian] Supreme Court ruling [2005: found that the Quebec provincial ban on private health insurance was unconstitutional], it is arguable that these companies have a right under NAFTA to compete in Canada because the health system is being privatized so quickly. Fully one-third of all Canadian health care spending is now private, as services are de- listed and doctors opt out of medicare. There are now at least 240 health care corporations, many of them American, operating in Canada. There are also 140 private health insurance companies operating here; the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association says that at least 37 of them are American. There are also 663 private home care agencies, and private companies now control at least 10 per cent of the MRI market. In light of the rapid privatization of Canada?s health care system, the Supreme Court ruling in the Chaoulli case is a dangerous development. It opens the door to the Americanization of Canada?s cherished health care system.? In fact, the aforementioned CSIS ?North American Future 2025? project is interested in homogenizing health care systems across the continent. For examples, under ?The Future of North American Competitiveness, Trade and Market Integrations, this document states: ?As an overall component of competitiveness, North America needs to continue to strive toward increased trade and market integration. . . . . [which] will help promote economic competitiveness by decreasing costs of transactions and increasing the opportunities for trade. The North American Future 2025 project will examine increased trade and market integration from the perspective of the economy as a whole and on a sectoral basis including key sectors such as the steel, automotive, manufacture and health industries [emphasis added].? And later under? Intellectual Property Rights and Regulatory Regimes?: ?The North American Future 2025 project will also examine the North American Regulatory regime and will look to see how it can be further harmonized in order to drive down transaction costs, increase efficiency, and promote trade between Canada, The United States, and Mexico. By promoting unified North American regulatory standards in key sectors?such as customs, transportation, health (medicines and medical devices) [emphasis added], and food and agriculture (food safety and biotechnology, for example)?North American will improve the efficient flow of resources while ensuring high standards for the safety and security of the population.? When applied to health care, this glowing picture of efficiency that SPP ?deep integration? seeks through privatization is a bad joke in light of U.S. experience of private, for-profit managed health care: since the Clinton administration, the number of uninsured (most of whom are employed) has grown to about 17%, while the per capita cost is more than double that of Canada?s publicly-funded system that provides universal coverage. http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/pdf/ myth13_e.pdf; http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php) ?Virtually everyone?speakers and demonstrators alike?opposed the anti- democratic and secretive nature of the SPP summits and lack of public consultation in its development, which were dramatized by rally participants depositing ?ballots? voting for/against the SPP in ersatz voting boxes as we marched around the Parliament Hill area. (See ?Behind Close Doors: What they?re not telling us about the Security and Prosperity Partnership http://www.canadians.org/ integratethis/backgrounders/guide/index.html ) Rally speakers and participants noted that while the public had been left out, big business continued to have the main input and access to the Bush, Calderon, Harper governments through the 30-member North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), the official tri-national working group of the SPP. [Background] Officially created at the second SPP summit in Cancun in 2006, the NACC is composed of 30 CEO?S from NA?s largest companies, including: ExonMobil, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Tyco, FedEx, Merck, Lockheed Martin, Chevron, New York Life, General Electric and Wal-Mart. The basis of the SPP is the 2003 ?Security and Prosperity Initiative? created by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE). All 10 of Canada?s CEO representatives to the NACC are CCCE members. The NACC, ?marrying policy issues with business priorities,? and sets SPP?s priorities aimed at ensuring North American ?deep integration (defined by the Council on Canadians as ?the dismantling of the border between Canada and the United States. . . . the harmonization of policies and regulations that govern the foods we eat, the items we buy, and how we live. It calls for the formation of a new North America that effectively erases the border between Canada and the United States in the interest of trade north of the border and security concerns south of the border.) The NACC?s topical working groups--energy, trade, security, etc.--draft new government regulations by which the SPP is quietly being be implemented. Apparently the first major public response to the SPP in Canada occurred in a teach-in, ?Integrate This! Challenging the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,? held in Ottawa March 31 to April 1, 2007, sponsored by the Council of Canadians, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Canadian Labour Congress. Representatives from the four major political parties were invited, though neither members of the Conservative nor Liberal party attended. (Greens and New Democratic Party did, along with Mexican Jose Antonio Almazan, Deputy with the Partido de la Revoluci?n Democr?tica, PRD) In fact, speaking at that event, GPC leader Elizabeth May affirmed the sense of Canadian identity being under attack when, according to the Council on Canadians final report, May ?referred to the SPP as an ?attack on our core identity and on our sovereignty by stealth.? For May, the SPP represents a ?fork in the road for Canadian society ? whether we are going to pursue traditional Canadian values internationally, or whether we are going to become part of Fortress North America, a large gated community where U.S. security forces will guard the perimeter and all Canadians will be allowed to move about freely, provided we?re willing to have our irises scanned ??? Following that, and two years of pushing for parliamentary hearings by opposition trade critic of the New Democratic Party, MP Peter Julian, two Canadian anti-SPP experts were invited to testify before the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade (CIIT), (?Canada-U.S. Trade and Investment issues and the SPP?): May 1, 2007, Maude Barlow, Chairperson of the Council of Canadians (See http://www.canadians.org/DI/documents/ trade_committee_presentation_May107.pdf ), and on May 10 by Director of the Parkland Institute, University of Alberta, Professor Gordon Laxer whose testimony http://www.canadians.org/DI/documents/ Trade_Gordon_Laxer_1007.pdf. evoked an ?undemocratic? response from Conservative MP and Chair of the Committee, Leon Benoit. In response to Laxer?s statement that the SPP priority of NA ?energy security? would commit Canada to ensuring American energy supplies even though Canada itself has no national plan or reserves to protect its own supplies, Benoit, ordered Laxer to stop his testimony, saying it was irrelevant, though opposition committee members voted to overrule Benoit, at which point Benoit stormed out accompanied by three of the four Conservative Committee members. The Liberal Party Vice chair continued the hearing. (See: ?Tory chair storms out of SPP hearing? http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html? id=c6291848-5f41-4b72-831a-2e889cd6bb9e ) Julia Willebrand, NY NWC Delegate 212 877-5088 ------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chapillsbury at igc.org Mon Oct 8 17:48:40 2007 From: chapillsbury at igc.org (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:48:40 -0400 Subject: {news} FW: Helen Caldicott at Labyrinth Books Monday, October 15 @ 7.30pm Message-ID: <009001c809f4$fea426a0$1901a8c0@CMI.local> Fyi. -----Original Message----- From: Lee Cruz [mailto:lcruz at cfgnh.org] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 5:39 PM To: Lee Cruz Subject: Helen Caldicott at Labyrinth Books Helen Caldicott[Lee Cruz] - Founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility Author of: Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer Monday, October 15 @ 7.30pm- Labyrinth Books New Haven Please join us for a discussion and book-signing with Nobel Peace Prize nominee Helen Caldicott, celebrating the paperback release of her acclaimed book, Nuclear Power is Not the Answer. Helen Caldicott's look at the actual costs and environmental consequences of nuclear energy belies the incessant barrage of nuclear industry propaganda. Caldicott "reveals truths," Martin Sheen has said, "that confirm we must take positive action now if we are to make a difference." In fact, nuclear power contributes to global warming; the true cost of nuclear power is prohibitive, with taxpayers picking up most of the tab; there's simply not enough uranium in the world to sustain nuclear power over the long term; and the potential for a catastrophic accident or a terrorist attack far outweighs any benefits. Concluding chapters detail alternative sustainable energy sources that are the key to a clean, green future. The world's leading spokesperson for the antinuclear movement, Dr. Helen Caldicott is a Nobel Peace Prize nominee and the recipient of the 2003 Lannan Prize for Cultural Freedom. A bestselling author, Caldicott is the co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility and president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute. She divides her time between Australia and the United States[Lee Cruz] . This event is free and open to the public. To r.s.v.p or with any question, please call 203.787.2848 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Mon Oct 8 18:46:53 2007 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:46:53 -0400 Subject: {news} GP RELEASE Greens: US aid to Israel + threat to Iran = next US military disaster Message-ID: <02ba01c809fd$1fb80a70$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES http://www.gp.org For Immediate Release: Monday, October 8, 2007 Contacts: Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, mclarty at greens.org Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene at gp.org New US military aid to Israel and the Lieberman-Kyl amendment bring the US closer to war with Iran, say Greens . Greens: Bush has no credibility on Iran, but Democrats and Republicans are lining up behind Bush's next military disaster WASHINGTON, DC -- Green Party leaders strongly cautioned that the combination of a $30 billion military aid package for Israel and growing threat of a US or US-backed Israeli attack on Iran could trigger a major regional conflagration in the Middle East. "There's little doubt that the $30 billion in US taxpayers money sent to Israel will be used for two things: to maintain Israel's illegal and murderous military occupation of Palestinian lands, and to prepare for a military assault on Iran," said Paul "zool" Zulkowitz, a member of the Green Party's Peace Action Committee (GPAX). "The new military aid for Israel and the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, passed on September 26 with strong bipartisan support, have brought the the US closer to war with Iran." Greens stressed that White House claims that Iran is assisting Shiite militias in Iraq and plans to produce nuclear weapons for possible use against Israel or western nations have been contested. Iran has denied such intentions; Greens noted that such use would amount to suicide for Iran. "The Bush Administration, after its deceptive rationales for invading Iraq, should have no credibility on Iran or any other foreign policy," said Justine McCabe, Connecticut Green and co-chair of the party's International Committee. "Unfortunately, Democrats -- especially presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- have signed on to the AIPAC-Neocon-Republican line that an attack on Iran is 'not off the table.' If a global war starts because Bush ordered an attack, it'll be a bipartisan disaster, like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the continuing Middle East crisis." In one scenario, confirmed by Newsweek, Vice President Cheney considered asking Israel to launch a missile attack either on a nuclear power site in Natanz, Iran, or on an alleged Syrian-Iranian-North Korean nuclear installation in northern Syria, which might result in a retaliatory strike that would motivate a larger US military assault on Iran. Israel has already launched an air strike on the suspected Syrian site in September. "The Lieberman-Kyl amendment designates Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a 'foreign terrorist organization.' The amendment makes the Iran military a target in President Bush's 'war on terror.' This is a major step towards a military confrontation with Iran, whether the attack comes from the US or Israel or both," said John V. Walsh, delegate from the Massachusetts Green-Rainbow Party to the Green Party's National Committee. The Green Party has called for an international effort towards nuclear disarmament of all Middle Eastern and western Asian nations, including Israel and Pakistan, which are known to possess nuclear weapons, as part of a greater global nuclear disarmament project. Greens have called the Bush Administration hypocritical for condemning Iran while expanding US nuclear weapons programs and after removing the US from antinuclear treaties. The party has called for the US to rejoin the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and eliminate American nuclear weapons. Greens have also accused the Bush Administration of squandering pro-US sentiment that exists among many Iranians in its attempt to vilify their country. The Green Party has sharply criticized both Democrats and Republicans for maintaining support for Israel's six-decades-long violations of civilian human rights and bowing to the demands of AIPAC and certain Christian rightwing lobbies that the US endorse the Israeli government's military ambitions and ethnic policies. (Israel has placed the Gaza Strip under siege and threatens to cut off water and fuel supplies, to punish civilians over rocket attacks launched by militias.) The Green Party calls for negotiation by both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; a cut-off in US military aid to Israel; and an economic boycott of Israel until the latter recognizes full human rights, including the right of return for Palestinians and abolition of internal apartheid laws. Greens have called for support for Israeli and Palestinian groups seeking peaceful resolution, observance of human rights, and a halt to all violence and coercion directed against civilians. MORE INFORMATION Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org 202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN Fax 202-319-7193 . Green Party News Center http://www.gp.org/newscenter.shtml . Green Party Speakers Bureau http://www.gp.org/speakers . 2007 national Green Party meeting in Reading, Pa.: video footage, blog and media coverage http://www.gp.org/meeting2007/ Green Party Peace Action Committee (GPAX) http://www.gp.org/committees/peace GPAX Blog http://gpax.wordpress.com International Committee of the Green Party http://www.gp.org/committees/intl/ ~ END ~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chapillsbury at igc.org Tue Oct 9 00:08:14 2007 From: chapillsbury at igc.org (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 00:08:14 -0400 Subject: {news} next chapter meeting Thurs. 10/11 7:30pm References: <003101c6eb40$3d5cbd00$6500a8c0@S0031616584> Message-ID: <005101c80a2a$07952c20$6500a8c0@S0031616584> Our October chapter meeting will be held this coming Thursday 10/11 7:30pm. The location is the Never Ending Book Store, 810 State Street. Please let me know if you have any other items of business to add to the agenda. Thanks. See you there, Charlie Charlie Pillsbury 247 Saint Ronan Street New Haven CT 06511 203-865-6575 chapillsbury at igc.org __._,_.___ . __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efficacy at msn.com Wed Oct 10 06:58:27 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:58:27 -0400 Subject: {news} Cliff will be in town! Message-ID: Folks, Greetings! Cliff will be in town! He'll be contemplating the lessons of the CT Greens full-state run in last year's election, particularly from his vantage point as a person of color in a racist, classist society. He will examine how advocating a fundamental fix for one of the 'Big Issues' led to his exclusion from the debates. And, as in the past, he will demonstrate how a wry sense of humor can sustain us in ridiculous times. Attached you will find the flyer with all the details. If possible, forward it widely, print a few copies & post them and then come out on Sunday! Cliff Thornton Green Party Gubernatorial Candidate 2006 Founder, Efficacy, Inc. will speak on Election 2006: Race, Class and the Drug War All Souls Unitarian-Universalist Congregation 60 Huntington Street, New London Sunday, October 14, 7 pm Paid for by "New London Greens 2007", Andy Derr, Treasurer Peace, Bob -- Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. - John F. Kennedy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: %Cliff 2007.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 124 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Cliff 2007.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 122433 bytes Desc: not available URL: From efficacy at msn.com Wed Oct 10 07:24:05 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:24:05 -0400 Subject: {news} Tue, 10/23/2007 - The Drug War is Meant to be Waged Not Won--Cliff Thornton Message-ID: http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/lunchLectures.htm Capital Community College 950 Main Street, Hartford CT 06103 Tel: (860) 906-5000 or (800) 894-6126 Lunchtime Lecture Series Unless otherwise indicated in the schedule below, all events: a.. are open to faculty, staff, students, and guests b.. are held in the Community Room on the 2nd floor c.. begin at 12:00 noon and end at (or before) 1:00 Reservations are not required. Please bring your own food and drinks. If you would like to present a topic you think will be of interest to the campus community, please contact Derek Maxfield at 906-5047. Thanks! Schedule of Events Tue, 10/2/2007 - "Who Shall it be?": Assessing the Presidential Election Scene Prof. Derek Maxfield, Capital Community College Tue, 10/9/2007 - African Art and Culture Benjamin Betsem Atiback Mon, 10/15/2007 - Fork in the Road: A Companion for Women Who are Going Back to School Later in Life (and Those Who Want to) Donna Berman, Charter Oak College Tue, 10/16/2007 - By The Rivers of Babylon The author will read from her newest book. Cindy Brown Austin Tue, 10/23/2007 - The Drug War is Meant to be Waged Not Won The inner cities have been in a war for over thirty years. We have spent over a trillion dollars and yet there are more illegal drugs on our streets than ever before. This, I and many others feel is the most important problem we will face in our lives. Cliff Thornton, Efficacy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From greenpartyct at yahoo.com Wed Oct 10 09:58:04 2007 From: greenpartyct at yahoo.com (Green Party-CT) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:58:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Great email to copy and send out! "HOW TO END THE IRAQ WAR- VOTE GREEN!! Message-ID: <441188.76422.qm@web81414.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hey Greens As Drew Johnson said in a message he sent a few minutes ago, the collapse of the Democrats as an opposition party and the frustration of the public are "a huge opportunity for us" and we should use it as much as possible, especially in preparation for the 2008 election. Drew noted that we should especially target disillusioned & angry Democrats. We won't get their support by vilifying progressive & antiwar Dems or by denouncing Kucinich for having the right positions in the wrong party. We'll win them over by welcoming them -- by inviting them to join the GP as it becomes more & more obvious that Kucinich has no chance of winning the DP nomination and will have no effect on the Dem platform. Below is a set of arguments, a list of talking points on the importance of voting Green in 2008 in the context of the Iraq War. It can be sent out as an e-mail message, adapted for flyers & other hardcopy media, used for campaign positions & for talking points when speaking publicly or writing letters & articles, etc. It's a very rough draft - edit as you see fit. If used in connection with Green campaigns, insert your candidate's name wherever possible. Now is not the time to sit on our hands! Scott PLEASE REPRINT AND SEND OUT THE FOLLOWING; * * * * * HOW TO END THE IRAQ WAR: VOTE GREEN It's time to face the truth: voting for Democrats is not going to end the war or change the direction of the US. * Democratic Party leaders supported the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. In October 2002, they voted with Republicans to surrender Congress's constitutional war power over to the Bush White House. * Democrats won't use their power in Congress to stall on Bush's requests for more war funding, which would result in a quick withdrawal of US troops. * Democratic Party leaders will only support vague and delayed "timetables" for bringing home US troops. Clinton and Obama won't promise that all US combat troops will be out of Iraq by 2013. * Democrats have rejected impeachment and won't hold Bush & Cheney responsible for criminal abuses of power: deceiving the American people about why we invaded Iraq, torture, surveillance of US citizens without warrant, detention without trial, violation of international laws, inaction and racist response to environmental emergencies (Hurricanes Katrina & Rita), tampering with scientific research on global warming. * Top Democrats limit their criticism to Bush's strategic military mistakes in Iraq. They won't talk about how the war itself is a crime -- an invasion of country that posed no threat to the US, based on manipulated intelligence and lies to the American people. * Democrats want to plunder Iraqi oil: Democratic leaders have endorsed the Iraqi hydrocarbon law "benchmark" that would place 2/3 of Iraq's oil resources under the control of major US and UK energy companies. This would require continued US military presence in Iraq to protect corporate investments. The same oil companies that contribute to Republicans also give campaign checks to Democratic candidates. * Top Democrats also take money and orders from the pro-Israeli-government lobby (AIPAC), which demanded the invasion of Iraq and now demands an attack on Iran. * Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have signed on to Bush's threat of a US attack on Iran -- which could touch off World War III. * * * Whether we elect a Democrat or Republican to the White House in 2008, the war will continue. Our only hope for bringing home US troops safe and sound is to elect Green Party candidates to Congress! * Greens are committed to an immediate withdrawal of all US troops and to impeachment of Bush & Cheney for their crimes. * If Greens win seats in Congress, it'll shock Democrats (and some Republicans) into stronger action to end the Iraq War. Democrats and Republicans will no longer be each others' sole competition for votes. * The few genuine anti-war Democrats and Republicans in Congress aren't getting help from their own parties. They need Greens in Congress to create the political bloc necessary to end the war. * Thanks to the two-party monopoly on elections, America has moved toward more war, greater corporate power, and less democracy. This direction will continue... until new political voices get elected. * Green candidates take no money from powerful corporations. Democrats and Republicans take big campaign checks from oil companies, arms makers, credit card companies, media conglomerates, HMOs, insurance firms, pharmaceutical manufacturers, Wall Street, K Street, and other corporate lobbies. * If you oppose the Iraq War and you vote for a pro-war candidate, you're throwing away your vote. Vote for the real Peace Party -- the Green Party! Do we really want a future that's limited to Democrats & Republicans and the narrow points of view that they represent? We The People deserve a party and candidates to speak for our own ideals, interests, and needs. Help us build America's party of the 21st century -- the Green Party! * * * Bring US Troops Home Now Cancel War Funding Impeach Bush & Cheney Save Our Democracy Save America's Future Support America's PEACE PARTY Support the GREEN PARTY Vote for Green candidates in 2008 Register Green Donate to the Green Party http://www.gp.org http://www.gp.org/impeachbush/ http://www.gp.org/welcome.shtml ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim McKee cell (860) 778-1304 or (860) 643-2282 National Committee Member of the Green Party(Connecticut) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From greenpartyct at yahoo.com Wed Oct 10 10:04:03 2007 From: greenpartyct at yahoo.com (Green Party-CT) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:04:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} National "Green Change" is seeking poets, artists, writers, video and photography Message-ID: <393968.8996.qm@web81413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi. Green Change invites writers, musicians, videographers, photographers, poets, and other artists to submit their work to Greenchange.com. We plan to launch our website very soon. We seek original work to help build a vibrant Green counterculture. In particular, we want outstanding essays, articles, music, video, photos, short stories, poetry, and art from people with Green values. We?re open to nearly any topic, but we especially want to feature work that is thoughtful or inspiring. All submissions must be sent in electronic format to marnie at greenchange.com. Include your name, address, email address and phone number with your submission or proposal. You may include a short bio or resume. We would like to associate creative work with our issues: grassroots democracy, justice, non-violence and sustainability. Please indicate which of our issues are reflected in your work. Your submissions will help jumpstart a community and movement for Green cultural and political change. You will help create a culture that defends people, places and the planet from greed, hatred and environmental destruction. Peace, Marnie Marnie Glickman marnie at greenchange.com | 503.313.7919 Green Change | www.greenchange.com Green Change is a new national political organization. We are changing our ways to protect people, places and the planet. If our leaders don't follow along, we will replace them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From greenpartyct at yahoo.com Wed Oct 10 10:15:56 2007 From: greenpartyct at yahoo.com (Green Party-CT) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:15:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Fwd: [usgp-nc] Discussion Has Begun on GP-US Proposal: ID 320 - Condemn the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security CooperationEndorse Nonviolent Direct Action Message-ID: <691881.32997.qm@web81407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> CT GREENS, I AM SURE CHARLIE AND I BOT WOULD WELCOME ANY COMMNETS ON THIS PROPOSAL TO THE FORUM LIST SERVE PLEASE DO NOT POST TO THE "NEWS' LIST SERVE TIM MCKEE voting at gpus.org wrote: Date: 9 Oct 2007 04:05:02 -0000 From: voting at gpus.org To: natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org Subject: [usgp-nc] Discussion Has Begun on GP-US Proposal: ID 320 - Condemn the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security CooperationEndorse Nonviolent Direct Action Discussion has begun for the following proposal: Proposal ID: 320 Proposal: Condemn the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security CooperationEndorse Nonviolent Direct Action Floor Manager: Sarah echo Steiner, echothegreen at riseup.net Discussion Dates: 10/09/2007 - 10/15/2007 Voting Dates: 10/16/2007 - 10/22/2007 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time The GP-US strives for consensus, which involves several steps, taken in order.. Clarifying questions and responses from the group making the proposal. Airing of concerns and discussion about how to improve the proposal by taking into consideration those concersn Call for consensus on the final proposal. Background: NOTE: THIS IS AN EXPEDITED TIMELINE The School of the Americas, renamed in 2001 to Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (SOA/ WHINSEC), located in Fort Benning, Georgia, was founded in 1946 with the purpose of teaching Latin American militaries the values of democratic civilian control over military forces while promoting "friendly" assistance to our Latin American neighbors. The School of the Americas (SOA)/(WHISC) teaches such things as assassination training, commando operations, counter-insurgency techniques, intelligence-gathering, psychological warfare, extortion, sniper training, and low-intensity conflict; and Pentagon documents released to School of the Americas Watch, in September of 1996, through the Freedom of Information Act, show that training manuals at least through the nineteen-eighties at the School of the Americas/WHISC included instruction in such things as extortion, assassination, threats and torture. There is documented evidence that many SOA graduates have been involved in murderous plots. This was demonstrated in the 1980 assassination case of Archbishop Oscar Romero in which two of the three Salvadoran officers responsible were graduates of the SOA. Further, nineteen of the twenty-six Salvadoran officers cited in the November 1989 murder of six Jesuit priests, a housekeeper and her daughter, were also SOA graduates. Guatemalan Colonel Julio Roberto Alpirez, an SOA alumni, was implicated in the killing of U.S. citizen Michael Devine and Efraim Bamaca. It is estimated that there are more than 600 SOA graduates who have been accused of human rights abuses including the massacres of entire villages. Millions of dollars of US taxpayer money is spent annually to maintain the School of the Americas/WHISC at a time when budgets are being cut at the expense of our own schools and children, and the US Congress is currently reducing Federal spending on many social services. This history and the continued existence of the School of the Americas/WHISC stand in the way of moving our country's relationships with Latin America towards emphasis on Human Rights and democracy. Nonviolent direct action has been part of many struggles for justice. It is also the backbone of the movement to close the SOA. Countless actions have taken place in this country as well as in Chile, Colombia, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Austria, France, Germany and other countries around the world. Thousands have put their bodies on the line, fasted and vigiled and hundreds have gotten arrested for speaking out against the violence perpetrated by the SOA and US foreign policy. Proposal: The United States Green Party opposes the continued operation of the School of the Americas and stands in solidarity with the People of the Americas to support and endorse the nonviolent direct action that is proposed by School of the Americas Watch to shut down SOA/WHISC Resources: TIMELINE: Until the school is closed RESOURCES: Press release from the Media Committee when proposal passes References: WWW.SOAW.Org Full details are available at: http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=320 Please send your comments to natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org. Thank you and have a wonderful day! --The GP-US Voting Admin _______________________________________________ Natlcomvotes mailing list To send a message to the list, write to: Natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org To unsubscribe or change your list options, go to: http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomvotes If your state delegation changes, please see: http://gp.org/committees/nc/documents/delegate_change.html To report violations of listserv protocol, write to forummanagers at lists.gp-us.org For other information about the Coordinating Committee, see: http://gp.org/committees/nc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim McKee cell (860) 778-1304 or (860) 643-2282 National Committee Member of the Green Party(Connecticut) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efficacy at msn.com Wed Oct 10 15:01:12 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:01:12 -0400 Subject: {news} Re: [newhavengreens] Great email to copy and send out! "HOW TO END THE IRAQ WAR- VOTE GREEN!! References: <441188.76422.qm@web81414.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: NO shit, what in the hell do think Cynthia McKinney was doing? She drew a lot of democrates. But some are against this. What was done to Diana Urban was a damn shame. ----- Original Message ----- From: Green Party-CT To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org ; CentralGP ; TollandGreens Yahoogroup ; HarfordGreens ; newhavengreens at yahoogroups.com ; NewLondonG Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:58 AM Subject: [newhavengreens] Great email to copy and send out! "HOW TO END THE IRAQ WAR- VOTE GREEN!! Hey Greens As Drew Johnson said in a message he sent a few minutes ago, the collapse of the Democrats as an opposition party and the frustration of the public are "a huge opportunity for us" and we should use it as much as possible, especially in preparation for the 2008 election. Drew noted that we should especially target disillusioned & angry Democrats. We won't get their support by vilifying progressive & antiwar Dems or by denouncing Kucinich for having the right positions in the wrong party. We'll win them over by welcoming them -- by inviting them to join the GP as it becomes more & more obvious that Kucinich has no chance of winning the DP nomination and will have no effect on the Dem platform. Below is a set of arguments, a list of talking points on the importance of voting Green in 2008 in the context of the Iraq War. It can be sent out as an e-mail message, adapted for flyers & other hardcopy media, used for campaign positions & for talking points when speaking publicly or writing letters & articles, etc. It's a very rough draft - edit as you see fit. If used in connection with Green campaigns, insert your candidate's name wherever possible. Now is not the time to sit on our hands! Scott PLEASE REPRINT AND SEND OUT THE FOLLOWING; * * * * * HOW TO END THE IRAQ WAR: VOTE GREEN It's time to face the truth: voting for Democrats is not going to end the war or change the direction of the US. * Democratic Party leaders supported the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. In October 2002, they voted with Republicans to surrender Congress's constitutional war power over to the Bush White House. * Democrats won't use their power in Congress to stall on Bush's requests for more war funding, which would result in a quick withdrawal of US troops. * Democratic Party leaders will only support vague and delayed "timetables" for bringing home US troops. Clinton and Obama won't promise that all US combat troops will be out of Iraq by 2013. * Democrats have rejected impeachment and won't hold Bush & Cheney responsible for criminal abuses of power: deceiving the American people about why we invaded Iraq, torture, surveillance of US citizens without warrant, detention without trial, violation of international laws, inaction and racist response to environmental emergencies (Hurricanes Katrina & Rita), tampering with scientific research on global warming. * Top Democrats limit their criticism to Bush's strategic military mistakes in Iraq. They won't talk about how the war itself is a crime -- an invasion of country that posed no threat to the US, based on manipulated intelligence and lies to the American people. * Democrats want to plunder Iraqi oil: Democratic leaders have endorsed the Iraqi hydrocarbon law "benchmark" that would place 2/3 of Iraq's oil resources under the control of major US and UK energy companies. This would require continued US military presence in Iraq to protect corporate investments. The same oil companies that contribute to Republicans also give campaign checks to Democratic candidates. * Top Democrats also take money and orders from the pro-Israeli-government lobby (AIPAC), which demanded the invasion of Iraq and now demands an attack on Iran. * Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have signed on to Bush's threat of a US attack on Iran -- which could touch off World War III. * * * Whether we elect a Democrat or Republican to the White House in 2008, the war will continue. Our only hope for bringing home US troops safe and sound is to elect Green Party candidates to Congress! * Greens are committed to an immediate withdrawal of all US troops and to impeachment of Bush & Cheney for their crimes. * If Greens win seats in Congress, it'll shock Democrats (and some Republicans) into stronger action to end the Iraq War. Democrats and Republicans will no longer be each others' sole competition for votes. * The few genuine anti-war Democrats and Republicans in Congress aren't getting help from their own parties. They need Greens in Congress to create the political bloc necessary to end the war. * Thanks to the two-party monopoly on elections, America has moved toward more war, greater corporate power, and less democracy. This direction will continue... until new political voices get elected. * Green candidates take no money from powerful corporations. Democrats and Republicans take big campaign checks from oil companies, arms makers, credit card companies, media conglomerates, HMOs, insurance firms, pharmaceutical manufacturers, Wall Street, K Street, and other corporate lobbies. * If you oppose the Iraq War and you vote for a pro-war candidate, you're throwing away your vote. Vote for the real Peace Party -- the Green Party! Do we really want a future that's limited to Democrats & Republicans and the narrow points of view that they represent? We The People deserve a party and candidates to speak for our own ideals, interests, and needs. Help us build America's party of the 21st century -- the Green Party! * * * Bring US Troops Home Now Cancel War Funding Impeach Bush & Cheney Save Our Democracy Save America's Future Support America's PEACE PARTY Support the GREEN PARTY Vote for Green candidates in 2008 Register Green Donate to the Green Party http://www.gp.org http://www.gp.org/impeachbush/ http://www.gp.org/welcome.shtml ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim McKee cell (860) 778-1304 or (860) 643-2282 National Committee Member of the Green Party(Connecticut) __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Visit Your Group Yahoo! News Fashion News What's the word on fashion and style? Yahoo! Groups Cat Zone Connect w/ others who love cats. Yahoo! Groups Going Green Share your passion for the planet. . __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chapillsbury at igc.org Thu Oct 11 16:08:44 2007 From: chapillsbury at igc.org (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:08:44 -0400 Subject: {news} NH chapter meeting tonight 7:30pm; next meeting Thurs. 11/8 In-Reply-To: <005101c80a2a$07952c20$6500a8c0@S0031616584> References: <003101c6eb40$3d5cbd00$6500a8c0@S0031616584> <005101c80a2a$07952c20$6500a8c0@S0031616584> Message-ID: <001701c80c42$8966ce10$9c346a30$@org> NHGP MEETING AGENDA Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 7:30 p.m. Never Ending Book Store, 810 State Street 1. Review Agenda & Appoint Secretary for Meeting (Charlie) 2. Treasurer's Report (Mary Anne) 3. Co-Chair Report (Charlie) 4. 2007 Municipal Elections Report (Allan, Daniel, Ralph) 5. State Meeting Report, including discussion of CT delegate selection process for presidential nominating convention in July 2008 (Jerry) 6. National Committee Report, including discussion of GPUS leadership (Charlie) 7. Oct. 27 demonstration in Boston: sponsorship ($100) or endorsement (what can be afforded) (Stan) - see www.newenglandunited.org 8. Any other business? (anyone) 9. Next Meeting November 8 - guest speaker Colin Bennett, member of the SCSU Environmental Futurists and CT Green Party municipal office holder (all) 10. Adjourn before 9:00 p.m. (Charlie) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chapillsbury at igc.org Fri Oct 12 16:47:21 2007 From: chapillsbury at igc.org (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:47:21 -0400 Subject: {news} FW: Peter Raven, E.O. Wilson on "Future of Life on Earth" Message-ID: <009d01c80d11$18f76250$4ae626f0$@org> This promises to be an amazing discussion. Please forward and or post! Thank you to all who have already done so. For more information, visit the Peabody Museum website at http://www.peabody.yale.edu/events/calendar/cal_verrillmedal.html Yours on behalf of a healthy planet, Nate Bixby, President Havens for the Future 203-887-2598 nathan at sustainablenewhaven.org www.sustainablenewhaven.org Hear two of the most eminent scientists of our day discuss "The Future of Life on Earth." Yale Provost Andy Hamilton will introduce the honored guests. This FREE program is at SPRAGUE HALL, 470 College Street (not the Peabody!). The program will begin with the presentation to Drs. Raven and Wilson of the Verrill Medal by Yale Peabody Museum Director Michael Donoghue. Recognizing outstanding achievement in the natural sciences, the medal has been awarded only 15 times in the past. 4c2c00.jpg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 4c2c00.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 239519 bytes Desc: not available URL: From efficacy at msn.com Sat Oct 13 21:53:35 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 21:53:35 -0400 Subject: {news} Gore's Nobel: Commentary Message-ID: Thanks go out to John Woolman College Principal Holger Terp > for forwarding this commentary from Jan Oberg > of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research. http://www.transnational.org/ http://www.transnational.org/sitemap.htm <...> Nagoya, Japan -- Friday, October 12, 2007 -- The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize -- particularly the part to Al Gore -- is a populist choice that cannot but devalue the Prize itself. Alfred Nobel wrote in his will that the Peace Prize should be awarded to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Without diminishing the importance of global warming and the work done by this year's recipients -- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) and Al Gore Jr. -- it is highly disputable whether it qualifies as a PEACE prize in the spirit of Alfred Nobel, even if interpreted in the contemporary world situation and not that of 1895 when Nobel formulated his vision. The concept and definition of peace should indeed be broad. But neither of the recipients have made contributions that can match thousands of other individuals and NGOs who devote their lives to fighting militarism, nuclearism, wars, reducing violence, work for peacebuilding, tolerance, reconciliation and co-existence -- the core issues of the Nobel Peace Prize. It is also regrettable that the Prize rewards government-related work, rather than civil society -- Non-Governmentals, making the implicit point that governments, rather than the people, make peace. In particular, Al Gore -- as vice-president under Bill Clinton between 1993 and 2001 -- was never heard or seen as a peacemaker. The Clinton-Gore administration had a crash program for building up US military facilities and made military allies all around Russia, and missed history's greatest opportunity for a new world order. In contravention of international law, and without a UN Security Council mandate, they bombed Serbia and Kosovo. Their action was based upon an extremely deficient understanding of Yugoslavia, and propaganda about genocide that has caused the miserable situation in Kosovo today (likely to blow up this year or the next). They also bombed in Afghanistan and Sudan. The Nobel Peace Prize would have been linked to the environment if it has been awarded to someone who struggles against military or other violent influence on the global environment: military pollution, thousands of bases and exercises destroying nature, deliberate environmental warfare, militarization of space and the oceans, and -- of course -- nuclear weapons ... which, if used, would create more heat than global warming. The Norwegian Nobel Committee's consists of members who have little background, if any, in the theory and practice of peace. That, however, cannot be an excuse for making a mockery of peace and the Prize itself. The prestige of the Nobel Peace Prize has been further reduced today -- adding to the disgrace that it never rewarded Gandhi, but instead people like Kissinger, Shimon Peres, and Arafat. Efficacy PO Box 1234 860 657 8438 Hartford, CT 06143 efficacy at msn.com www.Efficacy-online.org "THE DRUG WAR IS MEANT TO BE WAGED NOT WON" Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit 501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are tax deductible -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roseberry3 at cox.net Sun Oct 14 22:04:53 2007 From: roseberry3 at cox.net (B Barry) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:04:53 -0400 Subject: {news} proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT. Message-ID: <20071015020456.SJQI25350.eastrmmtao106.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT. Luna?s Pizza, 88 Hebron Avenue, Glastonbury, CT 06033, p: 860-659-2136 Time: 7:00PM to 8PM Set agenda for 10-30-07 SCC meeting which might include but not limited to: 1. CT Green Times newspaper status: Will another edition be available for the 10-30-07 SCC meeting for distribution? 2. Results of political actions by the GP of CT with the CT legislature; issues GP of CT wants to address in 2008. 3. ACLU lawsuit regarding the 2005 CT ?campaign finance reform? law. 4. CTGP website. 5. Treasurer?s report from Christopher Reilly. 6. Requests to be on GPUS committees. 7. Responses from chapters. 8. Any proposals? e.g. from Process and Procedure Committee members 9. Place of next EC meeting scheduled for 11-07. 10. Place for next SCC meeting 11-27-07 SCC meeting. 11. Any additions. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.10/1070 - Release Date: 10/14/2007 9:22 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From edubrule at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 15 09:54:12 2007 From: edubrule at sbcglobal.net (edubrule) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:54:12 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: Army of None Tour Oct 13 & Get on AFSC Peace & Justice Bus Message-ID: <000b01c80f32$e3b99170$e3814c0c@edgn2b574u14bi> 6-Story Newsletter Template + ImagesSorry I'm behind with my e-mails (the October 13 event is passed). --Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: [AFSC Connecticut] To: edubrule at sbcglobal.net Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:00 PM Subject: Army of None Tour Oct 13 & Get on AFSC Peace & Justice Bus American Friends Service Committee Connecticut In This Issue: Oct 9 2007 . Oct 13 Army of None Tour in Hamden and Hartford . Oct 27: Get on the AFSC Peace & Justice Bus to Boston Oct 13 Army of None Tour in Hamden and Hartford On Saturday October 13 Army of None Counter-Recruitment Tour in Connecticut Saturday October 13 Hamden 1-4 PM Unitarian Society of New Haven 700 Hartford Turnpike Hamden, CT 06517 Directions: http://home.att.net/~usnh/contact.html For more information: John Shanley: 203-640-6743 (cell) 203-288-5543 (eve) johnshanley at sbcglobal.net Hartford 7-9pm La Paloma Saberna 405 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 For More information: David Amdur 860-523-1534, 781-249-9320 (cell) damdur at afsc.org Sponsored by: American Friends Service Committee, Unitarian Society of New Haven, People of Faith Network, Greater New Haven Peace Council, West Hartford Citizens for Peace and Justice, Capital Community College Chapter of SDS The Army of None project: To Counter Military Recruitment, End War, and Build a Better World The military recruitment complex insinuates itself into the daily lives of children and youth in ways most people are not aware of. Millions of dollars are poured into advanced marketing strategies; recruiters walk freely into classrooms with false promises of a way out of poverty. Army of None Project argues that childhood should be free of military influence and the constant pressure to enlist. This is not just a way to protect our most valuable national resource - children - it is an effective way to take local action to provide equal opportunity and youth leadership training for those who bear the burden of fighting in Iraq and beyond. The counter recruitment movement is one of the fastest growing, most strategic forms of community organizing. The Army of None Project will bring skills workshops, public performances and talks, and information and resources to 40 communities across the US, including high schools and college campus groups, community organizations, churches, veterans groups, unions, and cultural organizations. Project Coordinators Aimee Allison and David Solnit have over 30 years of experience working with diverse groups of individuals to create positive change in our communities. During 2007, Aimee and David will travel across the United States to share their knowledge and experience through presentations that can be tailored to each community's needs. AIMEE ALLISON Army veteran Aimee Allison has led school and community counter-recruitment activities over the last decade. She is a contributor to 10 Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military. She was recruited out of high school and became a Conscientious to the Gulf War. She actively supports veterans that are healing from their war experiences. DAVID SOLNIT Global justice, antiwar and arts organizer David Solnit is a veteran of social movements over the last 25 years, and was a key organizer in the mass shut downs of the WTO in Seattle and in San Francisco the day after the 2003 invasion of Iraq He is an organizing, strategy, nonviolent direct action, theater and arts trainer, and the editor of Globalize Liberation: How to Uproot the System and Build a Better World. He currently works with the organization Courage to Resist. To Counter Military Recruitment, End War, and Build a Better World www.myspace.com/armyofnonebook Oct 27: Get on the AFSC Peace & Justice Bus to Boston GET ON THE AFSC PEACE & JUSTICE BUS TO BOSTON ON OCTOBER 27TH The bus will leave from Conard High School parking lot 110 Beechwood Rd West Hartford, CT 06107. At 8:30am Meet at the Conard parking lot entrance nearest the tennis courts. Please park on the street, not in the lot. There's plenty of free and safe on-street parking. The bus will depart from Boston Common at 6:00pm and should be back at Conrad High School/West Hartford by 8:30pm. There are 55 seats on the bus, so make your reservations today! NATIONWIDE MOBILIZATION TO END THE WAR IN IRAQ Boston October 27 End the Funding, End the War! Bridges collapsing, levees breaking, schools need books and more teachers, while many of our children go hungry and homeless. Let's bring all troops home safely, fully fund vets, and redirect national resources (our tax dollars!) To restoring our communities and addressing the health, welfare and safety of our nation's struggling families. . BRING ALL TROOPS HOME NOW . FUND HUMAN NEEDS . DEFEND HUMAN RIGHTS . DON'T ATTACK IRAN . Transportation organized by AFSC Connecticut 56 Arbor St Hartford CT 06106 For scholarships, further information or to arrange for wheelchair access call David Amdur at 860-523-1534 or email Connecticut at afsc.org. Information also available at www.afsc.org/ct You can reserve seats on line at http://www.stepfour.com/wwwroot/fareha.htm Or fill out this form and send to AFSC, 56 Arbor St, Hartford CT 06106 AFSC Peace & Justice Bus To Boston $35 Round Trip ($45 after 10/17/07), $25 for seniors, students, and low income Name______________________________________________________________ Address____________________________________________________________ Phone___________________ Email_____________________ # of Tickets_______ Fill out this form and send to AFSC, 56 Arbor St, Hartford CT 06106 www.newenglandunited.org American Friends Service Committee Connecticut Area Office 56 Arbor Street, Suite 213 Hartford, CT 06106 Phone: 860.523.1534 Fax: 860.523.1705 Email: connecticut at afsc.org Visit AFSC CT Online Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Confirm | Forward -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dbedellgreen at hotmail.com Mon Oct 15 14:52:29 2007 From: dbedellgreen at hotmail.com (David Bedell) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:52:29 +0000 Subject: {news} 10/23 deadline for write-in candidates Message-ID: October 23 is the deadline for write-in candidates to file with the Secretary of the State. In hopes of capturing some low-hanging fruit for the Green Party, I've asked Nick Cegelka to run for Constable in New Britain and Florence Vannoni to run for Constable in Redding. Occasionally the Democrats and Republicans do not nominate enough candidates to fill all available seats, in which case a write-in candidate can slip in. This is the case in Redding, and it may be worth contacting your town clerk to ask if there are any vacancies on the ballot. Since write-in candidates do not run on a party line, no party endorsement is necessary, but we have usually considered any candidate who is a registered Green to be one of our candidates. The form is quite simple and can be downloaded here: ED-622b Registration of Write-In Candidacy for November 6, 2007 Municipal Election http://www.sots.ct.gov/ElectionsServices/electforms/ed622b.pdf David Bedell _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts!? Play Star Shuffle:? the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct From amyvasnunes at hotmail.com Mon Oct 15 18:28:08 2007 From: amyvasnunes at hotmail.com (Amy Vas Nunes) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:28:08 -0400 Subject: {news} proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT. Message-ID: Hi Barb. I feel we need to fill that third USGPrep position. Since I am already the alternate and it is months till our next election ,I would like a vote at the next SCC meeting for me to fill this position. If there were more than three seats we should also take nominations I am already on USGP list serve and unlike other GPUS reps manage to show up at every SCC meeting to report. Amy FYI For procedures info:I recently got the rules of IC committee from USGP they state reps need to be reappointed or changes EVERY TWO YEARS. Also reps can be removed from committee if inactive for 6 months. Although Ms Mc Cabe has participated at the USGP level she has been inactive in reporting and appearing at CTGP for over 3 years. Her recent Canada report was sent to us by Tim NOT DIRECTLY from Ms Mc Cabe. From: roseberry3 at cox.netTo: ctgp-news at ml.greens.orgDate: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:04:53 -0400Subject: {news} proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT. proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT. Luna?s Pizza, 88 Hebron Avenue, Glastonbury, CT 06033, p: 860-659-2136 Time: 7:00PM to 8PM Set agenda for 10-30-07 SCC meeting which might include but not limited to: 1. CT Green Times newspaper status: Will another edition be available for the 10-30-07 SCC meeting for distribution? 2. Results of political actions by the GP of CT with the CT legislature; issues GP of CT wants to address in 2008. 3. ACLU lawsuit regarding the 2005 CT ?campaign finance reform? law. 4. CTGP website. 5. Treasurer?s report from Christopher Reilly. 6. Requests to be on GPUS committees. 7. Responses from chapters. 8. Any proposals? e.g. from Process and Procedure Committee members 9. Place of next EC meeting scheduled for 11-07. 10. Place for next SCC meeting 11-27-07 SCC meeting. 11. Any additions. No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.10/1070 - Release Date: 10/14/2007 9:22 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From timmckee at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 15 20:28:00 2007 From: timmckee at sbcglobal.net (Tim McKee) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:28:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <448127.79821.qm@web82710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Greens, We do need to to fill THREE new national committee postions, not a third as mistakenly stated Vas Nunes. Her idea that she deserves a seat without a new election is outragous and against the democratci process we all should value!! We should we an open and fair election at a general fall convention with all the Greens able to ask questions and decide for themselves. We need leadership able to HEAL rifts and not foster past infightening. The idea that some one should want to get revenge against someone who she fought with, is something we all need to speak out against! We need bring who want to work to bring more and more people INTO the party,,not drive them out! Now is the time for all those quiet Greens to express thier feeling on who should be in our leaderhship on a natioanal level. i welcome your phone calls to me (as i am sure Charlie Pillsbury do too) on any questions or commnets u have. we are so close to bringing many great things to past on a a natioanl level!! Tim McKee 860-643-2282 y Vas Nunes wrote: Connecticut Green Party - Part of the GPUS http://www.ctgreens.org/ - http://www.greenpartyus.org/ to unsubscribe click here mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } Hi Barb. I feel we need to fill that third USGPrep position. Since I am already the alternate and it is months till our next election ,I would like a vote at the next SCC meeting for me to fill this position. If there were more than three seats we should also take nominations I am already on USGP list serve and unlike other GPUS reps manage to show up at every SCC meeting to report. Amy FYI For procedures info:I recently got the rules of IC committee from USGP they state reps need to be reappointed or changes EVERY TWO YEARS. Also reps can be removed from committee if inactive for 6 months. Although Ms Mc Cabe has participated at the USGP level she has been inactive in reporting and appearing at CTGP for over 3 years. Her recent Canada report was sent to us by Tim NOT DIRECTLY from Ms Mc Cabe. --------------------------------- From: roseberry3 at cox.net To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:04:53 -0400 Subject: {news} proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT. .ExternalClass EC_p.MsoNormal, .ExternalClass EC_li.MsoNormal, .ExternalClass EC_div.MsoNormal {margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';} .ExternalClass a:link, .ExternalClass EC_span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} .ExternalClass a:visited, .ExternalClass EC_span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} .ExternalClass EC_span.EmailStyle17 {font-family:Arial;color:windowtext;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in;} .ExternalClass EC_div.Section1 {page:Section1;} .ExternalClass ol {margin-bottom:0in;} .ExternalClass ul {margin-bottom:0in;} proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT. Luna?s Pizza, 88 Hebron Avenue, Glastonbury, CT 06033, p: 860-659-2136 Time: 7:00PM to 8PM Set agenda for 10-30-07 SCC meeting which might include but not limited to: 1. CT Green Times newspaper status: Will another edition be available for the 10-30-07 SCC meeting for distribution? 2. Results of political actions by the GP of CT with the CT legislature; issues GP of CT wants to address in 2008. 3. ACLU lawsuit regarding the 2005 CT ?campaign finance reform? law. 4. CTGP website. 5. Treasurer?s report from Christopher Reilly. 6. Requests to be on GPUS committees. 7. Responses from chapters. 8. Any proposals? e.g. from Process and Procedure Committee members 9. Place of next EC meeting scheduled for 11-07. 10. Place for next SCC meeting 11-27-07 SCC meeting. 11. Any additions. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.10/1070 - Release Date: 10/14/2007 9:22 AM To be removed please mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org _______________________________________________ CTGP-news mailing list CTGP-news at ml.greens.org http://ml.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/ctgp-news ATTENTION! The information in this transmission is privileged and confidential and intended only for the recipient listed above. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by email and delete the original message. The text of this email is similar to ordinary or face-to-face conversations and does not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the case of a formal legal opinion and does not constitute a representation of the opinions of the CT Green Party. The responsibility for any messages posted herein is solely that of the person who sent the message, and the CT Green Party hereby leaves this responsibility in the hands of it's members. NOTE: This is an inherently insecure forum, please do not post confidential messages and always realize that your address can be faked, and although a message may appear to be from a certain individual, it is always possible that it is fakemail. This is mail sent by a third party under an illegally assumed identity for purposes of coercion, misdirection, or general mischief. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown. This e-mail transmission may contain confidential information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from your files if you are not the intended recipient. Thank you for your compliance. To be removed please mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chapillsbury at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 22:20:40 2007 From: chapillsbury at gmail.com (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:20:40 -0400 Subject: {news} Re: [usgp-nc] ANNOUNCEMENT of VACANCY on the SC/CALL for NOMINATIONS In-Reply-To: References: <20071008133408.hqwip2ftc8gw404c@webmail.uiowa.edu> <10859a090710141937n362a7b13idbc53878ed280f96@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <10859a090710151920y2fa35024uc8c2d93fafaaadcd@mail.gmail.com> Holly: I nominate Clifford Thornton, currently CTGP co-chair, and 2006 CTGP candidate for Governor, to fill the vacancy on the SC. Charlie Pillsbury, CTGP On 10/15/07, Clifford Thornton wrote: > > Yes, I will do it. > > Cliff > > Efficacy > PO Box 1234 > Hartford, CT 06143 > efficacy at msn.com > www.Efficacy-online.org > > "THE DRUG WAR IS MEANT TO BE WAGED NOT WON" > > Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit > 501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are tax > deductible > > - > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: hhart at blue.weeg.uiowa.edu < hhart at blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> > Date: Oct 8, 2007 2:34 PM > Subject: [usgp-nc] ANNOUNCEMENT of VACANCY on the SC/CALL for NOMINATIONS > To: natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org > > Delegates, > > On the Steering Committee call before last (9/23/07), it was noted > that co-chair Kristen Olson has been absent from conference calls and > unavailable for about two months, despite attempts by several SC > members to contact her on SC business by email or telephone. Per the > policy in Proposals nos. 222 (Policy on Steering Committee Elections) > and 246 (Steering Committee P&P's), the SC agreed to send her notice > that if the SC did not hear back from her by October 1, 2007, that > would be taken as indication of her resignation from the SC. The > message was emailed to her within 48 hours of the call and there were > several more attempts to contact her by email and telephone. > > On last night's Steering Committee call (10/7/07, the SC agreed by > consensus (with one absence, Liz Arnone having fallen off the call due > to her phone's battery running out) to declare a co-chair vacancy on > the SC. Per the GPUS bylaws, this triggers an online election to fill > out the remainder of the term ending in the summer of 2009. > > From #222: > ... > E. FILLING A VACANCY: > Any vacancy that occurs within one month of an election shall be > filled by interim appointment by recounting the ballots from the > election which elected that member, by an Election Tabulation > Committee designated by the GNC experiencing the vacancy, in the > manner specified herein, except that the vacating member's name shall > be deleted from all ballots. Any candidate accruing sufficient votes > to surpass the winning threshold in the recount that was not elected > to office in the original count shall fill the vacancy. If such a > recount fails to resolve a vacancy or if the vacancy occurs more than > one month after the election, the Steering Committee may provide for a > special election under these rules to fill the seat until the next > regularly scheduled election for that position. > > > The NOMINATION PERIOD WILL BE OPEN FOR 2 WEEKS, Monday OCTOBER 8 - > Sunday OCTOBER 21. > > DISCUSSION WILL RUN 2 WEEKS, Monday OCTOBER 22 - Sunday NOVEMBER 4. > > VOTING PERIOD WILL RUN 1 WEEK, MONDAY NOVEMBER 5 - 11:59 p.m. PT, > SUNDAY NOVEMBER 11. > > NOMINATIONS SHOULD BE SENT TO and may also be > sent to this > list. Self-nominations are allowed. > > > The voting will be conducted using a ranked choice (IRV) vote with > NOTA as an option. > > Holly Hart > Secretary, GPUS > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amyvasnunes at hotmail.com Mon Oct 15 23:00:33 2007 From: amyvasnunes at hotmail.com (Amy Vas Nunes) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:00:33 -0400 Subject: {news} proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT. Message-ID: OK I'll bring it up again because the bait/hate and attacks on me go on forever years after the "Star Chamber Witch Trial".I want no"revenge" I only want a dependable, REPORTING, ACCOUNTABLE Party. Don't forget those that think I have a "personal' thing forget that Ms McCabe was reported by me and two other former New Haven Greens{who were active leaders and left because of this} to the ADL where she and Al Awada were/are known names with previous complaints. The ADL is similar to the NAACP for Jewish people.Things were done and said to me and MANY besides the other two, in private and public that were intolerable. Because of this person the CTGP and USGP and all State GPs have been put on the ADL's "hate watch list" this is very serious. Don't believe me; CALL THE ADL in New Haven.This is similar to the Klan being put on Southern Poverty Law center watch. The ADL told me I had grounds for a legal suit against the CTGP on discrimination if my chapter kicked me out , they never did. This is the last time I am defending/repeating myself, GET IT!I am only trying to rid this Party of extremism, racism and anti semitism.FYI . In the last election I won numerically over Tim he won in Rank olny.It was very close. Why wait until next election . I will run then. I have the time a, interest and background now. Amy If you have any questions or would like to know more details about the ADL stuff or who the other Greens were feel free to call or email me. 860-456-8133 after !!/1 the phone is out till then Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:28:00 -0700From: timmckee at sbcglobal.netSubject: RE: {news} proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT.To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Dear Greens, We do need to to fill THREE new national committee positions, not a third as mistakenly stated Vas Nunes. Her idea that she deserves a seat without a new election is outragous and against the democratci process we all should value!! We should we an open and fair election at a general fall convention with all the Greens able to ask questions and decide for themselves. We need leadership able to HEAL rifts and not foster past infightening. The idea that some one should want to get revenge against someone who she fought with, is something we all need to speak out against! We need bring who want to work to bring more and more people INTO the party,,not drive them out! Now is the time for all those quiet Greens to express thier feeling on who should be in our leaderhship on a natioanal level. i welcome your phone calls to me (as i am sure Charlie Pillsbury do too) on any questions or commnets u have. we are so close to bringing many great things to past on a a natioanl level!! Tim McKee 860-643-2282 y Vas Nunes wrote: Connecticut Green Party - Part of the GPUShttp://www.ctgreens.org/ - http://www.greenpartyus.org/to unsubscribe click heremailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org Hi Barb. I feel we need to fill that third USGPrep position. Since I am already the alternate and it is months till our next election ,I would like a vote at the next SCC meeting for me to fill this position. If there were more than three seats we should also take nominations I am already on USGP list serve and unlike other GPUS reps manage to show up at every SCC meeting to report. Amy FYI For procedures info:I recently got the rules of IC committee from USGP they state reps need to be reappointed or changes EVERY TWO YEARS. Also reps can be removed from committee if inactive for 6 months. Although Ms Mc Cabe has participated at the USGP level she has been inactive in reporting and appearing at CTGP for over 3 years. Her recent Canada report was sent to us by Tim NOT DIRECTLY from Ms Mc Cabe. From: roseberry3 at cox.netTo: ctgp-news at ml.greens.orgDate: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:04:53 -0400Subject: {news} proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT. proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT. Luna?s Pizza, 88 Hebron Avenue, Glastonbury, CT 06033, p: 860-659-2136 Time: 7:00PM to 8PM Set agenda for 10-30-07 SCC meeting which might include but not limited to: 1. CT Green Times newspaper status: Will another edition be available for the 10-30-07 SCC meeting for distribution? 2. Results of political actions by the GP of CT with the CT legislature; issues GP of CT wants to address in 2008. 3. ACLU lawsuit regarding the 2005 CT ?campaign finance reform? law. 4. CTGP website. 5. Treasurer?s report from Christopher Reilly. 6. Requests to be on GPUS committees. 7. Responses from chapters. 8. Any proposals? e.g. from Process and Procedure Committee members 9. Place of next EC meeting scheduled for 11-07. 10. Place for next SCC meeting 11-27-07 SCC meeting. 11. Any additions. No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.10/1070 - Release Date: 10/14/2007 9:22 AMTo be removed please mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org_______________________________________________CTGP-news mailing listCTGP-news at ml.greens.orghttp://ml.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/ctgp-newsATTENTION!The information in this transmission is privileged and confidential and intended only for the recipient listed above. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by email and delete the original message. The text of this email is similar to ordinary or face-to-face conversations and does not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the case of a formal legal opinion and does not constitute a representation of the opinions of the CT Green Party. The responsibility for any messages posted herein is solely that of the person who sent the message, and the CT Green Party hereby leaves this responsibility in the hands of it's members.NOTE: This is an inherently insecure forum, please do not post confidential messages and always realize that your address can be faked, and although a message may appear to be from a certain individual, it is always possible that it is fakemail. This is mail sent by a third party under an illegally assumed identity for purposes of coercion, misdirection, or general mischief.CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown. This e-mail transmission may contain confidential information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from your files if you are not the intended recipient. Thank you for your compliance.To be removed please mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From smderosa at cox.net Mon Oct 15 23:54:01 2007 From: smderosa at cox.net (Mike DeRosa) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:54:01 -0400 Subject: {news} Fwd: [usgp-nc] Discussion Has Begun on GP-US Proposal: ID 320- Condemn the Western Hemisphere Institute for SecurityCooperationEndorse Nonviolent Direct Action In-Reply-To: <691881.32997.qm@web81407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <691881.32997.qm@web81407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <672B533FF47E4765A245DB119006D67C@OwnerPC> I think we should yes on this. Too many good people have been killed because of the "School of the Americas" (aka Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) Sincerely, Mike DeRosa _____ From: ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org [mailto:ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org] On Behalf Of Green Party-CT Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:16 AM To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org; GPCT FORUM Subject: {news} Fwd: [usgp-nc] Discussion Has Begun on GP-US Proposal: ID 320- Condemn the Western Hemisphere Institute for SecurityCooperationEndorse Nonviolent Direct Action CT GREENS, I AM SURE CHARLIE AND I BOT WOULD WELCOME ANY COMMNETS ON THIS PROPOSAL TO THE FORUM LIST SERVE PLEASE DO NOT POST TO THE "NEWS' LIST SERVE TIM MCKEE voting at gpus.org wrote: Date: 9 Oct 2007 04:05:02 -0000 From: voting at gpus.org To: natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org Subject: [usgp-nc] Discussion Has Begun on GP-US Proposal: ID 320 - Condemn the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security CooperationEndorse Nonviolent Direct Action Discussion has begun for the following proposal: Proposal ID: 320 Proposal: Condemn the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security CooperationEndorse Nonviolent Direct Action Floor Manager: Sarah echo Steiner, echothegreen at riseup.net Discussion Dates: 10/09/2007 - 10/15/2007 Voting Dates: 10/16/2007 - 10/22/2007 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time The GP-US strives for consensus, which involves several steps, taken in order.. Clarifying questions and responses from the group making the proposal. Airing of concerns and discussion about how to improve the proposal by taking into consideration those concersn Call for consensus on the final proposal. Background: NOTE: THIS IS AN EXPEDITED TIMELINE The School of the Americas, renamed in 2001 to Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (SOA/ WHINSEC), located in Fort Benning, Georgia, was founded in 1946 with the purpose of teaching Latin American militaries the values of democratic civilian control over military forces while promoting "friendly" assistance to our Latin American neighbors. The School of the Americas (SOA)/(WHISC) teaches such things as assassination training, commando operations, counter-insurgency techniques, intelligence-gathering, psychological warfare, extortion, sniper training, and low-intensity conflict; and Pentagon documents released to School of the Americas Watch, in September of 1996, through the Freedom of Information Act, show that training manuals at least through the nineteen-eighties at the School of the Americas/WHISC included instruction in such things as extortion, assassination, threats and torture. There is documented evidence that many SOA graduates have been involved in murderous plots. This was demonstrated in the 1980 assassination case of Archbishop Oscar Romero in which two of the three Salvadoran officers responsible were graduates of the SOA. Further, nineteen of the twenty-six Salvadoran officers cited in the November 1989 murder of six Jesuit priests, a housekeeper and her daughter, were also SOA graduates. Guatemalan Colonel Julio Roberto Alpirez, an SOA alumni, was implicated in the killing of U.S. citizen Michael Devine and Efraim Bamaca. It is estimated that there are more than 600 SOA graduates who have been accused of human rights abuses including the massacres of entire villages. Millions of dollars of US taxpayer money is spent annually to maintain the School of the Americas/WHISC at a time when budgets are being cut at the expense of our own schools and children, and the US Congress is currently reducing Federal spending on many social services. This history and the continued existence of the School of the Americas/WHISC stand in the way of moving our country's relationships with Latin America towards emphasis on Human Rights and democracy. Nonviolent direct action has been part of many struggles for justice. It is also the backbone of the movement to close the SOA. Countless actions have taken place in this country as well as in Chile, Colombia, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Austria, France, Germany and other countries around the world. Thousands have put their bodies on the line, fasted and vigiled and hundreds have gotten arrested for speaking out against the violence perpetrated by the SOA and US foreign policy. Proposal: The United States Green Party opposes the continued operation of the School of the Americas and stands in solidarity with the People of the Americas to support and endorse the nonviolent direct action that is proposed by School of the Americas Watch to shut down SOA/WHISC Resources: TIMELINE: Until the school is closed RESOURCES: Press release from the Media Committee when proposal passes References: WWW.SOAW.Org Full details are available at: http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=320 Please send your comments to natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org. Thank you and have a wonderful day! --The GP-US Voting Admin _______________________________________________ Natlcomvotes mailing list To send a message to the list, write to: Natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org To unsubscribe or change your list options, go to: http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomvotes If your state delegation changes, please see: http://gp.org/committees/nc/documents/delegate_change.html To report violations of listserv protocol, write to forummanagers at lists.gp-us.org For other information about the Coordinating Committee, see: http://gp.org/committees/nc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tim McKee cell (860) 778-1304 or (860) 643-2282 National Committee Member of the Green Party(Connecticut) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efficacy at msn.com Tue Oct 16 08:04:19 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:04:19 -0400 Subject: {news} 2007 International Drug Policy Reform Conference Message-ID: Home Agenda Logistics Programming Registration Contact Us http://kessjones.com/conf07/ 2007 International Drug Policy Reform Conference The International Drug Policy Reform Conference is the world's principal gathering of people who believe the war on drugs is doing more harm than good. No better opportunity exists to learn about drug policy and to strategize and mobilize for reform. The 2007 International Drug Policy Reform Conference will address a wide range of policy, legal, political and scientific issues including: a.. Drug Sentencing Reform b.. Treatment c.. Drug Testing d.. Race and the Drug War e.. Marijuana f.. HIV, Hep C and Overdose Prevention g.. International Developments h.. Drug Education i.. Entheogens-Science, Spirituality and Law j.. Alternatives to Prohibition k.. Pragmatic Steps for Ending the Drug War CLICK HERE to see more of this year's programming panels. This year's conference will be held at the Astor Crowne Plaza in the legendary French Quarter in New Orleans, Louisiana. For a PDF of the conference brochure CLICK HERE. Why New Orleans? Old world ambiance, hot jazz, cool eats and sizzling night life... The Astor Crowne Plaza is within walking distance of many of the landmarks of New Orleans' worldwide appeal: courtyards and iron-laced balconies, famous restaurants and galleries, Bourbon Street, the mighty Mississippi River and legendary Jackson Square. New Orleans also presents us with the opportunity of "Working Toward a New Bottom Line" - our conference theme. We can't convene in this location without engaging the tragic conditions both the city and the state of Louisiana. Hurricane Katrina laid bare an array of problems, many of which are exacerbated by drug war policies. Meanwhile, the state of Louisiana comes close to leading the nation in the rate at which it incarcerates people for drug law violations. But such excesses also create opportunities for reform. Drug policy reform has always been particularly challenging in the South, but we aim to use the International Drug Policy Reform Conference to build momentum for meaningful change - both in New Orleans and more broadly. We'll see you in the Big Easy... Quick Links Agenda Sponsorship Information Scholarship Information International Attendees Become a DPA Member Continuing Education Harm Reduction Therapy Pre-Conference Workshop Efficacy PO Box 1234 860 657 8438 Hartford, CT 06143 efficacy at msn.com www.Efficacy-online.org "THE DRUG WAR IS MEANT TO BE WAGED NOT WON" Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit 501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are tax deductible -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: header.png Type: image/png Size: 35989 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: stlouis.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7082 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RegisterOnline.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1561 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kumfry at yahoo.com Tue Oct 16 09:41:09 2007 From: kumfry at yahoo.com (Kenneth Humphrey) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 06:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Fwd: [usgp-nc] Discussion Has Begun on GP-US Proposal: ID 320- Condemn the Western Hemisphere Institute for SecurityCooperationEndorse Nonviolent Direct Action In-Reply-To: <672B533FF47E4765A245DB119006D67C@OwnerPC> Message-ID: <691939.67931.qm@web32805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I agree completely with Mike on this. This school of assassins has been a black mark on America especially every since the 70's and the complicity with the Death Squads in Central America under Ronnie Raygun. The Congress under neither party sees fit to rid us of this fascistic training ground. And now we find some of the worst persons involved in Central America under Reagan recycled into powerful positions to make a similar mess in Iraq and the Middle East policies. Ken --- Mike DeRosa wrote: > Connecticut Green Party - Part of the GPUS > http://www.ctgreens.org/ - > http://www.greenpartyus.org/ > > to unsubscribe click here > mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org> I think we should yes on this. Too many good people > have been killed > because of the "School of the Americas" (aka Western > Hemisphere > Institute for Security Cooperation) > > Sincerely, > > Mike DeRosa > > > > _____ > > From: ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org > [mailto:ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org] On Behalf > Of Green Party-CT > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:16 AM > To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org; GPCT FORUM > Subject: {news} Fwd: [usgp-nc] Discussion Has Begun > on GP-US Proposal: ID > 320- Condemn the Western Hemisphere Institute for > SecurityCooperationEndorse > Nonviolent Direct Action > > > > CT GREENS, > > > > I AM SURE CHARLIE AND I BOT WOULD WELCOME ANY > COMMNETS ON THIS PROPOSAL TO > THE FORUM LIST SERVE > > > > PLEASE DO NOT POST TO THE "NEWS' LIST SERVE > > > > TIM MCKEE > > voting at gpus.org wrote: > > Date: 9 Oct 2007 04:05:02 -0000 > From: voting at gpus.org > To: natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org > Subject: [usgp-nc] Discussion Has Begun on GP-US > Proposal: ID 320 - Condemn > the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security > CooperationEndorse Nonviolent Direct Action > > Discussion has begun for the following proposal: > > Proposal ID: 320 > Proposal: Condemn the Western Hemisphere Institute > for Security > CooperationEndorse Nonviolent Direct Action > Floor Manager: Sarah echo Steiner, > echothegreen at riseup.net > Discussion Dates: 10/09/2007 - 10/15/2007 > Voting Dates: 10/16/2007 - 10/22/2007 > > Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time > > The GP-US strives for consensus, which involves > several steps, > taken in order.. > > Clarifying questions and responses from the group > making the proposal. > Airing of concerns and discussion about how to > improve the proposal > by taking into consideration those concersn > Call for consensus on the final proposal. > > Background: NOTE: THIS IS AN EXPEDITED TIMELINE > > The School of the Americas, renamed in 2001 to > Western Hemisphere > Institute for Security Cooperation (SOA/ WHINSEC), > located in Fort > Benning, Georgia, was founded in 1946 with the > purpose of teaching > Latin American militaries the values of democratic > civilian control > over military forces while promoting "friendly" > assistance to our > Latin American neighbors. > > The School of the Americas (SOA)/(WHISC) teaches > such things as > assassination training, commando operations, > counter-insurgency > techniques, intelligence-gathering, psychological > warfare, > extortion, sniper training, and low-intensity > conflict; and Pentagon > documents released to School of the Americas Watch, > in September of > 1996, through the Freedom of Information Act, show > that training > manuals at least through the nineteen-eighties at > the School of the > Americas/WHISC included instruction in such things > as extortion, > assassination, threats and torture. > > There is documented evidence that many SOA graduates > have been > involved in murderous plots. This was demonstrated > in the 1980 > assassination case of Archbishop Oscar Romero in > which two of the > three Salvadoran officers responsible were graduates > of the SOA. > Further, nineteen of the twenty-six Salvadoran > officers cited in the > November 1989 murder of six Jesuit priests, a > housekeeper and her > daughter, were also SOA graduates. > > Guatemalan Colonel Julio Roberto Alpirez, an SOA > alumni, was > implicated in the killing of U.S. citizen Michael > Devine and Efraim > Bamaca. > > It is estimated that there are more than 600 SOA > graduates who > have been accused of human rights abuses including > the massacres of > entire villages. > > Millions of dollars of US taxpayer money is spent > annually to > maintain the School of the Americas/WHISC at a time > when budgets are > being cut at the expense of our own schools and > children, and the > US Congress is currently reducing Federal spending > on many social > services. > > This history and the continued existence of the > School of the > Americas/WHISC stand in the way of moving our > country's > relationships with Latin America towards emphasis on > Human Rights > and democracy. > > Nonviolent direct action has been part of many > struggles for > justice. It is also the backbone of the movement to > close the SOA. > Countless actions have taken place in this country > as well as in > Chile, Colombia, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, El > Salvador, Austria, > France, Germany and other countries around the > world. Thousands have > put their bodies on the line, fasted and vigiled and > hundreds have > gotten arrested for speaking out against the > violence perpetrated by > the SOA and US foreign policy. > > > Proposal: The United States Green Party opposes the > continued operation of > the School of the Americas and stands in solidarity > with the People > of the Americas to support and endorse the > nonviolent direct action > that is proposed by School of the Americas Watch to > shut down > SOA/WHISC > > Resources: TIMELINE: Until the school is closed > > RESOURCES: Press release from the Media Committee > when proposal passes > > References: WWW.SOAW.Org > > Full details are available at: > > http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=320 > > Please send your comments to > natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org. > > Thank you and have a wonderful day! > --The GP-US Voting Admin > > > _______________________________________________ > Natlcomvotes mailing list > To send a message to the list, write to: > === message truncated ===> To be removed please > mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org > _______________________________________________ > CTGP-news mailing list > CTGP-news at ml.greens.org > http://ml.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/ctgp-news > > ATTENTION! > The information in this transmission is privileged > and confidential and intended only for the recipient > listed above. If you have received this > transmission in error, please notify us immediately > by email and delete the original message. The text > of this email is similar to ordinary or face-to-face > conversations and does not reflect the level of > factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be > applied in the case of a formal legal opinion and > does not constitute a representation of the opinions > of the CT Green Party. The responsibility for any > messages posted herein is solely that of the person > who sent the message, and the CT Green Party hereby > leaves this responsibility in the hands of it's > members. > > NOTE: This is an inherently insecure forum, please > do not post confidential messages and always realize > that your address can be faked, and although a > message may appear to be from a certain individual, > it is always possible that it is fakemail. This is > mail sent by a third party under an illegally > assumed identity for purposes of coercion, > misdirection, or general mischief. > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this > e-mail in error, please immediately notify the > sender by e-mail at the address shown. This e-mail > transmission may contain confidential information. > This information is intended only for the use of the > individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even > if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from > your files if you are not the intended recipient. > Thank you for your compliance. > > To be removed please mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org ____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC From kumfry at hotmail.com Tue Oct 16 11:07:18 2007 From: kumfry at hotmail.com (Ken Humphrey) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:07:18 +0000 Subject: {news} proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Amy is not being factual when it comes to ADL. Perhaps before recent times when the Israel lobby became so powerful in stifling criticism of Israeli occupation policies in its abuse of the Palestinians, ADL did function more as the NAACP did. Not today. I know for a fact that ADL acts as a reactive arm of AIPAC and the Jewish lobby. There have been two situations I've observed personally, both in the Willimantic Chronicle. First, William Collins contributes a weekly column on Saturdays. He's a very solid commentator on many varied topics from a progressive point of view. When he wrote a commentary which contained a small portion critical of Israel, the 'Watchdog" aspect of the Jewish lobby pounced, and Wm. Collins did not appear for some time. I finally wrote to the Chronicle editor noting I missed Collins, a commentator who knows Ct. thoroughly, and further beyond our state. And Collins' commentaries again began to appear regularly in the Chronicle. Even more blatant and strident a reaction of the Jewish lobby appeared some time after Jimmy Carter's book about the Israeli/Palestinian issue came out. It was about the time that Carter was welcomed to give a talk at Brandeis University. (Carter's book is in the Willimantic and Mansfield libraries and I read the book). This time it was absolutely the ADL Watchdog reaction to criticism of Israel. A Jewish university prof, I can't recall the university, contributed a lengthy strident and abrasive attack on JImmy Carter and his audacity evenly moderately and evenly to brave the American/Jewish lobby and criticize Israeli policies toward the Palesinians. This was a clearcut case where the state ADL fulfilled the function of reacting to an unfavorable critique of the rightwing Israeli government. Neither Jimmy Carter nor the earlier Wm. Collins reference to Israel remotely smacked of anti-semitism, a term that Amy freely uses. (I had never even known Amy was Jewish until i was critical of Joe Lieberman perhaps three years ago or so, at a Green chapter meeting in Willimantic. At the time she didn't have much to say about the Palestine matter ). Just as Amy could benefit from proofreading her spellings and overall posting, she also needs to inform herself on topics such as the rightwing Israeli government's Middle East policies before tossing out the term anti-semitism. Being critical of Israel is NOT anti-semitism. A heck of a lot of Jews I'm acquainted with are very critical of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians and Lebanon last summer. Of course they brave the Jewish lobby when they do this since they are castigated as self-haters, and worse. Steve Heller is a Ct. Jew down New Haven way who's written critically of Israel and its treatment of Palestinians for years. A year ago Heller introduced Seth Farber who talked about his recent book 'Radicals, Rabbis and Peacemakers-Conversations With Jewish Critics of Israel' in Mansfield Center. This was at the annual chapter meeting and special speaker program of the ACLU. I am well aware that the Palestinian matter and criticism of Israel can be a very touchy subject in the Green Party. BUT, Amy will not leave the matter alone. I can't stand by and let her keep up the drumbeat of claiming anti-semitism when it comes to the beleaguered Palestinians who have been reduced to bantu status very similar to the blacks in apartheid South Africa which finally ended. The bottom line with Israeli policies is that many Jews as well as non-Jewish friends of Israel strongly feel that the intransigence and belligerency of Israel in the Middle East not only threatens to inflame the entire region, but further, threatens the very security and survival of Israel. Americans have a strong interest since we are entwined with Israel and its policies. . If this is deemed to be posted on the wrong Green list group, I replied to whereever Amy posted it. Serious misrepresentation of facts need the serious inaccuracies to be corrected. Ken Humphrey From: amyvasnunes at hotmail.com To: timmckee at sbcglobal.net; ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Subject: RE: {news} proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT. Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:00:33 -0400 CC: OK I'll bring it up again because the bait/hate and attacks on me go on forever years after the "Star Chamber Witch Trial".I want no"revenge" I only want a dependable, REPORTING, ACCOUNTABLE Party. Don't forget those that think I have a "personal' thing forget that Ms McCabe was reported by me and two other former New Haven Greens{who were active leaders and left because of this} to the ADL where she and Al Awada were/are known names with previous complaints. The ADL is similar to the NAACP for Jewish people.Things were done and said to me and MANY besides the other two, in private and public that were intolerable. Because of this person the CTGP and USGP and all State GPs have been put on the ADL's "hate watch list" this is very serious. Don't believe me; CALL THE ADL in New Haven.This is similar to the Klan being put on Southern Poverty Law center watch. The ADL told me I had grounds for a legal suit against the CTGP on discrimination if my chapter kicked me out , they never did. This is the last time I am defending/repeating myself, GET IT!I am only trying to rid this Party of extremism, racism and anti semitism.FYI . In the last election I won numerically over Tim he won in Rank olny.It was very close. Why wait until next election . I will run then. I have the time a, interest and background now. Amy If you have any questions or would like to know more details about the ADL stuff or who the other Greens were feel free to call or email me. 860-456-8133 after !!/1 the phone is out till then Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:28:00 -0700 From: timmckee at sbcglobal.net Subject: RE: {news} proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT. To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Dear Greens, We do need to to fill THREE new national committee positions, not a third as mistakenly stated Vas Nunes. Her idea that she deserves a seat without a new election is outragous and against the democratci process we all should value!! We should we an open and fair election at a general fall convention with all the Greens able to ask questions and decide for themselves. We need leadership able to HEAL rifts and not foster past infightening. The idea that some one should want to get revenge against someone who she fought with, is something we all need to speak out against! We need bring who want to work to bring more and more people INTO the party,,not drive them out! Now is the time for all those quiet Greens to express thier feeling on who should be in our leaderhship on a natioanal level. i welcome your phone calls to me (as i am sure Charlie Pillsbury do too) on any questions or commnets u have. we are so close to bringing many great things to past on a a natioanl level!! Tim McKee _________________________________________________________________ Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Caf?. Stop by today. http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chapillsbury at igc.org Tue Oct 16 11:31:40 2007 From: chapillsbury at igc.org (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:31:40 -0400 Subject: {news} 3 proposed agenda items for 10-16-07 EC meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c81009$ac227ab0$04677010$@org> I think Amy raises several good points. I propose, therefore, that the EC put on the SCC agenda later this month two resolutions. First, nominate Amy, Cliff and Mike to fill the three CT vacancies on the GPUS NC. I suggest Amy, as she's currently our alternate delegate, and Cliff and Mike, as they're the two state co-chairs, who are not currently running for elected office. These would be interim appointments, and they would serve until they or their replacements are re-elected or elected, as the case may be, at our annual spring convention. The SCC has the power to do this, and one reason to do it now is my nomination of Cliff to serve on the NC's Steering Committee. I am concerned that he may not be eligible to serve unless he is also one of our official delegates to the NC. Second, re-appoint Justine McCabe as one of our delegates to the IC for another two year term. I think Justine has done an outstanding job on the IC and is currently one of its co-chairs. I think Amy has every right to disagree with Justine's political positions (which by the way represent the views of many Greens), but her continued personal attacks against Justine may open her to being censored again for conduct in violation of our state party by-laws. Finally, the New Haven chapter would like to see another matter put on the SCC agenda, as we were requested to do by the GPUS. We would like the SCC to begin, perhaps by naming an ad hoc committee, the process of determining how the CTGP will select delegates to the 2008 presidential nominating convention. One proposal, currently favored by New Haven Greens, is to allocate to each Congressional District one-fifth of the total number of delegates and then let Greens in those CDs decide who will represent them in Chicago next summer. Thanks, Charlie From: ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org [mailto:ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org] On Behalf Of Amy Vas Nunes Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 6:28 PM To: B Barry; ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Subject: RE: {news} proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT. Hi Barb. I feel we need to fill that third USGPrep position. Since I am already the alternate and it is months till our next election ,I would like a vote at the next SCC meeting for me to fill this position. If there were more than three seats we should also take nominations I am already on USGP list serve and unlike other GPUS reps manage to show up at every SCC meeting to report. Amy FYI For procedures info:I recently got the rules of IC committee from USGP they state reps need to be reappointed or changes EVERY TWO YEARS. Also reps can be removed from committee if inactive for 6 months. Although Ms Mc Cabe has participated at the USGP level she has been inactive in reporting and appearing at CTGP for over 3 years. Her recent Canada report was sent to us by Tim NOT DIRECTLY from Ms Mc Cabe. _____ From: roseberry3 at cox.net To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:04:53 -0400 Subject: {news} proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT. proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT. Luna's Pizza, 88 Hebron Avenue, Glastonbury, CT 06033, p: 860-659-2136 Time: 7:00PM to 8PM Set agenda for 10-30-07 SCC meeting which might include but not limited to: 1. CT Green Times newspaper status: Will another edition be available for the 10-30-07 SCC meeting for distribution? 2. Results of political actions by the GP of CT with the CT legislature; issues GP of CT wants to address in 2008. 3. ACLU lawsuit regarding the 2005 CT "campaign finance reform" law. 4. CTGP website. 5. Treasurer's report from Christopher Reilly. 6. Requests to be on GPUS committees. 7. Responses from chapters. 8. Any proposals? e.g. from Process and Procedure Committee members 9. Place of next EC meeting scheduled for 11-07. 10. Place for next SCC meeting 11-27-07 SCC meeting. 11. Any additions. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.10/1070 - Release Date: 10/14/2007 9:22 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chapillsbury at igc.org Tue Oct 16 11:39:27 2007 From: chapillsbury at igc.org (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:39:27 -0400 Subject: {news} VACANCY on the SC/CALL for NOMINATIONS In-Reply-To: References: <20071015230209.h1i6x6m8moo4gc4g@webmail.uiowa.edu> Message-ID: <003301c8100a$c452b090$4cf811b0$@org> The following is how best to follow the rules. I think Amy raises several good points. I propose, therefore, that the EC put on the SCC agenda later this month two resolutions. First, nominate Amy, Cliff and Mike to fill the three CT vacancies on the GPUS NC. I suggest Amy, as she's currently our alternate delegate, and Cliff and Mike, as they're the two state co-chairs, who are not currently running for elected office. These would be interim appointments, and they would serve until they or their replacements are re-elected or elected, as the case may be, at our annual spring convention. The SCC has the power to do this, and one reason to do it now is my nomination of Cliff to serve on the NC's Steering Committee. I am concerned that he may not be eligible to serve unless he is also one of our official delegates to the NC. Second, re-appoint Justine McCabe as one of our delegates to the IC for another two year term. I think Justine has done an outstanding job on the IC and is currently one of its co-chairs. I think Amy has every right to disagree with Justine's political positions (which by the way represent the views of many Greens), but her continued personal attacks against Justine may open her to being censored again for conduct in violation of our state party by-laws. Finally, the New Haven chapter would like to see another matter put on the SCC agenda, as we were requested to do by the GPUS. We would like the SCC to begin, perhaps by naming an ad hoc committee, the process of determining how the CTGP will select delegates to the 2008 presidential nominating convention. One proposal, currently favored by New Haven Greens, is to allocate to each Congressional District one-fifth of the total number of delegates and then let Greens in those CDs decide who will represent them in Chicago next summer. Thanks, Charlie From: Clifford Thornton [mailto:efficacy at msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 9:43 AM To: Jason Nabewaniec; Greg Gerritt; Charlie Pillsbury; Charlie Pillsbury Subject: Re: [usgp-nc] ANNOUNCEMENT of VACANCY on the SC/CALL for NOMINATIONS I want to follow the rules, how do I do that. Cliff Efficacy PO Box 1234 860 657 8438 Hartford, CT 06143 efficacy at msn.com www.Efficacy-online.org "THE DRUG WAR IS MEANT TO BE WAGED NOT WON" Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit 501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are tax deductible ----- Original Message ----- From: Jason Nabewaniec To: Greg Gerritt ; Holly Hart ; Charles Pillsbury Cc: clifford thornton ; secretary at gp.org ; ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 9:36 AM Subject: RE: [usgp-nc] ANNOUNCEMENT of VACANCY on the SC/CALL for NOMINATIONS Greg is correct. http://www.gp.org/documents/bylaws.shtml "ARTICLE IV. THE STEERING COMMITTEE The Steering Committee (SC) of the Green Party of the United States shall be composed of nine members: seven co-chairs, a Secretary, and a Treasurer. Co-chairs shall be selected from and elected by the National Committee (NC) of the Green Party of the United States for terms of two years, with a limit of two consecutive terms. The secretary and the treasurer shall be drawn from the membership of the affiliated state Green Parties and shall serve two year terms without term limits. " However, Kristen Olson was elected to the NC by the MN delegation at the meeting in Reading, PA to make her eligible to be elected. She was removed as a delegate shortly after being seated to the SC. Cliff would simply have to become and NC delegate before the election. Tamar Yager will also have to do this. I didn't post this to the list because that will stir up too many emails about being disrespectful to Kristen. -jason nabewaniec > Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 05:32:49 -0400 > From: gerritt at mindspring.com > To: hhart at blue.weeg.uiowa.edu; chapillsbury at gmail.com > CC: natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org; efficacy at msn.com; secretary at gp.org; ctgp-news at ml.greens.org > Subject: Re: [usgp-nc] ANNOUNCEMENT of VACANCY on the SC/CALL for NOMINATIONS > > My understanding is that in order to run for co chair one must be a > delegate. I was unaware that Cliff is a delegate. Can someone please > confirm his status and eligibility. Greg Gerritt gpri > > > on 10/16/07 12:02 AM, hhart at blue.weeg.uiowa.edu at hhart at blue.weeg.uiowa.edu > wrote: > >> Acknowledged. >> >> Holly Hart >> Secretary, GPUS >> >> >> Quoting Charlie Pillsbury : >> >>> Holly: I nominate Clifford Thornton, currently CTGP co-chair, and 2006 CTGP >>> candidate for Governor, to fill the vacancy on the SC. >>> >>> Charlie Pillsbury, CTGP >>> >>> On 10/15/07, Clifford Thornton wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes, I will do it. >>>> >>>> Cliff >>>> >>>> Efficacy >>>> PO Box 1234 >>>> Hartford, CT 06143 >>>> efficacy at msn.com >>>> www.Efficacy-online.org >>>> >>>> "THE DRUG WAR IS MEANT TO BE WAGED NOT WON" >>>> >>>> Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit >>>> 501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are tax >>>> deductible >>>> >>>> - >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: hhart at blue.weeg.uiowa.edu < hhart at blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> >>>> Date: Oct 8, 2007 2:34 PM >>>> Subject: [usgp-nc] ANNOUNCEMENT of VACANCY on the SC/CALL for NOMINATIONS >>>> To: natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org >>>> >>>> Delegates, >>>> >>>> On the Steering Committee call before last (9/23/07), it was noted >>>> that co-chair Kristen Olson has been absent from conference calls and >>>> unavailable for about two months, despite attempts by several SC >>>> members to contact her on SC business by email or telephone. Per the >>>> policy in Proposals nos. 222 (Policy on Steering Committee Elections) >>>> and 246 (Steering Committee P&P's), the SC agreed to send her notice >>>> that if the SC did not hear back from her by October 1, 2007, that >>>> would be taken as indication of her resignation from the SC. The >>>> message was emailed to her within 48 hours of the call and there were >>>> several more attempts to contact her by email and telephone. >>>> >>>> On last night's Steering Committee call (10/7/07, the SC agreed by >>>> consensus (with one absence, Liz Arnone having fallen off the call due >>>> to her phone's battery running out) to declare a co-chair vacancy on >>>> the SC. Per the GPUS bylaws, this triggers an online election to fill >>>> out the remainder of the term ending in the summer of 2009. >>>> >>>> From #222: >>>> ... >>>> E. FILLING A VACANCY: >>>> Any vacancy that occurs within one month of an election shall be >>>> filled by interim appointment by recounting the ballots from the >>>> election which elected that member, by an Election Tabulation >>>> Committee designated by the GNC experiencing the vacancy, in the >>>> manner specified herein, except that the vacating member's name shall >>>> be deleted from all ballots. Any candidate accruing sufficient votes >>>> to surpass the winning threshold in the recount that was not elected >>>> to office in the original count shall fill the vacancy. If such a >>>> recount fails to resolve a vacancy or if the vacancy occurs more than >>>> one month after the election, the Steering Committee may provide for a >>>> special election under these rules to fill the seat until the next >>>> regularly scheduled election for that position. >>>> >>>> >>>> The NOMINATION PERIOD WILL BE OPEN FOR 2 WEEKS, Monday OCTOBER 8 - >>>> Sunday OCTOBER 21. >>>> >>>> DISCUSSION WILL RUN 2 WEEKS, Monday OCTOBER 22 - Sunday NOVEMBER 4. >>>> >>>> VOTING PERIOD WILL RUN 1 WEEK, MONDAY NOVEMBER 5 - 11:59 p.m. PT, >>>> SUNDAY NOVEMBER 11. >>>> >>>> NOMINATIONS SHOULD BE SENT TO and may also be >>>> sent to this >>>> list. Self-nominations are allowed. >>>> >>>> >>>> The voting will be conducted using a ranked choice (IRV) vote with >>>> NOTA as an option. >>>> >>>> Holly Hart >>>> Secretary, GPUS >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Natlcomvotes mailing list >> To send a message to the list, write to: >> Natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org >> To unsubscribe or change your list options, go to: >> http://sixpairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomvotes >> >> If your state delegation changes, please see: >> http://gp.org/committees/nc/documents/delegate_change.html >> >> To report violations of listserv protocol, write to >> forummanagers at lists.gp-us.org >> >> For other information about the Coordinating Committee, see: >> http://gp.org/committees/nc/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Natlcomvotes mailing list > To send a message to the list, write to: > Natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org > To unsubscribe or change your list options, go to: > http://sixpairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomvotes > > If your state delegation changes, please see: > http://gp.org/committees/nc/documents/delegate_change.html > > To report violations of listserv protocol, write to forummanagers at lists.gp-us.org > > For other information about the Coordinating Committee, see: > http://gp.org/committees/nc/ _________________________________________________________________ Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM &loc=us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efficacy at msn.com Tue Oct 16 11:49:42 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:49:42 -0400 Subject: {news} Europe Wages Selective War On Drug Use--Connecticut OPED Message-ID: Europe Wages Selective War On Drug Use RICK STEVES Hartford Courant October 16, 2007 a.. b.. Rick is a damn good guy and I think one of the ways in c.. which we can give him his due is with a letter writing d.. campaign. Efficacy has been saying this for years http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-steves1016.artoct16,0,5960624.story Europe has a drug problem, and knows it. But the Europeans' approach to it is quite different from the American "war on drugs." I spend 120 days a year in Europe as a travel writer, so I decided to see for myself how it's working. I talked with locals, researched European drug policies and even visited a smoky marijuana "coffee shop" in Amsterdam. I got a close look at the alternative to a war on drugs. Europeans are well aware of the U.S. track record against illegal drug use. Since President Nixon first declared the war on drugs in 1971, the United States has locked up millions of its citizens and spent hundreds of billions of dollars (many claim that if incarceration costs are figured in, a trillion dollars) waging this "war." Despite these efforts, U.S. government figures show the overall rate of illicit drug use has remained about the same. By contrast, according to the 2007 U.N. World Drug Report, the percentage of Europeans who use illicit drugs is about half that of Americans. (Europe also has fewer than half as many deaths from overdoses.) How have they managed that - in Europe, no less, which shocks some American sensibilities with its underage drinking, marijuana tolerance and heroin-friendly "needle parks"? Recently, in Zurich, Switzerland, I walked into a public toilet that had only blue lights. Why? So junkies can't find their veins. A short walk away, I saw a heroin maintenance clinic that gives junkies counseling, clean needles and a safe alternative to shooting up in the streets. Need a syringe? Cigarette machines have been retooled to sell clean, government-subsidized syringes. While each European nation has its own drug laws and policies, they seem to share a pragmatic approach. They treat drug abuse not as a crime but as an illness. And they measure the effectiveness of their drug policy not in arrests but in harm reduction . Generally, Europeans employ a three-pronged strategy of police, educators and doctors. Police zero in on dealers - not users - to limit the supply of drugs. Users often get off with a warning and are directed to get treatment. Anti-drug education programs warn people (especially young people) of the dangers of drugs, but they get beyond the "zero tolerance" and "three strikes" rhetoric that may sound good to voters but rings hollow with addicts and at-risk teens. And finally, the medical community steps in to battle health problems associated with drug use (especially HIV and hepatitis C) and help addicts get back their lives. Contrast this approach with the American war on drugs. As during Prohibition in the 1930s, the United States spends its resources on police and prisons to lock up dealers and users alike. American drug education (such as the now-discredited DARE program) seemed like propaganda, and therefore its messengers lost credibility. Perhaps the biggest difference between European and American drug policy is how each deals with marijuana. When I visited the Amsterdam coffee shop that openly sells pot, I sat and observed: People were chatting; a female customer perused a fanciful array of "loaner" bongs. An older couple parked their bikes and dropped in for a baggie to go. An underage customer was shooed away. In the Netherlands, it's cheaper to get high than drunk, and drug-related crimes are rare. After 10 years of allowed recreational marijuana use, Dutch anti-drug abuse professionals agree that there has been no significant increase in pot smoking among young people and that overall cannabis use has increased only slightly. Meanwhile, in the United States, it's easier for a 15-year-old to buy marijuana than tobacco or alcohol - because no one gets carded when buying something on the street. The Netherlands' policies are the most liberal, but across Europe no one is locked away for discreetly smoking a joint. The priority is on reducing abuse of such hard drugs as heroin and cocaine. Meanwhile, according to FBI statistics, in recent years about 40 percent of the roughly 80,000 annual drug arrests were for marijuana - the majority (80 percent) for possession. In short, Europe is making sure that the cure isn't more costly than the problem. While the United States spends tax dollars on police, courts and prisons, Europe spends its taxes on doctors, counselors and clinics. EU policy-makers estimate that they save 15 euros in police and health costs for each euro invested in drug education and counseling. European leaders understand that a society has a choice: Tolerate alternative lifestyles or build more prisons. They've made their choice. Rick Steves writes European travel guidebooks and hosts travel shows on public television and radio. This first appeared in the Los Angeles Times Efficacy PO Box 1234 860 657 8438 Hartford, CT 06143 efficacy at msn.com www.Efficacy-online.org "THE DRUG WAR IS MEANT TO BE WAGED NOT WON" Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit 501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are tax deductible -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 817-grey.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: From amyvasnunes at hotmail.com Tue Oct 16 14:50:49 2007 From: amyvasnunes at hotmail.com (Amy Vas Nunes) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:50:49 -0400 Subject: {news} proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT. Message-ID: Its not about Israel or Lieberman. Its about things said privately and publicly such as "Rich NY Jews" using terms Jew/Zionist/ Israeli interchangeably and DISTINCT attitude change in language / tone and content when Justine "discovered" people were Jewish.These complaints were by many people . Say what you want about the ADL but this WAS years ago and we have no other place to go. Amy I too abhore Lieberman but its not OK to be antsemtic about him. If an African American pins something as racist I say yes seen thru their eyes even if I don't see its the same with antisemitism. YOU don't see it or feel it but a NUMBER of Jews and non Jews did. As for Al Awada I was on the list serve and violent things were said. Amy From: kumfry at hotmail.comTo: amyvasnunes at hotmail.com; timmckee at sbcglobal.net; ctgp-news at ml.greens.orgSubject: RE: {news} proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT.Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:07:18 +0000 Amy is not being factual when it comes to ADL. Perhaps before recent times when the Israel lobby became so powerful in stifling criticism of Israeli occupation policies in its abuse of the Palestinians, ADL did function more as the NAACP did. Not today. I know for a fact that ADL acts as a reactive arm of AIPAC and the Jewish lobby. There have been two situations I've observed personally, both in the Willimantic Chronicle. First, William Collins contributes a weekly column on Saturdays. He's a very solid commentator on many varied topics from a progressive point of view. When he wrote a commentary which contained a small portion critical of Israel, the 'Watchdog" aspect of the Jewish lobby pounced, and Wm. Collins did not appear for some time. I finally wrote to the Chronicle editor noting I missed Collins, a commentator who knows Ct. thoroughly, and further beyond our state. And Collins' commentaries again began to appear regularly in the Chronicle. Even more blatant and strident a reaction of the Jewish lobby appeared some time after Jimmy Carter's book about the Israeli/Palestinian issue came out. It was about the time that Carter was welcomed to give a talk at Brandeis University. (Carter's book is in the Willimantic and Mansfield libraries and I read the book). This time it was absolutely the ADL Watchdog reaction to criticism of Israel. A Jewish university prof, I can't recall the university, contributed a lengthy strident and abrasive attack on JImmy Carter and his audacity evenly moderately and evenly to brave the American/Jewish lobby and criticize Israeli policies toward the Palesinians. This was a clearcut case where the state ADL fulfilled the function of reacting to an unfavorable critique of the rightwing Israeli government. Neither Jimmy Carter nor the earlier Wm. Collins reference to Israel remotely smacked of anti-semitism, a term that Amy freely uses. (I had never even known Amy was Jewish until i was critical of Joe Lieberman perhaps three years ago or so, at a Green chapter meeting in Willimantic. At the time she didn't have much to say about the Palestine matter ). Just as Amy could benefit from proofreading her spellings and overall posting, she also needs to inform herself on topics such as the rightwing Israeli government's Middle East policies before tossing out the term anti-semitism. Being critical of Israel is NOT anti-semitism. A heck of a lot of Jews I'm acquainted with are very critical of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians and Lebanon last summer. Of course they brave the Jewish lobby when they do this since they are castigated as self-haters, and worse. Steve Heller is a Ct. Jew down New Haven way who's written critically of Israel and its treatment of Palestinians for years. A year ago Heller introduced Seth Farber who talked about his recent book 'Radicals, Rabbis and Peacemakers-Conversations With Jewish Critics of Israel' in Mansfield Center. This was at the annual chapter meeting and special speaker program of the ACLU. I am well aware that the Palestinian matter and criticism of Israel can be a very touchy subject in the Green Party. BUT, Amy will not leave the matter alone. I can't stand by and let her keep up the drumbeat of claiming anti-semitism when it comes to the beleaguered Palestinians who have been reduced to bantu status very similar to the blacks in apartheid South Africa which finally ended. The bottom line with Israeli policies is that many Jews as well as non-Jewish friends of Israel strongly feel that the intransigence and belligerency of Israel in the Middle East not only threatens to inflame the entire region, but further, threatens the very security and survival of Israel. Americans have a strong interest since we are entwined with Israel and its policies. . If this is deemed to be posted on the wrong Green list group, I replied to whereever Amy posted it. Serious misrepresentation of facts need the serious inaccuracies to be corrected. Ken Humphrey From: amyvasnunes at hotmail.comTo: timmckee at sbcglobal.net; ctgp-news at ml.greens.orgSubject: RE: {news} proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT.Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:00:33 -0400CC: OK I'll bring it up again because the bait/hate and attacks on me go on forever years after the "Star Chamber Witch Trial".I want no"revenge" I only want a dependable, REPORTING, ACCOUNTABLE Party. Don't forget those that think I have a "personal' thing forget that Ms McCabe was reported by me and two other former New Haven Greens{who were active leaders and left because of this} to the ADL where she and Al Awada were/are known names with previous complaints. The ADL is similar to the NAACP for Jewish people.Things were done and said to me and MANY besides the other two, in private and public that were intolerable. Because of this person the CTGP and USGP and all State GPs have been put on the ADL's "hate watch list" this is very serious. Don't believe me; CALL THE ADL in New Haven.This is similar to the Klan being put on Southern Poverty Law center watch. The ADL told me I had grounds for a legal suit against the CTGP on discrimination if my chapter kicked me out , they never did. This is the last time I am defending/repeating myself, GET IT!I am only trying to rid this Party of extremism, racism and anti semitism.FYI . In the last election I won numerically over Tim he won in Rank olny.It was very close. Why wait until next election . I will run then. I have the time a, interest and background now. Amy If you have any questions or would like to know more details about the ADL stuff or who the other Greens were feel free to call or email me. 860-456-8133 after !!/1 the phone is out till then Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:28:00 -0700From: timmckee at sbcglobal.netSubject: RE: {news} proposed agenda for 10-16-07 EC meeting of CTGP in Glastonbury, CT.To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Dear Greens, We do need to to fill THREE new national committee positions, not a third as mistakenly stated Vas Nunes. Her idea that she deserves a seat without a new election is outragous and against the democratci process we all should value!! We should we an open and fair election at a general fall convention with all the Greens able to ask questions and decide for themselves. We need leadership able to HEAL rifts and not foster past infightening. The idea that some one should want to get revenge against someone who she fought with, is something we all need to speak out against! We need bring who want to work to bring more and more people INTO the party,,not drive them out! Now is the time for all those quiet Greens to express thier feeling on who should be in our leaderhship on a natioanal level. i welcome your phone calls to me (as i am sure Charlie Pillsbury do too) on any questions or commnets u have. we are so close to bringing many great things to past on a a natioanl level!! Tim McKee Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Caf?. Stop by today! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efficacy at msn.com Wed Oct 17 07:44:34 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:44:34 -0400 Subject: {news} Crack Users Do More Time Than People Convicted of Manslaughter Message-ID: http://www.alternet.org/rights/65406/ Crack Users Do More Time Than People Convicted of Manslaughter By Jessica Pupovac, AlterNet. Posted October 17, 2007. When crack cocaine possession means 24 years in prison and manslaughter means only 3, you know something is seriously wrong with the U.S. criminal justice system. The death of Alva Mae Groves on Aug. 9 of this year went largely unnoticed outside of her family and fellow inmates at the Tallahassee Federal Corrections Institution, where she lived out the last 13 years of her life. She never went to high school, lived her entire life dirt-poor and raised her nine children for the most part without the help of her abusive husband. In 1994 Alva Mae "Granny" Groves was locked up for conspiring to trade crack cocaine for food stamps. It was largely her son, whose trailer home she lived in, who ran an operation that her family and neighbors contested, but some customers testified that Alva Mae would sell them small bags when he wasn't around. "The only money I received came from SSI (Supplementary Security Income) and what money I could earn selling eggs from my laying hens (I had about 100 chickens)," Alva Mae wrote shortly before her death in a letter asking for a pardon so that she could die near her family. "I also cleaned houses when I was able, and sold candy bars and soft drinks to the kids coming from school in the afternoons." Because she refused to testify against her son, and because of the money she had saved in the bank, which was weighed against her for its value in crack, and most of all because of the current sentencing system for crack cocaine offenders, Groves was condemned to 24 years in jail at the age of 72. In 1986, Congress passed a law that established an unprecedented five-year mandatory minimum sentence for anyone found in possession of two sugar packets worth of crack, regardless of whether or not that person had a criminal record. Beyond the minimum, additional "sentencing guidelines" tack on extra months or even years for obstruction of justice (which, in some cases, means refusing to admit guilt), whether or not there was a weapon on the premises and prior convictions. Crack cocaine is treated more harshly than any other drug on the streets right now, mostly because of the "tough on crime" response that was en vogue at the time of its introduction. Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, a D.C.-based advocacy group that works for fairness in sentencing, explained that Congress attributed the sentencing tiers at the time to a desire to "protect the black community." Ron Hampton, a retired D.C. police officer and executive director of the National Black Police Association, takes issue with that rationale. "It's hard for me to believe that you are going to have legislation that severely cripples and victimizes members of our community in order to do something good for us," he said. Nonetheless, 20 years later, the sentencing structure still stands, and it is precisely the black community that is suffering the most. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC), a division of the judicial branch that monitors and advises Congress on sentencing policy, in 2006, more than four-fifths of crack cocaine offenders in federal courts were black. The 1986 drug laws have had a devastating effect on the U.S. criminal justice system. Drug offenders in prisons and jails have increased 1100 percent since 1980, from 41,000 people to nearly 500,000. Nearly 6 out of 10 people in state prison for a drug offense have no history of violence or high-level drug-selling activity but are often receiving harsher sentences than people who do. People caught with the drug in 2004, the last year for which data is available, served an average of ten years in federal penitentiaries, while the average convict served 2.9 years for manslaughter, 3.1 years for assault and 5.4 years for sexual abuse. Many legislators, police officers and even federal judges have been vocal critics of the sentences being handed to crack cocaine offenders. In 2002, Roger Williams University Law Professor David Zlotnick conducted a series of interviews with Republican-appointed federal judges to survey their views of various sentencing tiers. He found the majority of them saw crack cocaine sentencing as "completely unacceptable," "a grave injustice" and a "discrepancy that has no basis in fact." However, says Monica Pratt, spokesperson for Families Against Mandatory Minimums, "Because crack cocaine mandatory minimums have applied mostly to people of color and poor people, there has been a lack of political will to do something about it." Until now. The massive mobilizations in Jena, La., last month shined a much-needed spotlight on continuing disparity in the U.S. justice system. With a Supreme Court case addressing the issue starting on Oct. 2, a promising reform bill currently in the Senate and proposed USSC amendments just weeks away from taking effect (pending congressional opposition), a confluence of forces just might create the perfect storm that advocates for sentencing reform have been hoping for. Said Mauer, "We have more momentum now than we have seen at any time since the laws were passed in 1986." The main rallying point for many critics is the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine, two drugs that are pharmacologically identical. The main difference, they contend, is who does them and in what neighborhoods. A drug abuser whose drug of choice is powder cocaine would have to be found with more than two cups of it (500 grams) before receiving the same sentence as a person caught with two sugar packets worth (5 grams) of crack. All along the sentencing tier, 100 times more powder cocaine is required to trigger the same mandatory minimum penalty as crack. It is a system referred to as the "100-to-1" drug quantity ratio. Since crack is made by cooking powder cocaine with baking soda or another base when it reaches the street retail level, the 100-to-1 ratio has served to exact harsher punishments on low-level dealers than the kingpins supplying the raw material. According to USSC data, low-level crack sellers are punished 300 times more severely than high-level, international cocaine traffickers on an imprisonment-per-gram basis. There are two different types of sentences given to drug offenders: the mandatory minimums established by Congress and the sentencing guidelines tacked onto those minimums by federal prosecutors and accepted or denied by federal judges. "The congressional wheel in many ways is the most important right now, because without congressional action, the mandatory sentences are still going to stand, whether the USSC changes the guidelines or the Supreme Court changes the way the judges administer them," says Pratt. There are three bills currently introduced in Congress that attempt to address the 100:1 disparity, but only one that would eliminate it. The Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007 ( S.1711), introduced by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., would bring the penalties for possessing crack cocaine in line with those for cocaine in its powder form. It offers, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, a "long-awaited fix to discriminatory federal drug sentencing" that will take place only with increased pressure. The sentencing guidelines are also slated to change, unless Congress moves to block them. The USSC sets the guidelines, barring congressional objections, and has proposed amendments to crack penalties in the past, which have been shot down. They forged ahead this year, however, bringing crack cocaine guidelines in line with powder guidelines in a list of amendments introduced last spring. They will go into effect on Nov. 1 unless somebody notices and tries to stop them. If implemented, the commission predicts the change would shorten 69.7 percent of incoming crack cocaine sentences, resulting in an average reduction of nearly 13 months. In a highly unusual move, the USSC is also considering making the amendments retroactive and are seeking public comment on the issue. FAMM has been mobilizing its base, consisting predominantly of people incarcerated on drug charges and their families, to get involved in the political process and voice their opinions. "The public information officer for the USSC told our president, Mary Price, that they have received 10,000 letters on this issue already," Pratt said. The USSC predicts that retroactivity would reduce the sentences of approximately 19,500 current inmates. Then there is Kimbrough v. United States, a crack-related case that just got under way in the Supreme Court. The case challenges a judge's discretion in sentencing a crack cocaine convict below federal sentencing guidelines and centers around the sentencing hearing for Derrick Kimbrough, a Desert Storm veteran in Norfolk, Va., who pled guilty in 2005 to possession with intent to distribute 56 grams of crack. Although he had no previous felony convictions, his mandatory minimum and federal sentencing formula recommended he be sentenced to 19 to 22 years. However, Federal District Judge Raymond A. Jackson called the guideline "ridiculous" and instead handed Kimbrough a 15-year sentence, a move that an appeals court later challenged his authority to make. However, according to retired D.C. Officer Hampton, the crack problem that plagues many low-income communities across America won't go anywhere without a more "holistic" approach that considers responses that are more than punitive. "If they wanted to help, one of the best things they could do is treat people who use crack cocaine much like they do for powder cocaine," Hampton suggested. "They need to look it as a disease. That's another problem embedded in the disparity, not just the sentences, but the amount of treatment that is available to them." Indeed, a "significant number" of dealers are also addicts, who might not find themselves in the courthouse without their addictions, according to Zlotnick's research. "But more than that," says Howard, "we need to develop some strategy that focuses on the systemic issues that cause people to look for it in the first place. I think a lot of the problem is the despair in our community, because of lack of housing, lack of jobs, a poor educational system -- they all have a lot to do with why people do it. If we were to address those problems in our society, we'd probably see a lot less people doing crack." But, for the meantime, he says, the laws are as good a place as any to start. Efficacy PO Box 1234 860 657 8438 Hartford, CT 06143 efficacy at msn.com www.Efficacy-online.org "THE DRUG WAR IS MEANT TO BE WAGED NOT WON" Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit 501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are tax deductible -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 743846B0/ Type: application/octet-stream Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: From efficacy at msn.com Wed Oct 17 10:18:08 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:18:08 -0400 Subject: {news} NL Green Party Maps Out Strategy Message-ID: http://www.theday.com/re_print.aspx?re=405f9650-5a15-4182-b8f5-43275d4f2380 close window NL Green Party Maps Out Strategy NL Green Party Maps Out Strategy By Elaine Stoll Published on 10/17/2007 in Home ?Region ?Region News New London - Candidates from the New London Green Party envision a New London with greater citizen inclusion in the democratic process, development projects that sustain the city's center as well as the environment, and an overhauled tax system and educational philosophy. "Our vision is New London for the 21st century," said City Council candidate Art Costa. Costa, who is running for a council seat along with Kenric Hanson, and Board of Education candidates Ronna Stuller and Davana Grabel, outlined the party's platform Tuesday at New London Green Party headquarters on State Street. To increase citizen participation and ensure that the city is responsive to the needs of all its residents, Costa and Hanson propose a series of charter changes. Members of the City Council, they said, should be elected by district rather than as at-large representatives of the entire city. "While I'm sure city councilors have a certain affinity for the whole city, there's no doubt that where they live is what they know best," Costa said. And where they live, he added, is usually the wealthier part of town. A change to district representation would give all residents a voice, the two council candidates said. Hanson and Costa called for an elected rather than an appointed Board of Finance and Planning and Zoning Commission. Also, the annual budget process needs to be opened to greater citizen participation, Costa and Hanson said. The process should begin, they said, with a neighborhood-by-neighborhood prioritization of community projects - ranging from work on roads and parks to traffic and crime initiatives - by the residents who live there. The projects would then be incorporated into the city budget, they said. Candidates called for higher-density development, an approach they said could help the city's economy and the environment. "If you want to support public transit and people being able to walk to work, you do need a certain critical mass at your city center," Stuller said. And more people living downtown would help sustain new and existing local businesses, candidates said. Remaining vacant space downtown should be developed into dense dwellings, and existing, empty buildings downtown should be refurbished into apartments, Costa said. This would attract those who live in the suburbs back to the city, providing the population necessary to help local businesses thrive and to make future services such as a shuttle system to move people around the city possible, he and Hanson said. New development undertaken in the city should be green, attaining the highest level of compliance with the Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) rating system, candidates said. The council candidates also called for an overhauled tax code, one they said would reduce the tax burden on most city residents. A phased change from the existing system to one that taxes land but not improvements - a land-value tax - would stop punishing property owners for maintaining or improving their homes, Costa and Hanson said. It would also diminish land speculation, they said, and would encourage the owners of vacant properties to develop them or sell them to someone who would, bringing new business to the city. They pointed to the adoption of a form of land-value tax by many Pennsylvania cities as evidence of its success and enthusiasm for the system by leaders in Hartford, Bridgeport and New Haven as a potential for collaboration in this state. The change would require enabling legislation from the General Assembly, they said. Grabel and Stuller called for a rethinking of the city's school system. "I think our New London school system needs almost a complete overhaul. It's failing too many of our students now," Grabel said. To improve its schools, the city must take advantage of resources it isn't tapping, Grabel said: local artists and community leaders with whom students could work in internships, mentorships or summer programs. The school board ought to expand the use of a project-base curriculum, like the one at the Science and Technology Magnet High School, to other city schools, Grabel said. She called for the green construction of new schools: buildings that foster a sense of community rather than closed-in classrooms that send a message that only what happens during the current hour is important, and opportunities - such as gardens - for students to develop a sense of environmental stewardship. Stuller, a preschool teacher, added that the city needs to find a way to reach out to families with kids from childbirth on so that students do not fall behind at an early age but are exposed to books and reading, and are prepared for the classroom. Family involvement is key, she said. As the city evaluates a proposal to turn New London into a magnet-school district under state legislation that would give the city more money for school construction, New London needs to be careful, Stuller said. "I think it's great to have students interacting who are not all from New London," she said. But the city needs to "read the fine print" and make sure the plan makes fiscal sense before proceeding, she said. "I don't want a situation where New London is subsidizing the suburbs." www.nlgreens.org New London Efficacy PO Box 1234 860 657 8438 Hartford, CT 06143 efficacy at msn.com www.Efficacy-online.org "THE DRUG WAR IS MEANT TO BE WAGED NOT WON" Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit 501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are tax deductible -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: daynameplate.gif Type: image/gif Size: 5344 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dbedellgreen at hotmail.com Thu Oct 18 01:30:23 2007 From: dbedellgreen at hotmail.com (David Bedell) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:30:23 -0400 Subject: {news} Run, Granny, Run on HBO 10/18 Message-ID: If you have access to HBO, tonight (Oct 18) at 9:00 is the premiere of "Run, Granny, Run," a documentary about Doris "Granny D" Haddock, who ran for US Senate in New Hampshire at the age of 94, a few years after having walked across country to raise awareness about the need for campaign finance reform. Here's the blurb from the film's website http://www.grannyd.com: Doris "Granny D" Haddock is the nation's oldest political newcomer. A former housewife and office assistant, Doris was happily retired for over twenty years-but when her husband died, she needed a reason to live. So at the age of 90, she laced up her sneakers and walked across America to rally against the influence of big money in elections. Her epic journey galvanized popular attention to a political system gone awry, but for Doris the walk was a warm up. Now 94 and still fed up with politics as usual, she jumps at an unexpected chance to run for U.S. Senate against incumbent Judd Gregg (an intellectual sparring partner of George W. Bush). With just four months until Election Day, this great-grandmother of sixteen faces a series of challenges that would be daunting for a candidate of any age. Doris and her motley crew of political aces and amateurs work against all odds and craft a feisty campaign that personifies her democratic ideals of a government of, by and for the people. A tale of doggedness versus dollars, grit against greenbacks, RUN GRANNY RUN is an unlikely portrait of a remarkable activist and an exploration of our fragile democracy in the corporate age. From efficacy at msn.com Fri Oct 19 05:15:51 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 05:15:51 -0400 Subject: {news} Tue, 10/23/2007 - The Drug War is Meant to be Waged Not Won--Cliff Thornton Message-ID: ``````````` http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/lunchLectures.htm Capital Community College 950 Main Street, Hartford CT 06103 Tel: (860) 906-5000 or (800) 894-6126 Lunchtime Lecture Series Unless otherwise indicated in the schedule below, all events: a.. are open to faculty, staff, students, and guests b.. are held in the Community Room on the 2nd floor c.. begin at 12:00 noon and end at (or before) 1:00 Reservations are not required. Please bring your own food and drinks. If you would like to present a topic you think will be of interest to the campus community, please contact Derek Maxfield at 906-5047. Thanks! Schedule of Events Tue, 10/16/2007 - By The Rivers of Babylon The author will read from her newest book. Cindy Brown Austin Tue, 10/23/2007 - The Drug War is Meant to be Waged Not Won The inner cities have been in a war for over thirty years. We have spent over a trillion dollars and yet there are more illegal drugs on our streets than ever before. This, I and many others feel is the most important problem we will face in our lives. Cliff Thornton, Efficacy Efficacy PO Box 1234 860 657 8438 Hartford, CT 06143 efficacy at msn.com www.Efficacy-online.org "THE DRUG WAR IS MEANT TO BE WAGED NOT WON" Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit 501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are tax deductible -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From timmckee at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 19 15:57:41 2007 From: timmckee at sbcglobal.net (Tim McKee) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:57:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} GP RELEASE Green Party appeals to Canada on detained US peace activist Message-ID: <488248.45535.qm@web82711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES http://www.gp.org For Immediate Release: Friday, October 19, 2007 Contacts: Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, mclarty at greens.org Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene at gp.org Green Party urges Canada to drop border-crossing charges against US peace activist Alison Bodine WASHINGTON, DC -- The Green Party of the United States has urged the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) to drop all charges against US citizen Alison Bodine, who was arrested on September 13 for attempting to cross the US-Canada border while carrying antiwar (including Green Party) literature. Ms. Bodine was charged with "misrepresentation" and faces a possible two-year ban from Canada. The adjudicator in the case will announce a final decision on October 31. The Green Party's national Steering Committee sent a letter to the CBSA on October 16. The text of the letter is appended below. Green leaders called Alison Bodine's treatment part of an extremely disturbing pattern of politically motivated detention and obstruction at border crossings targeting those who have spoken out peacefully against the Iraq War. On October 3, CODEPINK and Global Exchange cofounder Medea Benjamin and retired Colonel and diplomat Ann Wright, on their way to a peace conference in Toronto, were denied entry into Canada . For updates on the case, including public rallies and news from the Alison Bodine Defense Committee, visit . Date: October 16, 2007 To: Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) From: Green Party of the United States We are writing to express our concern about the detainment of US citizen Alison Bodine. Ms. Bodine is a peace activist who has worked with a number of North American peace organizations, including the Vancouver Mobilization Against War and Occupation, the University of British Columbia's Coalition Against War on the People of Iraq and Internationally and the University of British Columbia Social Justice Center. Ms. Bodine was unjustly arrested at the U.S.-Canadian border on Thursday, September 13, 2007, by the Canada Border Services Agency and detained by the RCMP when anti-war and Green Party literature was found among her belongings during a border search. She is being charged with "Misrepresentation." The admissibility hearing resulted in weak evidence from the prosecution; however, the final decision will not be known until October 31, 2007. It is our understanding that she has not done anything illegal and has crossed the border many times without incident. We believe that this is a politically motivated case against Alison Bodine. We urge that the Canada Border Services Agency drop any and all charges against Alison Bodine, return to her any and all items seized by the CBSA, and reinstate her right to freely travel between the US and Canada. Sincerely, Steering Committee of the Green Party of the United States Liz Arnone Jim Coplen BUdd Dickinson Jody Grage Holly Hart Phil Huckelberry Jason Nabewaniec Sarah "echo" Steiner MORE INFORMATION Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org 202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN Fax 202-319-7193 ? Green Party News Center http://www.gp.org/newscenter.shtml ? Green Party Speakers Bureau http://www.gp.org/speakers ? 2007 national Green Party meeting in Reading, Pa.: video footage, blog and media coverage http://www.gp.org/meeting2007/ Green Party Peace Action Committee (GPAX) http://www.gp.org/committees/peace GPAX Blog http://gpax.wordpress.com International Committee of the Green Party http://www.gp.org/committees/intl/ ~ END ~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From timmckee at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 19 17:00:22 2007 From: timmckee at sbcglobal.net (Tim McKee) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:00:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} NEXT TOLLLAND-MANCHESTER GREENS MEETING Message-ID: <63600.34525.qm@web82709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Greens, The next meeting of the Tolland County Greens (including Manchester and other nearby areas) will be Tuesday, November 13 at 7 pm at the Rockville Senior Center, Downtown Rockville Park Place. The meeting will be in the downstairs meeting room. Open to any local, state or national issues to discusss. The upcoming 2008 election will be discussed as well. Any questions please call Tim McKee at 860-643-2282 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Fri Oct 19 22:21:30 2007 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:21:30 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT EGP Resolution in support of US Greens Message-ID: <019201c812bf$edc6c760$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> ----- Original Message ----- From: Justine McCabe To: USGP International Committee Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 8:46 PM Subject: USGP-INT EGP Resolution in support of US Greens Dear all, Last summer, Juan Behrend, Secretary General of the European Green Party attended our annual meeting in Reading, PA. Like many European Greens, he had been somewhat skeptical about our claims that the 2004 election was fraudulent. However, in Reading he was able to learn in greater detail just how our stolen 2004 election was stolen, as well as how difficult it is for Greens/independents to compete in our duopolistic system (e.g., campaigns of Carl Romanelli and Ralph Nader). Juan told me in Vienna that as a result of his experience in Reading, he returned to Europe hoping to find a way to support us. Subsequently he spoke to Irish Greens Tommy Simpson and Lucille Ryan-Sullivan who were more aware of our situation. As a result, Lucille, an American-born delegate to the Council from the Irish Green Party, submitted the following resolution to the EGP Council which was passed without dissent in Vienna. It was a great experience to be there to personally thank the European Greens for this lovely gesture in support of our party. And it underscores the benefit of ongoing contact between our party and our international green brothers and sisters. Best regards, Justine ========================================================= European Green Party 7th Council Meeting Vienna, 12-14th October, 2007 DRAFT NORMAL RESOLUTION The US Absentee Ballot for the US Greens Tabled by Comhaontas Glass [Irish Green Party] In addition to the 2009 European Election Campaign, there is another election campaign which is already underway.by one of the super powers on this planet -- the United States. The Green Parties in the US are in need of whatever support the European Greens can provide. They are faced, in some states, with Eastern European-like hurdles in order to register, in order to meet the criteria which are imposed on neither of its two party system parties, or which could easily be handled financially by the wealth backing those two major parties. This motion is not proposed to give them money. This motion asks that we galvanize US absentee voters to vote Green, who live in all of our EGP Member Parties countries. This motion has three foci: To determine the number and location of these eligible voters; to develop a cohesive Green message; to deliver this message to those American citizens residing in Europe, their Green options in an DL or A4 leaflet, which can be funded by the member parties, with cooperation where there is need by the smaller member parties. The Greens of Comhaontas Glas marshalled the Italian Diaspora vote for Arnold Cassola in his successful bid for the Italian Parliament. We can do it elsewhere, and aid the Greens in the United States. Resolved: That a group representative of all the EGP Member Parties investigate the means whereby the foci listed above can be accomplished; that they present the information to the EGP Council Meeting in Spring 2008; that the Council, based on the information submitted, support such action with minimal, if any, funds detracted from our own campaign goals. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ usgp-int mailing list usgp-int at gp-us.org http://forum.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-int -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.1/1079 - Release Date: 10/19/2007 5:10 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chapillsbury at igc.org Sat Oct 20 15:01:23 2007 From: chapillsbury at igc.org (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:01:23 -0400 Subject: {news} Cliff's nomination to GPUS endorsed Message-ID: <000901c8134b$9cbebd00$d63c3700$@org> FYI ----- Original Message ----- From: Diane F White To: GPBC ; gpusdiversity at yahoogroups.com ; natlcomvotes ; d-racism at lists.riseup.net ; Green Party of PA Discussion ; InAktivate Racism Project-PA Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 1:49 PM Subject: [GPBC] A Call to Action: Greetings, Finally we have an opportunity to take action to truly advance the call for diversity and social justice in the Green Party of the United States. Clifford Thornton has successfully overcome all obstacles and challenges to his nomination for the vacant position on the Steering Committee. Not only is Clifford the voice of reason and the epitome of the knowledge, skills and abilities needed to move this party forward, he is a true diplomat and a true Green. He is a active and respected member of the Green Party Black Caucus and the Co-Chair of the Green Party of Connecticut. He has demonstrated his ability to transcend the color line and he is ready willing and able to confront the issues of inequality as they relate to this party and society as a whole. We need someone like Cliff to navigate the rough political waters and to lead us on the path to healing. There is one vacant position and there is only one choice for diversity, that choice is Clifford Thornton. Nothing changes if nothing changes. It's time to make a change. "Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words", Vote. Clearly Clifford Thornton is the #1 choice. The National Committee will have a two week discussion period before the voting begins at 11:59 pm on November 5th. For those of us and our allies, who have been marginalized and excluded for years the time has finally come. Join me as I cast my vote for Clifford Thornton on November 6, one minute after the voting begins and 6 hours before I go to the polls as Judge of Elections in Harrisburg, PA. For those who are not members of the National Committee, encourage your delegates to do the same before they go out to work the polls and vote for our Green Party candidates. Peace, Blessings & One Love, Diane F White, GPPA 1st Choice for GPUS Steering Committee MORE VOICES, MORE CHOICES http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSpEvMN52SY Clifford Thornton of the Green Party of Connecticut has accepted the nomination for the Green Party Steering Committee vacancy. Clifford is a former Green Party candidate for Governor of Connecticut and an active member of the Green Party Black Caucus. Clifford is the founder of Efficacy, a non-profit organization that has been concentrating efforts on drug policy reform. Prior to working full-time in drug policy, Mr. Thornton was a middle-level manager with Southern New England Telephone Company in Connecticut. He was in charge of the delivery of all internal telecommunications to the corporation, serving some 10,000 employees with a $50,000,000 annual budget, supervising 23 people. He worked at SNET for 25 years. He was (and is) very active in community projects as well. He served as Vice President of the Greater Hartford Festival of Jazz for three years. This three-day event attracted approximately 75,000 people every year with a mere $50,000 budget. He also served as Parliamentarian of the Greater Hartford African American Alliance and was president of Jazz Radio New England. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: meet_cliff-image.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 43141 bytes Desc: not available URL: From efficacy at msn.com Sun Oct 21 14:16:10 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 14:16:10 -0400 Subject: {news} Commentary and Letters--Nader and McKinney Message-ID: Commentary from David Eliscu and Cliff Thornton I met Cynthia here in CT. In my mind, the fact that she would even consider running as a Green is a MAJOR MAJOR breakthrough for the Party. According to Cliff, some people have a problem with this. I don't know why-- maybe because of traditional allegiance to Nader. I think this is a brilliant idea on Cliff's part-- to have a "friendly" primary. We owe Nader a tremendous debt. He has taken so much shit (forgive my French) from the Dems on being a spoiler (which I think is a Cointel creation to deflect from the true issue- voter fraud by disenfranchisement), and no acknowledgment of the incredible contributions he has made to our country. Yet, McKinney represents everything that we need in the Party, not only as an African-American and as a woman, but as someone history will remember who stood up to the Bush junta before anyone else. (If you haven't seen "American Blackout," you must do so, especially to see Cynthia make Rumsfield squirm.) She is a true hero. Her candidacy takes head on the issue of disenfranchised voters and the using of the voting system to sabotage her campaigns. If we don't suport someone of her courage and honesty, what are we here for? The big issue here will be (once again) the Zionist lobby who resent her insistence on the rights of the Palestinians. This faction of Jews , AIPAC, is the one who mobilized to see her defeated in Georgia. We have plenty of these in the GP, and, until we get around them, we will never move forward. So in addition to "disloyalty" (to Nader), I'm sure we'll also face the mantra of "anti-Semitism," both of which we need to anticipate and face head-on. Anyway, that's my take. What do you think? We'd appreciate it very much if you would circulate the two letters (below) wide and far. That would give them a notion of our intent, which is, on the one hand, to support the campaigns for nomination of both Cynthia and Nader (should he decide to go for it); and on the other to smooth the way for a sturdy but non-acrimonious competition between the two of them for the nomination. What this also assures is a fully unified campaign for the presidency following the Chicago nominating convention. As we see it, it is a win-win situation. Dear Ralph, We are heartened and delighted that you are considering a run for the Green Party nomination for President. We note with excitement that you have allowed your name to be placed on the primary ballot in California. We feel that you would be an outstanding candidate and would help the Green Party to grow swiftly. We note with excitement your determination, if you run and are the candidate, to cross the 5% vote threshold in November 2008. We are fully aware that Cynthia McKinney intends to run for the Green Party's nomination at our Chicago presidential nominating convention next July. In thinking about this, we believe that having both of you in the race constitutes a rare opportunity. Instead of seeing this as a zero sum game in which there are winners and losers, we see this as a win- win prospect. In that light, we ask you to consider having a conversation with Cynthia in which you propose that if either of you comes in first for president, that person will choose the other for vice president. In this way, we can have a vigorous competition leading to the convention in Chicago but without the acrimony that so often plagues a party when two outstanding candidates are vying for the same office. In this way, as well, you and Cynthia can together move into a powerful campaign after the convention with a fully unified party and fully galvanized party filled with strong enthusiasm. Getting and indeed surpassing the 5% threshold and more will be in the works. The campaign will bring hope to millions that a better world is possible - and that they can have a hand in making it happen. Thank you for giving this your earnest consideration and thank you again for coming forward to consider running for President under the Green Party banner. Sincerely yours, Cliff Thornton and John Rensenbrink [And a rapidly growing number of Greens throughout the country]. ______________________________________________________ Dear Cynthia, We are heartened and delighted by your decision to seek the Green Party nomination for President. We feel that you would be an outstanding candidate and would help the Green Party to grow swiftly. We note with excitement your determination to cross the 5% vote threshold in November 2008. We are fully aware that Ralph Nader is considering a run for the Green Party's nomination at our Chicago presidential nominating convention next July. In thinking about this, we believe that having both of you in the race constitutes a rare opportunity. Instead of seeing this as a zero sum game in which there are winners and losers, we see this as a win- win prospect. In that light, we ask you to consider having a conversation with Ralph in which you propose that if either of you comes in first for president, that person will choose the other for vice president. We are writing a similar letter to Ralph. In this way, we can have a vigorous competition leading to the convention in Chicago but without the acrimony that so often plagues a party when two outstanding candidates are vying for the same office. In this way, as well, you and Ralph can together move into a powerful campaign after the convention with a fully unified party and fully galvanized party filled with strong enthusiasm. Getting and indeed surpassing the 5% threshold and more will be in the works. The campaign will bring hope to millions that a better world is possible - and that they can have a hand in making it happen. Thank you for giving this your earnest consideration and thank you again for coming forward to run for President under the Green Party banner. Sincerely yours, Cliff Thornton and John Rensenbrink [and a rapidly growing number of others throughout the country] Efficacy PO Box 1234 860 657 8438 Hartford, CT 06143 efficacy at msn.com www.Efficacy-online.org "THE DRUG WAR IS MEANT TO BE WAGED NOT WON" Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit 501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are tax deductible -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amyvasnunes at hotmail.com Mon Oct 22 00:22:25 2007 From: amyvasnunes at hotmail.com (Amy Vas Nunes) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:22:25 -0400 Subject: {news} Commentary and Letters--Nader and McKinney Message-ID: I thought so far they both said they were not running next year.Not all people in the CTGP who have cried Anti-semitism are pro AIPC.Some of this is because of what individuals have said. I agree about the situation in Georgia but I have heard CTGP people say things like "Rich NY Jews"{stereotyping} and Mc Kinney herself said she could not speak for what her father had said and did not agree with him. I personally resent the langues used below such as"these and them"{ implied people}This Cliff and everyone is how people used to and still do in some circles refer to African Americans. We need to be VERY careful about what we assume others stance is and what language we use Amy Amy From: efficacy at msn.comTo: connlist at cpjen.org; ctgp-news at ml.greens.orgDate: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 14:16:10 -0400CC: Subject: {news} Commentary and Letters--Nader and McKinney Commentary from David Eliscu and Cliff Thornton I met Cynthia here in CT. In my mind, the fact that she would even consider running as a Green is a MAJOR MAJOR breakthrough for the Party. According to Cliff, some people have a problem with this. I don't know why-- maybe because of traditional allegiance to Nader. I think this is a brilliant idea on Cliff's part-- to have a "friendly" primary. We owe Nader a tremendous debt. He has taken so much shit (forgive my French) from the Dems on being a spoiler (which I think is a Cointel creation to deflect from the true issue- voter fraud by disenfranchisement), and no acknowledgment of the incredible contributions he has made to our country. Yet, McKinney represents everything that we need in the Party, not only as an African-American and as a woman, but as someone history will remember who stood up to the Bush junta before anyone else. (If you haven't seen "American Blackout," you must do so, especially to see Cynthia make Rumsfield squirm.) She is a true hero. Her candidacy takes head on the issue of disenfranchised voters and the using of the voting system to sabotage her campaigns. If we don't suport someone of her courage and honesty, what are we here for? The big issue here will be (once again) the Zionist lobby who resent her insistence on the rights of the Palestinians. This faction of Jews , AIPAC, is the one who mobilized to see her defeated in Georgia. We have plenty of these in the GP, and, until we get around them, we will never move forward. So in addition to "disloyalty" (to Nader), I'm sure we'll also face the mantra of "anti-Semitism," both of which we need to anticipate and face head-on. Anyway, that's my take. What do you think? We'd appreciate it very much if you would circulate the two letters (below) wide and far. That would give them a notion of our intent, which is, on the one hand, to support the campaigns for nomination of both Cynthia and Nader (should he decide to go for it); and on the other to smooth the way for a sturdy but non-acrimonious competition between the two of them for the nomination. What this also assures is a fully unified campaign for the presidency following the Chicago nominating convention. As we see it, it is a win-win situation. Dear Ralph,We are heartened and delighted that you are considering a run for the Green Party nomination for President. We note with excitement that you have allowed your name to be placed on the primary ballot in California. We feel that you would be an outstanding candidate and would help the Green Party to grow swiftly. We note with excitement your determination, if you run and are the candidate, to cross the 5% vote threshold in November 2008.We are fully aware that Cynthia McKinney intends to run for the Green Party's nomination at our Chicago presidential nominating convention next July. In thinking about this, we believe that having both of you in the race constitutes a rare opportunity. Instead of seeing this as a zero sum game in which there are winners and losers, we see this as a win- win prospect. In that light, we ask you to consider having a conversation with Cynthia in which you propose that if either of you comes in first for president, that person will choose the other for vice president. In this way, we can have a vigorous competition leading to the convention in Chicago but without the acrimony that so often plagues a party when two outstanding candidates are vying for the same office. In this way, as well, you and Cynthia can together move into a powerful campaign after the convention with a fully unified party and fully galvanized party filled with strong enthusiasm. Getting and indeed surpassing the 5% threshold and more will be in the works. The campaign will bring hope to millions that a better world is possible - and that they can have a hand in making it happen. Thank you for giving this your earnest consideration and thank you again for coming forward to consider running for President under the Green Party banner. Sincerely yours, Cliff Thornton and John Rensenbrink [And a rapidly growing number of Greens throughout the country]. ______________________________________________________Dear Cynthia, We are heartened and delighted by your decision to seek the Green Party nomination for President. We feel that you would be an outstanding candidate and would help the Green Party to grow swiftly. We note with excitement your determination to cross the 5% vote threshold in November 2008. We are fully aware that Ralph Nader is considering a run for the Green Party's nomination at our Chicago presidential nominating convention next July. In thinking about this, we believe that having both of you in the race constitutes a rare opportunity. Instead of seeing this as a zero sum game in which there are winners and losers, we see this as a win-win prospect. In that light, we ask you to consider having a conversation with Ralph in which you propose that if either of you comes in first for president, that person will choose the other for vice president. We are writing a similar letter to Ralph. In this way, we can have a vigorous competition leading to the convention in Chicago but without the acrimony that so often plagues a party when two outstanding candidates are vying for the same office. In this way, as well, you and Ralph can together move into a powerful campaign after the convention with a fully unified party and fully galvanized party filled with strong enthusiasm. Getting and indeed surpassing the 5% threshold and more will be in the works. The campaign will bring hope to millions that a better world is possible - and that they can have a hand in making it happen. Thank you for giving this your earnest consideration and thank you again for coming forward to run for President under the Green Party banner.Sincerely yours,Cliff Thornton and John Rensenbrink [and a rapidly growing number of others throughout the country]EfficacyPO Box 1234860 657 8438Hartford, CT 06143efficacy at msn.comwww.Efficacy-online.org "THE DRUG WAR IS MEANT TO BE WAGED NOT WON" Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are taxdeductible -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efficacy at msn.com Mon Oct 22 07:50:49 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 07:50:49 -0400 Subject: {news} Commentary and Letters--Nader and McKinney References: Message-ID: The use of them and these in this context is appropriat I think. I don't have the history that you guys have and have not heard the term "rich ny jews" in this movement but I have heard it in the drug policy movement. Your statements as far as I am concerned are taken as constructive building blocks. ----- Original Message ----- From: Amy Vas Nunes To: Clifford Thornton ; connlist ; ctgp-news Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 12:22 AM Subject: RE: {news} Commentary and Letters--Nader and McKinney I thought so far they both said they were not running next year. Not all people in the CTGP who have cried Anti-semitism are pro AIPC.Some of this is because of what individuals have said. I agree about the situation in Georgia but I have heard CTGP people say things like "Rich NY Jews"{stereotyping} and Mc Kinney herself said she could not speak for what her father had said and did not agree with him. I personally resent the langues used below such as"these and them"{ implied people}This Cliff and everyone is how people used to and still do in some circles refer to African Americans. We need to be VERY careful about what we assume others stance is and what language we use Amy Amy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: efficacy at msn.com To: connlist at cpjen.org; ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 14:16:10 -0400 CC: Subject: {news} Commentary and Letters--Nader and McKinney Commentary from David Eliscu and Cliff Thornton I met Cynthia here in CT. In my mind, the fact that she would even consider running as a Green is a MAJOR MAJOR breakthrough for the Party. According to Cliff, some people have a problem with this. I don't know why-- maybe because of traditional allegiance to Nader. I think this is a brilliant idea on Cliff's part-- to have a "friendly" primary. We owe Nader a tremendous debt. He has taken so much shit (forgive my French) from the Dems on being a spoiler (which I think is a Cointel creation to deflect from the true issue- voter fraud by disenfranchisement), and no acknowledgment of the incredible contributions he has made to our country. Yet, McKinney represents everything that we need in the Party, not only as an African-American and as a woman, but as someone history will remember who stood up to the Bush junta before anyone else. (If you haven't seen "American Blackout," you must do so, especially to see Cynthia make Rumsfield squirm.) She is a true hero. Her candidacy takes head on the issue of disenfranchised voters and the using of the voting system to sabotage her campaigns. If we don't suport someone of her courage and honesty, what are we here for? The big issue here will be (once again) the Zionist lobby who resent her insistence on the rights of the Palestinians. This faction of Jews , AIPAC, is the one who mobilized to see her defeated in Georgia. We have plenty of these in the GP, and, until we get around them, we will never move forward. So in addition to Them is referring to AIPC "disloyalty" (to Nader), I'm sure we'll also face the mantra of "anti-Semitism," both of which we need to anticipate and face head-on. Anyway, that's my take. What do you think? We'd appreciate it very much if you would circulate the two letters (below) wide and far. That would give them a notion of our intent, Them refers to Ralph and Cynthia is, on the one hand, to support the campaigns for nomination of both Cynthia and Nader (should he decide to go for it); and on the other to smooth the way for a sturdy but non-acrimonious competition between the two of them for the nomination. What this also assures Them refers to Ralph and Cynthia is a fully unified campaign for the presidency following the Chicago nominating convention. As we see it, it is a win-win situation. Dear Ralph, We are heartened and delighted that you are considering a run for the Green Party nomination for President. We note with excitement that you have allowed your name to be placed on the primary ballot in California. We feel that you would be an outstanding candidate and would help the Green Party to grow swiftly. We note with excitement your determination, if you run and are the candidate, to cross the 5% vote threshold in November 2008. We are fully aware that Cynthia McKinney intends to run for the Green Party's nomination at our Chicago presidential nominating convention next July. In thinking about this, we believe that having both of you in the race constitutes a rare opportunity. Instead of seeing this as a zero sum game in which there are winners and losers, we see this as a win- win prospect. In that light, we ask you to consider having a conversation with Cynthia in which you propose that if either of you comes in first for president, that person will choose the other for vice president. In this way, we can have a vigorous competition leading to the convention in Chicago but without the acrimony that so often plagues a party when two outstanding candidates are vying for the same office. In this way, as well, you and Cynthia can together move into a powerful campaign after the convention with a fully unified party and fully galvanized party filled with strong enthusiasm. Getting and indeed surpassing the 5% threshold and more will be in the works. The campaign will bring hope to millions that a better world is possible - and that they can have a hand in making it happen. Thank you for giving this your earnest consideration and thank you again for coming forward to consider running for President under the Green Party banner. Sincerely yours, Cliff Thornton and John Rensenbrink [And a rapidly growing number of Greens throughout the country]. ______________________________________________________ Dear Cynthia, We are heartened and delighted by your decision to seek the Green Party nomination for President. We feel that you would be an outstanding candidate and would help the Green Party to grow swiftly. We note with excitement your determination to cross the 5% vote threshold in November 2008. We are fully aware that Ralph Nader is considering a run for the Green Party's nomination at our Chicago presidential nominating convention next July. In thinking about this, we believe that having both of you in the race constitutes a rare opportunity. Instead of seeing this as a zero sum game in which there are winners and losers, we see this as a win- win prospect. In that light, we ask you to consider having a conversation with Ralph in which you propose that if either of you comes in first for president, that person will choose the other for vice president. We are writing a similar letter to Ralph. In this way, we can have a vigorous competition leading to the convention in Chicago but without the acrimony that so often plagues a party when two outstanding candidates are vying for the same office. In this way, as well, you and Ralph can together move into a powerful campaign after the convention with a fully unified party and fully galvanized party filled with strong enthusiasm. Getting and indeed surpassing the 5% threshold and more will be in the works. The campaign will bring hope to millions that a better world is possible - and that they can have a hand in making it happen. Thank you for giving this your earnest consideration and thank you again for coming forward to run for President under the Green Party banner. Sincerely yours, Cliff Thornton and John Rensenbrink [and a rapidly growing number of others throughout the country] Efficacy PO Box 1234 860 657 8438 Hartford, CT 06143 efficacy at msn.com www.Efficacy-online.org "THE DRUG WAR IS MEANT TO BE WAGED NOT WON" Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit 501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are tax deductible -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chapillsbury at igc.org Tue Oct 23 21:17:56 2007 From: chapillsbury at igc.org (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:17:56 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: Ralph Nader in Winsted on Sat Message-ID: <001701c815db$b589b0a0$6600a8c0@S0031616584> This is courtesy of the new director of the New Haven Historical Society. This is to let you know that the Winchester Historical Society, in collaboration with the Beardsley Library, is sponsoring a Ralph Nader signing of the Seventeen Traditions this Saturday, October 27, 2007. First signing is from Noon - 12:45PM Second signing is 1PM - 1:45PM If you haven't read this book --- it's a must read. Our posters should appear in the stores and places of interest during this week. We are hoping you will try and show some interest in this event which will be held at the Beardsley Library on Munro St. Winsted. Thanks, Milly ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Hosley" To: ; ; Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 6:15 PM Subject: Ralph Nader in Winsted on Sat > Greetings > > I know a lot of people will never forgive Ralph for > cutting into Al Gore's numbers in 2000 and making W > President. > > But this book is astonishing and paints a word picture > of CT when communities were more whole, sufficient, > sustainable, confident and in touch withy civic > memory. > > The book is about growing up in Winsted and how > rubbing shoulders with 101 aspects of small town > civics and civility made him what he is. > > If it's another gorgeous weekend, you might enjoy > cruising up there. > > cheers > > Bill Hosley From chapillsbury at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 21:20:03 2007 From: chapillsbury at gmail.com (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:20:03 -0400 Subject: {news} Fwd:GP-US Proposal Results: ID 320 - Condemn the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation Endorse Nonviolent Direct Action In-Reply-To: <20071023070502.5152.qmail@qs614.pair.com> References: <20071023070502.5152.qmail@qs614.pair.com> Message-ID: <10859a090710231820o71f29b0ch50da4e42f5761235@mail.gmail.com> FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: voting at gpus.org Date: 23 Oct 2007 07:05:02 -0000 Subject: [usgp-nc] GP-US Proposal Results: ID 320 - Condemn the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation Endorse Nonviolent Direct Action To: natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org Voting for the following proposal is now closed. Here are the results: Proposal ID: 320 Proposal: Condemn the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation Endorse Nonviolent Direct Action Floor Manager: Sarah echo Steiner, echothegreen at riseup.net Discussion: 10/09/2007 - 10/15/2007 Voting: 10/16/2007 - 10/22/2007 Result: Adopted 122 Total Votes Received from 38 States/Caucuses Presens Quorum: 34 0.6666 of 50 Accredited States/Caucuses Consens Quorum: 60 A Majority of 119 Yes and No Votes Yes: 116 No: 3 Abstain: 3 Yes: Rob Collins - Alabama Yes: Gene Hunter - Alabama No: Claudia Ellquist - Arizona Yes: Mark Jenkins - Arkansas Yes: Jim Lendall - Arkansas Yes: Jan Arnold - California Yes: Stuart Bechman - California Yes: David Blatte - California Yes: Warner Bloomberg - California Yes: Tom Bolema - California Yes: Leslie Bonett - California Yes: June Brashares - California Yes: Budd Dickinson - California Yes: Marilyn Ditmanson - California Yes: Sanda Everette - California Yes: Mike Feinstein - California Yes: Rebecca Gonzalez-Tobias - California Yes: Woody Hastings - California Yes: Lisa Hsu - California Yes: Derek Iversen - California Yes: Greg Jan - California Yes: Drew Johnson - California Yes: Susan King - California Yes: Peggy Koteen - California Yes: Jared Laiti - California Yes: Bill Meyers - California Yes: Orval Osborne - California Yes: Linda Piera-Avila - California Yes: Dana Silvernale - California Yes: Lisa Taylor - California Yes: Cat Woods - California Yes: Sandy Lemberg - Colorado No: Romney Philpott - Colorado Yes: S. Michael DeRosa - Connecticut Yes: Richard Z. Duffee - Connecticut Yes: Charlie Pillsbury - Connecticut Yes: David McCorquodale - Delaware Yes: David Bosserman - District of Columbia Yes: Julia Aires - Florida Yes: Michael Canney - Florida Yes: Barbara Rodgers-Hendricks - Florida Yes: Sarah echo Steiner - Florida Yes: Nannette Garrett - Georgia Yes: Tom Abram - Illinois Yes: Terry Campbell - Illinois Yes: Michael Drennan - Illinois Yes: Kevin O'Connor - Illinois Yes: Patrick Pasquini - Illinois Yes: Susan Rodgers - Illinois Abstain: Marc Sanson - Illinois Yes: Alicia Snyder - Illinois Yes: Jeff Sutter - Indiana Yes: Florence Boos - Iowa Yes: Paul Krumm - Kansas Yes: David Strand - Lavender Caucus Yes: Jacqui Deveneau - Maine Yes: Jane Meisenbach - Maine Yes: John Rensenbrink - Maine Yes: Theresa Savage - Maine Yes: Laura Barnitz - Maryland Yes: Karen Jennings - Maryland Yes: David 'Ebony' Allen Barkley - Massachusetts Yes: Jamie McLaughlin - Massachusetts Yes: John Walsh - Massachusetts Yes: Elie Yarden - Massachusetts Yes: Matthew Abel - Michigan Yes: Linda Manning Myatt - Michigan Yes: Louis Novak - Michigan Yes: Karen Shelley - Michigan Yes: Aimee L. Smith - Michigan Yes: Fred Vitale - Michigan Yes: Michael Cavlan - Minnesota Yes: Chris Frazier - Montana Yes: Paul Stephens - Montana Yes: Francine Cronshaw - New Mexico Yes: Naomi Canaan - New York Yes: Matt Funiciello - New York Yes: Howie Hawkins - New York Yes: Maria Kuriloff - New York Yes: Carl Lundgren - New York Yes: Jason Nabewaniec - New York Yes: Rebecca Rotzler - New York Yes: Roger Snyder - New York Yes: J. Rebecca White - New York Yes: Jan Martell - North Carolina Yes: Gray Newman - North Carolina Yes: Gwen Marshall - Ohio Yes: Logan Martinez - Ohio Yes: Kimberly Wise - Ohio Yes: Joni LeViness - Oklahoma Yes: Steve Geiger - Oregon Yes: Marnie Glickman - Oregon Yes: Teresa Keane - Oregon Yes: Paul Loney - Oregon Yes: Hillary Aisenstein - Pennsylvania No: Alex Gillett - Pennsylvania Yes: Guy Gray - Pennsylvania Yes: Skip Mendler - Pennsylvania Yes: John Murphy - Pennsylvania Abstain: Diane White - Pennsylvania Yes: James DeBoer - Rhode Island Yes: Greg Gerritt - Rhode Island Yes: David Whiteman - South Carolina Yes: John Miglietta - Tennessee Yes: Howard Switzer - Tennessee Yes: Esther Choi - Texas Yes: Don Cook - Texas Yes: Joel West - Texas Yes: Thomas King - Utah Yes: Eileen McCabe - Utah Abstain: Audrey Clement - Virginia Yes: Tamar Yager - Virginia Yes: Mike Gillis - Washington Yes: Brent White - Washington Yes: Karen Grubb - West Virginia Yes: Frank Young - West Virginia Yes: Jill Bussiere - Wisconsin Yes: Bruce Hinkforth - Wisconsin Yes: Jeff Peterson - Wisconsin Yes: Bryce Ruddock - Wisconsin Yes: Cindy Stimmler - Wisconsin Yes: Julia Willebrand - Women's Caucus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roseberry3 at cox.net Tue Oct 23 23:45:33 2007 From: roseberry3 at cox.net (B Barry) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:45:33 -0400 Subject: {news} Proposed agenda for 10-30-07 SCC meeting of CTGP at Portland Senior Center Message-ID: <20071024034523.LXN26633.eastrmmtao106.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> Proposed agenda for 10-30-07 SCC meeting of CTGP at Portland Senior Center 7 Waverly Avenue, Portland, CT 7:00PM to 9:00PM Phone: 860-342-6760 Facilitator: To Be Determined A. Preliminaries: 1. (1 minute): Introductions of voting attendees; non-voting attendees; chapters; if quorum was met; timekeeper; ground rules. 2. (2-4 minutes): Approval of tonight?s proposed agenda, any deletions or additions. 3. (2-4 minutes): Review and approval of minutes of 8-28-07 and 9-25-07 SCC meeting. 4. (2-4 minutes): Review and acceptance of minutes from the 9-17-07 and 10-16-07 EC meeting. 5. (2-4 minutes): Treasurer?s report from Christopher Reilly. B. Any proposals/referendums by chapters, committee e.g. Policies and Procedures Committee or members. C. Reports: 1. (15 minutes): Proposal: Impeachment of Bush/Cheney; town resolutions for impeachment of Bush/Cheney. 2. (10 minutes): Reports about the Green Party candidates in CT. 3. (5-10 minutes): GPUS reports from CTGP representatives: Tim McKee and Charlie Pillsbury; GPAX report; reports from other members of GPUS committees. 4. (5 minutes): Political issues the GP of CT has addressed with legislators during the 2008 Legislative Session: Fight the Hike/universal health coverage. 5. (2-3 minutes): Our websites. 6. (5 minutes): CT Green Times. 7. (5 minutes): Fundraiser position. 8. (1 minute): ACLU lawsuit. 9. (2-5 minutes, each): other Chapter reports. 10. Date, place and time for next SCC meeting 11-27-07 and date, place and time of next EC meeting in 11-07. 11. Any additions Green Party Key Values: non-violence, respect for diversity, grassroots democracy, social justice and equal opportunity, ecological wisdom, decentralization, community-based economics and economic justice, future focus and sustainability, personal and global responsibility, feminism and gender equality. HYPERLINK "http://www.google.com/" \nwww.google.com No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1084 - Release Date: 10/21/2007 3:09 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amyvasnunes at hotmail.com Wed Oct 24 00:13:54 2007 From: amyvasnunes at hotmail.com (Amy Vas Nunes) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:13:54 -0400 Subject: {news} Proposed agenda for 10-30-07 SCC meeting of CTGP at Portland Senior Center In-Reply-To: <20071024034523.LXN26633.eastrmmtao106.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> References: <20071024034523.LXN26633.eastrmmtao106.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> Message-ID: Barb< For agenda discussion and vote for GPUS Reps.Me vs Richard. Also is procedures andcommitte and rewrite of procedures for IC and other USGP Reps and Vote AGAINST ofor for McCabe? Discussion of if Manchester is valid chapter until they meet 3X with 5 people. Report on letters to other defunct chapters. Amy From: roseberry3 at cox.netTo: ctgp-news at ml.greens.orgDate: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:45:33 -0400Subject: {news} Proposed agenda for 10-30-07 SCC meeting of CTGP at Portland Senior Center Proposed agenda for 10-30-07 SCC meeting of CTGP at Portland Senior Center 7 Waverly Avenue, Portland, CT 7:00PM to 9:00PM Phone: 860-342-6760 Facilitator: To Be Determined A. Preliminaries: 1. (1 minute): Introductions of voting attendees; non-voting attendees; chapters; if quorum was met; timekeeper; ground rules. 2. (2-4 minutes): Approval of tonight?s proposed agenda, any deletions or additions. 3. (2-4 minutes): Review and approval of minutes of 8-28-07 and 9-25-07 SCC meeting. 4. (2-4 minutes): Review and acceptance of minutes from the 9-17-07 and 10-16-07 EC meeting. 5. (2-4 minutes): Treasurer?s report from Christopher Reilly. B. Any proposals/referendums by chapters, committee e.g. Policies and Procedures Committee or members. C. Reports: 1. (15 minutes): Proposal: Impeachment of Bush/Cheney; town resolutions for impeachment of Bush/Cheney. 2. (10 minutes): Reports about the Green Party candidates in CT. 3. (5-10 minutes): GPUS reports from CTGP representatives: Tim McKee and Charlie Pillsbury; GPAX report; reports from other members of GPUS committees. 4. (5 minutes): Political issues the GP of CT has addressed with legislators during the 2008 Legislative Session: Fight the Hike/universal health coverage. 5. (2-3 minutes): Our websites. 6. (5 minutes): CT Green Times. 7. (5 minutes): Fundraiser position. 8. (1 minute): ACLU lawsuit. 9. (2-5 minutes, each): other Chapter reports. 10. Date, place and time for next SCC meeting 11-27-07 and date, place and time of next EC meeting in 11-07. 11. Any additions Green Party Key Values: non-violence, respect for diversity, grassroots democracy, social justice and equal opportunity, ecological wisdom, decentralization, community-based economics and economic justice, future focus and sustainability, personal and global responsibility, feminism and gender equality. www.google.com No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1084 - Release Date: 10/21/2007 3:09 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efficacy at msn.com Wed Oct 24 03:48:28 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:48:28 -0400 Subject: {news} Proposed agenda for 10-30-07 SCC meeting of CTGP at PortlandSenior Center References: <20071024034523.LXN26633.eastrmmtao106.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> Message-ID: I would like to add by laws from Jerry Martin. This should be at every state meeting until we have a solid one. Also a budget for the state party and national scene. Cliff ----- Original Message ----- From: B Barry To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 11:45 PM Subject: {news} Proposed agenda for 10-30-07 SCC meeting of CTGP at PortlandSenior Center Connecticut Green Party - Part of the GPUS http://www.ctgreens.org/ - http://www.greenpartyus.org/ to unsubscribe click here mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org Proposed agenda for 10-30-07 SCC meeting of CTGP at Portland Senior Center 7 Waverly Avenue, Portland, CT 7:00PM to 9:00PM Phone: 860-342-6760 Facilitator: To Be Determined A. Preliminaries: 1. (1 minute): Introductions of voting attendees; non-voting attendees; chapters; if quorum was met; timekeeper; ground rules. 2. (2-4 minutes): Approval of tonight's proposed agenda, any deletions or additions. 3. (2-4 minutes): Review and approval of minutes of 8-28-07 and 9-25-07 SCC meeting. 4. (2-4 minutes): Review and acceptance of minutes from the 9-17-07 and 10-16-07 EC meeting. 5. (2-4 minutes): Treasurer's report from Christopher Reilly. B. Any proposals/referendums by chapters, committee e.g. Policies and Procedures Committee or members. C. Reports: 1. (15 minutes): Proposal: Impeachment of Bush/Cheney; town resolutions for impeachment of Bush/Cheney. 2. (10 minutes): Reports about the Green Party candidates in CT. 3. (5-10 minutes): GPUS reports from CTGP representatives: Tim McKee and Charlie Pillsbury; GPAX report; reports from other members of GPUS committees. 4. (5 minutes): Political issues the GP of CT has addressed with legislators during the 2008 Legislative Session: Fight the Hike/universal health coverage. 5. (2-3 minutes): Our websites. 6. (5 minutes): CT Green Times. 7. (5 minutes): Fundraiser position. 8. (1 minute): ACLU lawsuit. 9. (2-5 minutes, each): other Chapter reports. 10. Date, place and time for next SCC meeting 11-27-07 and date, place and time of next EC meeting in 11-07. 11. Any additions Green Party Key Values: non-violence, respect for diversity, grassroots democracy, social justice and equal opportunity, ecological wisdom, decentralization, community-based economics and economic justice, future focus and sustainability, personal and global responsibility, feminism and gender equality. www.google.com No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1084 - Release Date: 10/21/2007 3:09 PM To be removed please mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org _______________________________________________ CTGP-news mailing list CTGP-news at ml.greens.org http://ml.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/ctgp-news ATTENTION! The information in this transmission is privileged and confidential and intended only for the recipient listed above. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by email and delete the original message. The text of this email is similar to ordinary or face-to-face conversations and does not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the case of a formal legal opinion and does not constitute a representation of the opinions of the CT Green Party. The responsibility for any messages posted herein is solely that of the person who sent the message, and the CT Green Party hereby leaves this responsibility in the hands of it's members. NOTE: This is an inherently insecure forum, please do not post confidential messages and always realize that your address can be faked, and although a message may appear to be from a certain individual, it is always possible that it is fakemail. This is mail sent by a third party under an illegally assumed identity for purposes of coercion, misdirection, or general mischief. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown. This e-mail transmission may contain confidential information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from your files if you are not the intended recipient. Thank you for your compliance. To be removed please mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kumfry at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 10:58:37 2007 From: kumfry at yahoo.com (Kenneth Humphrey) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:58:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Fw: Ralph Nader in Winsted on Sat In-Reply-To: <001701c815db$b589b0a0$6600a8c0@S0031616584> Message-ID: <341926.5719.qm@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I feel it necessary to respond to Bill Hosley's repeating the business of Nader "making 'w' President in 2000. This is simply not a fact- we Greens should not spread this untruth ourselves. Taint so and never was what happened. It was an election for the Democrats to lose and it was the malfunctioning Dem Party that cost the Dems the victory, with a lot of voter fraud in Florida of course. Ken Humphrey --- Charlie Pillsbury wrote: > Connecticut Green Party - Part of the GPUS > http://www.ctgreens.org/ - > http://www.greenpartyus.org/ > > to unsubscribe click here > mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org > This is courtesy of the new director of the New > Haven Historical Society. > > This is to let you know that the Winchester > Historical Society, in > collaboration with the Beardsley Library, is > sponsoring a Ralph Nader > signing of the Seventeen Traditions this Saturday, > October 27, 2007. > > First signing is from Noon - 12:45PM > Second signing is 1PM - 1:45PM > > If you haven't read this book --- it's a must read. > > Our posters should appear in the stores and places > of interest during this > week. We are hoping you will try and show some > interest in this event which > will be held at the Beardsley Library on Munro St. > Winsted. > > Thanks, > > > Milly > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Hosley" > To: ; ; > > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 6:15 PM > Subject: Ralph Nader in Winsted on Sat > > > > Greetings > > > > I know a lot of people will never forgive Ralph > for > > cutting into Al Gore's numbers in 2000 and making > W > > President. > > > > But this book is astonishing and paints a word > picture > > of CT when communities were more whole, > sufficient, > > sustainable, confident and in touch withy civic > > memory. > > > > The book is about growing up in Winsted and how > > rubbing shoulders with 101 aspects of small town > > civics and civility made him what he is. > > > > If it's another gorgeous weekend, you might enjoy > > cruising up there. > > > > cheers > > > > Bill Hosley > > To be removed please > mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org > _______________________________________________ > CTGP-news mailing list > CTGP-news at ml.greens.org > http://ml.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/ctgp-news > > ATTENTION! > The information in this transmission is privileged > and confidential and intended only for the recipient > listed above. If you have received this > transmission in error, please notify us immediately > by email and delete the original message. The text > of this email is similar to ordinary or face-to-face > conversations and does not reflect the level of > factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be > applied in the case of a formal legal opinion and > does not constitute a representation of the opinions > of the CT Green Party. The responsibility for any > messages posted herein is solely that of the person > who sent the message, and the CT Green Party hereby > leaves this responsibility in the hands of it's > members. > > NOTE: This is an inherently insecure forum, please > do not post confidential messages and always realize > that your address can be faked, and although a > message may appear to be from a certain individual, > it is always possible that it is fakemail. This is > mail sent by a third party under an illegally > assumed identity for purposes of coercion, > misdirection, or general mischief. > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this > e-mail in error, please immediately notify the > sender by e-mail at the address shown. This e-mail > transmission may contain confidential information. > This information is intended only for the use of the > individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even > if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from > your files if you are not the intended recipient. > Thank you for your compliance. > > To be removed please > mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From timmckee2008 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 10:52:00 2007 From: timmckee2008 at yahoo.com (Tim McKee) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:52:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Ballot Access News-hopeful signs in CT lawsuit on Cam. Fin. Reform Message-ID: <591889.89471.qm@web44804.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Hopeful Sign in Connecticut Green Party Lawsuit Against Discriminatory Public Funding October 25th, 2007 On July 6, 2006, the Green Party of Connecticut had filed a federal lawsuit against the discriminatory public funding law passed by the Connecticut legislature in 2005. Among other things, the law requires a new party to not only collect the same number of $5 contributions from small donors as the major parties, but to also submit a petition signed by 10% of the last vote cast in that district (or in the state, if the candidate is running for statewide office). Even if the 10% petition is submitted, the new party candidate would still not receive the same amount of public funding as the major party members. For full public funding, a 20% petition is required. On June 6, 2007, an oral argument was held, in which the state argued that the lawsuit should be summarily dismissed, even before any evidence is gathered. The judge has not ruled on the state?s motion. However, he is permitting discovery (a method of evidence-gathering) to proceed. It is unlikely that he would be permitting discovery if he intended to dismiss the lawsuit. The lawsuit is being handled by the ACLU. Ba ***********************************************************************8 Tim McKee Manchester CT Home-860-643-2282 Cell-860-778-1304 BLOG- http://360.yahoo.com/timmckee2008 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efficacy at msn.com Fri Oct 26 13:44:46 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:44:46 -0400 Subject: {news} Clifford Thornton To Be Honored Message-ID: John Woolman College Principal Clifford Thornton >, founder of the Efficacy organization: http://www.efficacy-online.org/ .. and recent Green Party candidate for Governor of Connecticut: http://www.votethornton.com/ .. forwards this welcome news. Let's congratulate our colleague! -- John Wilmerding <...> 26 October 2007 Dear Cliff, I am delighted to confirm that you have been selected to receive the Robert C. Randall Award for Achievement in the Field of Citizen Action from the Drug Policy Alliance. This award honors citizens who make democracy work in the difficult area of drug law and policy reform. Former winners include DrugSense, a nationwide network of volunteer drug policy reform activists; Allan Clear, executive director of the Harm Reduction Coalition; and Elvy Musikka, medical marijuana patient and advocate, and one of only eight recipients of medical marijuana through the federal marijuana program. Winners of the 2007 Awards for Achievement in Drug Policy Reform will be recognized for their achievements at an awards ceremony on Saturday, December 8 from 8:00 pm to 11:00 pm at the conclusion of the 2007 International Drug Policy Reform conference at the Astor Crowne Plaza hotel in New Orleans, Louisiana. Information about the conference and our outstanding programming can be found at: http://conference.drugpolicy.org. As our honored guest, the cost of the conference registration, ticket to the awards dinner, an economy round-trip ticket to New Orleans and lodging on Friday and Saturday night at the Astor will be taken care of by the Drug Policy Alliance. Should you accept the award and attend the conference, our consultant Kesselman-Jones, Inc. will be in touch with you soon to collect the necessary biographical information for the program. All lodging and travel arrangements can be made by the Kesselman-Jones office if you prefer. Cliff, I just want to say how delighted I am that you were selected to receive this award. Your commitment and courage in respect to drug policy reform has been nothing short of remarkable. Should you or your staff have any questions, please contact Stefanie Jones, the conference coordinator, at (212) 613-8047. Very truly yours, Ethan Nadelmann Executive Director Efficacy PO Box 1234 860 657 8438 Hartford, CT 06143 efficacy at msn.com www.Efficacy-online.org "THE DRUG WAR IS MEANT TO BE WAGED NOT WON" Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit 501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are tax deductible -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From timmckee2008 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 27 07:59:01 2007 From: timmckee2008 at yahoo.com (Tim McKee) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Fwd: Green Party of RI Presidential candiates forum Message-ID: <708543.27191.qm@web44808.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Please forward to local lists. Just over the border in rhode island, near U.R.I. anyone wishing to video tape for internt would be highly welcome! Greg Gerritt wrote: Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:08:17 -0400 Subject: Green Party of RI Presidential candiates forum From: Greg Gerritt To: Tim McKee The Green Party of Rhode Island will be holding its Fall General Membership meeting on Saturday November 3 at 1 PM in the Peacedale Public Library 1057 Kingstown Rd in Peacedale RI. The highlight of the meeting will be the Green Party Presidential Candiates Forum beginning at 2:30 PM Anyone interested in listening to Green Party candidates for the presidential nomination is welcome to attend. We have a confirmation so far from SKCM Curry, and a tentative yes from Cynthia McKinney. Other candidates have also been invited. For more information check out WWW.greens,org/ri, email gerritt at miondspring.com or call Greg Gerritt at 401-331-0529 ***********************************************************************8 Tim McKee Manchester CT Home-860-643-2282 Cell-860-778-1304 BLOG- http://360.yahoo.com/timmckee2008 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From timmckee2008 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 27 08:03:15 2007 From: timmckee2008 at yahoo.com (Tim McKee) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Fwd: Draft Nader '08 Message-ID: <759349.70774.qm@web44816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Green Party-CT wrote: Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:02:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Green Party-CT Subject: Fwd: Draft Nader '08 To: timmckee2008 at yahoo.com PRO826 at aol.com wrote: From: PRO826 at aol.com Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:25:48 EDT Subject: Draft Nader '08 To: PRO826 at aol.com Dear Draft Nader supporters, We are gearing up the organizing efforts for the Draft Nader campaign and we wanted to update you on the various efforts and what you can do now to help out. If you can help with petitioning efforts in Illinois through November 5th, contact Clint Coppernoll at 505-699-2422 or clint.ican2 at gmail.com. Download the Draft Nader petition in the attachment below and mail back to the address on the bottom of the petition by mid November. Ask others to join in our efforts by signing the Draft Nader petition on the www.draftnader.org web site. Join us on a conference call on Monday, October 29th at the request from Peter Camejo, 2004 VP candidate of the Nader/Camejo campaign. We will discuss the various organizing opportunities in your state and are seeking Draft Nader State coordinators. Below is a copy of the letter from Peter with the details of time and phone number and an outline of the State Coordinator responsibilities. JOIN A PRO NADER CONFERENCE CALL FROM: Peter Camejo, Nader???s 2004 Vice Presidential Candidate The 2008 elections are just 13 months away. If Ralph Nader decides to run again should we support him? I think we should. Below I explain why. If you are a Green and a Nader supporter or are considering supporting Nader please join the conference call at 8PM New York time that is 5 PM California time Monday October 29th. The conference call number is: 1-712-432-2000 code 58485. If you receive this email please send it out to all your friends and lists in the Green Party. WHY NADER? Ralph Nader understands the issues confronting us. He has gotten more legislation passed defending our people than any other person in the last 50 years if not throughout our nation s history. He is an historic figure in his own life time and has the respect of people all over the world. Ralph Nader was attacked for daring to run and tell the truth unlike any person ever in our nation s history. Ralph Nader s running is itself a statement in defense of democracy and the right of those who dissent from the pro Corporate two party dictatorship to speak out. No one has helped build the Green Party and defended the right of our people to hear other points of view more than Ralph Nader. He has held more fund raisers, gotten more media and won new supporters for our party than any other person in our history. WHAT WE NEED TO DO Some Greens have already begun working in support of Nader even though he has not yet announced. We have a web site, http://www. DraftNader.org where you can sign up as a supporter. Two leading Greens, Howie Hawkins from New York and Danene Provencher from Minnesota have been proposed as co-chairs of a national draft Nader committee. Pro Nader Greens have already begun organizing to set up a national committee and to make sure all Greens hear Why Nader. In doing this we do not want to show any disrespect for the other candidates running for our national nomination. Quite the contrary we need to show respect for and try to help all candidates views get heard. Truth can only be ascertained through the conflict of ideas. All our candidates are our friends and working to help build our party. Having debates, discussion, and differences on issues is all part of building a democratic party. Showing respect for all candidates is also part of maintaining internal democracy. I will be proposing on the conference call that we set up a national committee of State coordinators. Each States Draft Nader Committee should elect one or two people to represent their state. We need to make sure that at every nominating State convention pro Nader Greens have representation and can present Why Nader. We should consider expanding the co-chairs to possibly six people to get racial and geographic representation and maintain a 50/50 gender composition CALIFORNIA INCLUDES NADER At our most recent State conference in California 82% of our delegates voted to place Nader???s name on the State primary ballot. This was an important victory for democracy in our party and to let all points of view be heard. Let us build on this important victory to make sure that unlike 2004 Nader gets a genuine hearing at all levels in the nomination process. In 2004 we failed to organize to get our views before our State conferences. Let s not let that happen again. Let s win the primary in California and all states, let s win each State convention. That will send a message to the Democrats that we will fight for democracy and free elections in our nation. That we will not let their spoiler system be used to silence those who favor peace, social justice and the saving of our planet. We need to send a message to all the progressives who capitulated in 2004 and supported a pro war, pro corporate, anti-environmental candidate that this is the time to return to the values they claim to support. In 2008 it is almost certain the Democrats will be back in power. Once again everyone will see their true nature. The pro corporate party that voted just a few years ago for Unequivocal support for George Bush???s conduct of the war in Iraq , that gave Bush 39 standing ovations at the State of the Union speech in 2005, and that supported the Patriot Act. A new potential for the growth of our party, the struggle for free elections and social justice will develop as people realize the Democrats are not the answer. Let us continue the heritage of the abolitionist Liberty Party, the Greenback Labor Party, the great populist rebellion of the Populist Party, the Debsian socialists and the heroic Women???s Party whose leaders were imprisoned and tortured as they fought for the right to vote. Let s fight for building a party that truly represents the interest of our people. PS Please email either Howie Hawkins at hhawkins at IGC.org or Danene Provencher pro826 at aol.com as I will be out of the country until just prior to the conference call. Feel free to forward to any Green Party listservs and individual Greens who are interested in supporting the Draft Nader for ???08 campaign, For Peace, Justice, Ecology and Democracy, Danene Provencher, MN Howie Hawkins, NY --------------------------------- See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim McKee cell (860) 778-1304 or (860) 643-2282 National Committee Member of the Green Party(Connecticut) ***********************************************************************8 Tim McKee Manchester CT Home-860-643-2282 Cell-860-778-1304 BLOG- http://360.yahoo.com/timmckee2008 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DraftNaderpetition.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 22016 bytes Desc: pat370996336 URL: From chapillsbury at igc.org Sat Oct 27 12:38:06 2007 From: chapillsbury at igc.org (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:38:06 -0400 Subject: {news} Thurs. Nov. 1 6:30 pm NH Candidates' Debate Message-ID: <003101c818b7$c1444de0$43cce9a0$@org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- East Rock and Downtown: Meet Your Aldermanic Candidates! Two Democratic aldermen face off against their Green Party challengers in a candidates' debate. Hosted by La Voz Hispana and the New Haven Independent ( www.newhavenindependent.org ), your source for in-depth online local news. Place: Institute Library, on Chapel near Church Street Time: Thursday, Nov. 1 at 6:30 p.m. The debate includes: Ward 7 candidates Democrat Frances "Bitsie" Clark and Green Daniel Sumrall Ward 10 candidates Democrat Ed Mattison and Green Allan Brison Questions will be posed by reporters from the New Haven Register, New Haven Advocate and the New Haven Independent. Debate will be moderated by Paul Bass. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chapillsbury at igc.org Sat Oct 27 12:50:45 2007 From: chapillsbury at igc.org (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:50:45 -0400 Subject: {news} RE: Thurs. Nov. 1 6:30 pm NH Candidates' Debate Message-ID: <003b01c818b9$85845dc0$908d1940$@org> The street address is: 847 Chapel (north side of street) near Church Street Subject: Thurs. Nov. 1 6:30 pm NH Candidates' Debate ---------- Forwarded message ---------- East Rock and Downtown: Meet Your Aldermanic Candidates! Two Democratic aldermen face off against their Green Party challengers in a candidates' debate. Hosted by La Voz Hispana and the New Haven Independent ( www.newhavenindependent.org ), your source for in-depth online local news. Place: Institute Library, on Chapel near Church Street Time: Thursday, Nov. 1 at 6:30 p.m. The debate includes: Ward 7 candidates Democrat Frances "Bitsie" Clark and Green Daniel Sumrall Ward 10 candidates Democrat Ed Mattison and Green Allan Brison Questions will be posed by reporters from the New Haven Register, New Haven Advocate and the New Haven Independent. Debate will be moderated by Paul Bass. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efficacy at msn.com Sun Oct 28 12:20:14 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:20:14 -0400 Subject: {news} Cop eats brownies made from marijuana he confisicated Message-ID: For your amusement: This is something that will make you laugh for days be sure to watch some of the others on the side panel. Our police force at work or is it play http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IoCGpP1FSM Efficacy PO Box 1234 860 657 8438 Hartford, CT 06143 efficacy at msn.com www.Efficacy-online.org "THE DRUG WAR IS MEANT TO BE WAGED NOT WON" Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit 501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are tax deductible -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From edubrule at sbcglobal.net Sun Oct 28 19:31:07 2007 From: edubrule at sbcglobal.net (edubrule) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:31:07 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: An Open Letter to the Senate (re: Mukasey) Message-ID: <015001c819ba$ddc4c1d0$95904c0c@edgn2b574u14bi> This was sent to the Connecticut Green Party website. Just today I heard something on national public radio about how Mukasey hasn't declared he considers "waterboarding" (the torture technique) illegal. I will write Don Marks and tell him I've posted this to our News listserve. I will ask him if he's interested in my posting contact information for his group on the CT Green Party listserve. At this point I have no idea what his group is ("Concerned Citizens of Connecticut?"). If anyone wants to contact him, e-mail me at edubrule at sbcglobal.net and I'll forward your e-mail to him. --Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: [Don Marks] To: greens at ctgreens.org Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 5:59 PM Subject: An Open Letter to the Senate (re: Mukasey) Please review and help to publicize, if in favor. Thank you. An Open Letter to the United States Senate Michael Mukasey, Questionable Assessments of Executive Power Received from concerned citizens of Connecticut Dear Senators, It is critical that the US Attorney General understand and uphold the Constitution in order to be effective. We are concerned that Michael B. Mukasey, the current nominee for US Attorney General, exhibits legally unsound positions regarding Constitutional Law. Upon reviewing the nominee's credentials, we discovered an op-ed written in the Wall Street Journal by the nominee in 2004 which defended the USA PATRIOT Act.[1] As you are aware, multiple sections of the USA PATRIOT Act have since been declared unconstitutional in court.[2][3][4][5] Because of the nominee's defense of the Act, we have analyzed statements in the article, and propose nine follow-up issues for the nominee that we request you to review and consider discussing with the nominee. (1) Judge Mukasey's 2004 Wall Street Journal article was entitled "Before attacking the Patriot Act, try reading it" and so it must be inferred that Judge Mukasey had read it. The USA PATRIOT Act has since been declared unconstitutional several times.[6] Does Judge Mukasey now agree with other judges who have declared multiple sections of the Act unconstitutional or does Judge Mukasey agree with President Bush's declaration that the USA PATRIOT Act was "Constitutional?"[7] Did Judge Mukasey not realize that sections of the Act were unconstitutional upon his reading of the Act? (2) In what ways will the aforementioned judicial assessments affect his putative function as Attorney General? Specifically, which, if any, unconstitutional sections of the Act does the Judge conclude should not be followed? If President Bush implements executive procedures which have potentially unconstitutional implications, will the nominee recognize this? (3) Judge Mukasey ridiculed the American Library Association for passing a resolution condemning the USA PATRIOT Act's section 215. Does Judge Mukasey now believe the American Library Association has a valid point that section 215 could be interpreted as applicable to library records? To what type of records does section 215 apply and would it have been Constitutional for the Attorney General and his agents to seize library records under section 215? (4) Part of Judge Mukasey's condemnation of the American Library Association included implicitly associating the organization with communism by condemning them for not condemning Fidel Castro. The Judge continued in his criticism of the organization by stating that the USA PATRIOT Act "requires that the Justice Department report to Congress every six months on subpoenas issued under it. At last report, there have been no such subpoenas issued to libraries. Indeed, there have been no such subpoenas, period." How did the Judge conclude that there were no such subpoenas when there is no independent mechanism to ensure the Justice Department follows the requirement to properly report subpoenas issued under the USA PATRIOT Act? Is the Judge concerned in any way about potential jeopardy to the separation of powers and checks and balances posed by the possibility of undetectable failures to report such subpoenas to Congress? USA PATRIOT Act implementation of National Security Letters has been declared unconstitutional in Doe v. Ashcroft and Doe v. Gonzales. Does the Judge agree with these judgments? Is the Judge aware that in one case, a Connecticut librarian, George Christian, received National Security Letters effectively gagging him from mentioning the receipt of the letters or anything pertaining to the search and seizure? [8] Can the Judge conceive of a circumstance where as Attorney General he could issue a National Security Letter to a librarian? (5) Judge Mukasey criticized cities such as Berkley, CA and Amherst, MA which at the time had created non-binding resolutions against the Act that called it "unconstitutional." Today, however, eight states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, and Vermont) thus far have created non-binding resolutions against the USA PATRIOT Act.[9] Does Judge Mukasey still feel that citizens should not be politically active against the USA PATRIOT Act even though it has been declared unconstitutional four times in federal courts? Will the non-binding resolutions be considered in any way by federal agents working for the Attorney General in the aforementioned states? (6) Judge Mukasey showed trust in the Bush Administration by writing that rumors "began right after Sept. 11, when some claimed that FBI agents were rounding up Muslim Arabs wholesale and holding them incommunicado. That accusation seems dubious on its face when you consider that the FBI has only about 12,000 agents world-wide." However, it was subsequently revealed that there were extraordinary renditions and President Bush in a press release admitted that there are secret detention centers.[10] According to President Bush, the CIA has been involved in that effort, but we do not know to what extent the FBI, DHS or the DoD have also been involved. Does Judge Mukasey concede at this time that there are in fact secret detention centers where Muslim Arabs are being held "incommunicado?" Does Judge Mukasey believe that there have been extraordinary renditions? If the President or other agencies requested the nominee's assistance as AG with such prisoners or soon-to-be prisoners, would he comply? (7) In a 2006 court case of el-Masri v. Tenet, federal court Judge Ellis dismissed el-Masri's complaints of extraordinary rendition on the grounds of state secrets privilege.[11] In Judge Ellis's decision, he wrote that the "state secrets privilege is an evidentiary privilege derived from the President's constitutional authority over the conduct of this country's diplomatic and military affairs and therefore belongs exclusively to the Executive Branch." However, the Constitution cannot empower the president to engage in unconstitutional acts. Does Judge Mukasey agree that unconstitutional and/or illegal aspects of programs implemented by the Executive Branch might not be protected by the state secrets privilege? If the nominee encounters illegal programs and is asked to take part in these hypothetical programs, what will be his course of action? If a Congressional committee asks about such programs will the nominee comply with a request for information? Will the nominee comply if the investigation is non-public and classified? Does the nominee believe that FISA would require him to give that information? (8) On March 9th, 2006, President Bush signed a USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization (HR 3199).[12] In his signing statement, he wrote in part, "The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."[13] Does Judge Mukasey agree that the unitary executive branch can declare exceptions in a signing statement to the passed law? Does Judge Mukasey generally agree with unitary executive theory and allow for signing statements to potentially reinterpret passed law? If so, how will this impact his role as Attorney General? (9) Judge Mukasey wrote in his article that the government's "most basic responsibility under the Constitution" is "to provide for the common defense [and] promote the general Welfare." However, when the Executive branch uses "defense" as a premise to curtail civil liberties, is the defense of the citizen's rights not contradicted? Does Judge Mukasey agree that it is therefore the responsibility of the Executive branch to provide for the common defense while ensuring civil liberties? Does the nominee believe that the President has the authority to override all civil liberties of the individual by alleging defense of the nation? What civil liberties are inviolate in the face of the President's desire to claim provision of the common defense and why? Judge Mukasey's philosophy on executive authority should be questioned due to his writings in defense of an unconstitutional law. In his writings, we observe what might be ridicule, overweening trust in the Executive branch, and failure to look critically at policy. All of these failures may be due to partisanship. His judgment in the Padilla case that a US citizen could be held without trial and could be declared an enemy combatant seem to support this interpretation of his writings.[14] Finally, due to the new law enacted giving tremendous trust to the position of Attorney General and entrusting the Attorney General with reporting to Congress, the nominee's writings and rulings should seriously be scrutinized.[15] We concerned citizens urge Senators to examine closely the nominee's philosophies on executive powers and civil liberties. At this juncture, it seems imperative to do so. Sincerely, Concerned citizens of Connecticut References [1] Mukasey, Michael. "The Spirit of Liberty." Wall Street Journal. 10 May 2004. [2] Doe v. Aschroft, 334 F. Supp. 2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) [3] Humanitarian Law Project v. Ashcroft, Case No.: CV 03-6107 ABC (MCx) http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/hlpash12304ord.pdf [4] Doe v. Gonzales, 04 Civ. 2614 (VM) (S.D.N.Y. 2007) http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/docs/usgov/2007-09-06_nsldecision.pdf [5] Brandon Mayfield v. United States of America, Civil No. 04-1427-AA http://cbs5.com/reference/local_file_269193524 [6] ibid. [7] Associated Press. "President urges renewal of Patriot Act" Washington/Politics. USA Today. 19 Apr 2004. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-17-bush-terrorism_x.htm [8] Alison Leigh Cowan. "Four Librarians Finally Break Silence in Records Case". N.Y. / Region. The New York Times. 31 May 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/nyregion/31library.html?ex=1306728000&en=9f197630a8f4a0a9&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss [9] Bill of Rights Defense Committee. 18 Oct 2007. http://www.bordc.org/ [10] White House. Press Releases. "President Discusses Creation of Military Commissions to Try Suspected Terrorists". 06 Sep 2006. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html [11] el-Masri v. Tenet. Case 1:05-cv-01417-TSE-TRJ. 12 May 2006. http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/elmasri_order_granting_motion_dismiss_051206.pdf [12] Public Law No: 109-177. 09 Mar 2006. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ177.109.pdf [13] John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California (hosted), Gerhard Peters (database). http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=65326 [14] Padilla v. Bush, 02 Civ. 4445 (MBM). http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/02CV04445.pdf [15] Public Law No: 110-55. 05 Aug 2007. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ055.110.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From edubrule at sbcglobal.net Sun Oct 28 22:41:23 2007 From: edubrule at sbcglobal.net (edubrule) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:41:23 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: An Open Letter to the Senate (re: Mukasey)-info on authors etc. Message-ID: <000b01c819d5$3b35f720$7f864c0c@edgn2b574u14bi> This is a follow-up to my previous post (which is at the bottom of this post). If anyone wants the Power Point attachment, contact me. --Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Marks To: edubrule Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 9:44 PM Subject: Re: An Open Letter to the Senate (re: Mukasey) Hi Ed. Thank you for responding. I am state coordinator for Connecticut Progressive Democrats which is an arm of PDA. Also, I am on the CT Bill of Rights Defense Committee along with other members of the group and even some Greens. Actually I was invited to the CT Bill of Rights Defense Committee by David Bedell who is a Green in my area. David was there before me and remains in CT-BoRDC. I was primary author of the letter and Erik Gunther (a Libertarian was secondary author and especially helped with editing). I am more or less a socialist myself but on civil liberties, Erik and I have great agreement. I have nothing but respect for Greens and the key values and would not mind sharing my email address. The open letter itself is not meant to be from any particular organizations as I felt it was important not to make it be about an advertisement of any group, just sheer "concerned citizens" which is what we truly are anyway. Some of the anti-USA PATRIOT Act work I have helped with previously (with the CT Progressive Democrats group) has included putting together a petition for a state resolution: http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/protexct Creating a powerpoint presentation--which was shown to Diane Farrell, a Dem running against Chris Shays in my district. I have attached that presentation as a file, if interested. And we also set up a conference at Quinnipiac University on the USA PATRIOT Act. The recorder of the video mistakenly attributed the conference to DFA instead of PDA, but it did not matter to us and anyway there were some DFA members there. Who cares, really. Here is a link to the video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8981818899552019917 Some of the other work our group has done has been analyses of congressional voting records and a presentation on universal health care. As far as the particular issue of Judge Mukasey, it did not seem like contacting Senator Lieberman would do any good since his mind seems already made up. On the other hand, I did contact Senator Dodd. Here is a listing of all places where I have contacted editors or others with this open letter: Senators: _________ Russ Feingold (voted against Pat Act) Joe Biden (Presidential candidate, member of JudComm) Chris Dodd (Presidential candidate, trying to remake his image) Pat Leahy (Chair Senate JudComm, plus VT is anti-Pat Act) Bernie Sanders (member of Jud Comm, plus VT is anti-Pat Act) Barak Obama (Presidential candidate) Barbara Boxer (seems pro-liberty, plus CA is anti-Pat Act) Sheldon Whitehouse (member of Jud Comm) Ted Kennedy (member of JudComm, is pro-liberty) Jon Tester (Montana which had anti-Pat Act legislation) Ken Salazar (Colorado which had anti-Pat Act legislation) Olympia Snowe (seems pro-liberty, Maine had anti-Pat Act leg) Media and Online Writing: ________________________ Wall Street Journal washington post hartford courant new haven advocate stamford advocate CT post ny Times The Nation Z Mag CounterPunch Democratic Underground Organizations: ______________ Progressive Democrats of America Bill of Rights Defense Committee American Library Association Connecticut Libertarian Party ACLU CCLU Connecticut Green Party Electronic Frontier Foundation Citizens for a Legitimate Government National Lawyers' Guild I did not think to pay an advertiser for posting the open letter. However, I will look into that as soon as possible. I hope that my sending the letter out will inspire others to spread it around as well. Thank you for the idea to advertise it and again thank you for your response. Don edubrule wrote: Hi Don Marks: I'm Ed DuBrule, a former secretary of the Connecticut Green Party. I respond to e-mail sent to the Connecticut Green Party website via greens at ctgreens.org. I have posted the below on the Connecticut Green Party's News listserve. I did not include your e-mail address, however, in what I posted, for privacy reasons (I changed the link Don Marks to just the text entry "[Don Marks]".) I wrote that I have your e-mail address and that I would forward an e-mail to you from anyone on the listserve who wished to communicate with you. Would you like me to re-post the below on our News listserve WITH contact information for your group? (Does your group have a website or blog? What has your group done, and what does it plan to do? I mean, I presume you mailed your letter to our two senators, but do you plan to meet with them or their staffs, to put an ad in newspapers, etc. etc.). I would feel I could make one additional post on this topic to our listserve, providing such contact/planning information. I am not authorized in any sense to speak for the Green Party. However just today I heard something on National Public Radio about how Mukasey has apparently refused to state his position on the legality of waterboarding (the torture technique). I suspect nearly all Greens would condemn the use of waterboarding. I have not read your open letter in any detail, but it appears to me to be a well-researched, important, and TIMELY piece of work, which is why I posted your e-mail on the listserve today without having resolved the issue of whether you want contact info for your group posted on the listserve. You may contact me further at either edubrule at sbcglobal.net or greens at ctgreens.org. Thank you for your work on this issue. --Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Marks To: greens at ctgreens.org Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 5:59 PM Subject: An Open Letter to the Senate (re: Mukasey) Please review and help to publicize, if in favor. Thank you. An Open Letter to the United States Senate Michael Mukasey, Questionable Assessments of Executive Power Received from concerned citizens of Connecticut Dear Senators, It is critical that the US Attorney General understand and uphold the Constitution in order to be effective. We are concerned that Michael B. Mukasey, the current nominee for US Attorney General, exhibits legally unsound positions regarding Constitutional Law. Upon reviewing the nominee's credentials, we discovered an op-ed written in the Wall Street Journal by the nominee in 2004 which defended the USA PATRIOT Act.[1] As you are aware, multiple sections of the USA PATRIOT Act have since been declared unconstitutional in court.[2][3][4][5] Because of the nominee's defense of the Act, we have analyzed statements in the article, and propose nine follow-up issues for the nominee that we request you to review and consider discussing with the nominee. (1) Judge Mukasey's 2004 Wall Street Journal article was entitled "Before attacking the Patriot Act, try reading it" and so it must be inferred that Judge Mukasey had read it. The USA PATRIOT Act has since been declared unconstitutional several times.[6] Does Judge Mukasey now agree with other judges who have declared multiple sections of the Act unconstitutional or does Judge Mukasey agree with President Bush's declaration that the USA PATRIOT Act was "Constitutional?"[7] Did Judge Mukasey not realize that sections of the Act were unconstitutional upon his reading of the Act? (2) In what ways will the aforementioned judicial assessments affect his putative function as Attorney General? Specifically, which, if any, unconstitutional sections of the Act does the Judge conclude should not be followed? If President Bush implements executive procedures which have potentially unconstitutional implications, will the nominee recognize this? (3) Judge Mukasey ridiculed the American Library Association for passing a resolution condemning the USA PATRIOT Act's section 215. Does Judge Mukasey now believe the American Library Association has a valid point that section 215 could be interpreted as applicable to library records? To what type of records does section 215 apply and would it have been Constitutional for the Attorney General and his agents to seize library records under section 215? (4) Part of Judge Mukasey's condemnation of the American Library Association included implicitly associating the organization with communism by condemning them for not condemning Fidel Castro. The Judge continued in his criticism of the organization by stating that the USA PATRIOT Act "requires that the Justice Department report to Congress every six months on subpoenas issued under it. At last report, there have been no such subpoenas issued to libraries. Indeed, there have been no such subpoenas, period." How did the Judge conclude that there were no such subpoenas when there is no independent mechanism to ensure the Justice Department follows the requirement to properly report subpoenas issued under the USA PATRIOT Act? Is the Judge concerned in any way about potential jeopardy to the separation of powers and checks and balances posed by the possibility of undetectable failures to report such subpoenas to Congress? USA PATRIOT Act implementation of National Security Letters has been declared unconstitutional in Doe v. Ashcroft and Doe v. Gonzales. Does the Judge agree with these judgments? Is the Judge aware that in one case, a Connecticut librarian, George Christian, received National Security Letters effectively gagging him from mentioning the receipt of the letters or anything pertaining to the search and seizure? [8] Can the Judge conceive of a circumstance where as Attorney General he could issue a National Security Letter to a librarian? (5) Judge Mukasey criticized cities such as Berkley, CA and Amherst, MA which at the time had created non-binding resolutions against the Act that called it "unconstitutional." Today, however, eight states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, and Vermont) thus far have created non-binding resolutions against the USA PATRIOT Act.[9] Does Judge Mukasey still feel that citizens should not be politically active against the USA PATRIOT Act even though it has been declared unconstitutional four times in federal courts? Will the non-binding resolutions be considered in any way by federal agents working for the Attorney General in the aforementioned states? (6) Judge Mukasey showed trust in the Bush Administration by writing that rumors "began right after Sept. 11, when some claimed that FBI agents were rounding up Muslim Arabs wholesale and holding them incommunicado. That accusation seems dubious on its face when you consider that the FBI has only about 12,000 agents world-wide." However, it was subsequently revealed that there were extraordinary renditions and President Bush in a press release admitted that there are secret detention centers.[10] According to President Bush, the CIA has been involved in that effort, but we do not know to what extent the FBI, DHS or the DoD have also been involved. Does Judge Mukasey concede at this time that there are in fact secret detention centers where Muslim Arabs are being held "incommunicado?" Does Judge Mukasey believe that there have been extraordinary renditions? If the President or other agencies requested the nominee's assistance as AG with such prisoners or soon-to-be prisoners, would he comply? (7) In a 2006 court case of el-Masri v. Tenet, federal court Judge Ellis dismissed el-Masri's complaints of extraordinary rendition on the grounds of state secrets privilege.[11] In Judge Ellis's decision, he wrote that the "state secrets privilege is an evidentiary privilege derived from the President's constitutional authority over the conduct of this country's diplomatic and military affairs and therefore belongs exclusively to the Executive Branch." However, the Constitution cannot empower the president to engage in unconstitutional acts. Does Judge Mukasey agree that unconstitutional and/or illegal aspects of programs implemented by the Executive Branch might not be protected by the state secrets privilege? If the nominee encounters illegal programs and is asked to take part in these hypothetical programs, what will be his course of action? If a Congressional committee asks about such programs will the nominee comply with a request for information? Will the nominee comply if the investigation is non-public and classified? Does the nominee believe that FISA would require him to give that information? (8) On March 9th, 2006, President Bush signed a USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization (HR 3199).[12] In his signing statement, he wrote in part, "The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."[13] Does Judge Mukasey agree that the unitary executive branch can declare exceptions in a signing statement to the passed law? Does Judge Mukasey generally agree with unitary executive theory and allow for signing statements to potentially reinterpret passed law? If so, how will this impact his role as Attorney General? (9) Judge Mukasey wrote in his article that the government's "most basic responsibility under the Constitution" is "to provide for the common defense [and] promote the general Welfare." However, when the Executive branch uses "defense" as a premise to curtail civil liberties, is the defense of the citizen's rights not contradicted? Does Judge Mukasey agree that it is therefore the responsibility of the Executive branch to provide for the common defense while ensuring civil liberties? Does the nominee believe that the President has the authority to override all civil liberties of the individual by alleging defense of the nation? What civil liberties are inviolate in the face of the President's desire to claim provision of the common defense and why? Judge Mukasey's philosophy on executive authority should be questioned due to his writings in defense of an unconstitutional law. In his writings, we observe what might be ridicule, overweening trust in the Executive branch, and failure to look critically at policy. All of these failures may be due to partisanship. His judgment in the Padilla case that a US citizen could be held without trial and could be declared an enemy combatant seem to support this interpretation of his writings.[14] Finally, due to the new law enacted giving tremendous trust to the position of Attorney General and entrusting the Attorney General with reporting to Congress, the nominee's writings and rulings should seriously be scrutinized.[15] We concerned citizens urge Senators to examine closely the nominee's philosophies on executive powers and civil liberties. At this juncture, it seems imperative to do so. Sincerely, Concerned citizens of Connecticut References [1] Mukasey, Michael. "The Spirit of Liberty." Wall Street Journal. 10 May 2004. [2] Doe v. Aschroft, 334 F. Supp. 2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) [3] Humanitarian Law Project v. Ashcroft, Case No.: CV 03-6107 ABC (MCx) http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/hlpash12304ord.pdf [4] Doe v. Gonzales, 04 Civ. 2614 (VM) (S.D.N.Y. 2007) http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/docs/usgov/2007-09-06_nsldecision.pdf [5] Brandon Mayfield v. United States of America, Civil No. 04-1427-AA http://cbs5.com/reference/local_file_269193524 [6] ibid. [7] Associated Press. "President urges renewal of Patriot Act" Washington/Politics. USA Today. 19 Apr 2004. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-17-bush-terrorism_x.htm [8] Alison Leigh Cowan. "Four Librarians Finally Break Silence in Records Case". N.Y. / Region. The New York Times. 31 May 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/nyregion/31library.html?ex=1306728000&en=9f197630a8f4a0a9&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss [9] Bill of Rights Defense Committee. 18 Oct 2007. http://www.bordc.org/ [10] White House. Press Releases. "President Discusses Creation of Military Commissions to Try Suspected Terrorists". 06 Sep 2006. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html [11] el-Masri v. Tenet. Case 1:05-cv-01417-TSE-TRJ. 12 May 2006. http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/elmasri_order_granting_motion_dismiss_051206.pdf [12] Public Law No: 109-177. 09 Mar 2006. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ177.109.pdf [13] John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California (hosted), Gerhard Peters (database). http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=65326 [14] Padilla v. Bush, 02 Civ. 4445 (MBM). http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/02CV04445.pdf [15] Public Law No: 110-55. 05 Aug 2007. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ055.110.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From timmckee2008 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 08:40:55 2007 From: timmckee2008 at yahoo.com (Tim McKee) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 05:40:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Please forward to all list serves; JOIN A DRAFT NADER CONFERENCE CALL Message-ID: <997319.41665.qm@web44810.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> JOIN A PRO NADER CONFERENCE CALL FROM: Peter Camejo, Nader's 2004 Vice Presidential Candidate The 2008 elections are just 13 months away. If Ralph Nader decides to run again should we support him? I think we should. Below I explain why. If you are a Green and a Nader supporter or are considering supporting Nader please join the conference call at 8PM New York time that is 5 PM California time Monday October 29th. The conference call number is:? 1-712-432-2000? code 58485. If you receive this email please send it out to all your friends and lists in the Green Party. WHY NADER? Ralph Nader understands the issues confronting us. He has gotten more legislation passed defending our people than any other person in the last 50 years if not throughout our nation s history.? He is an historic figure in his own life time and has the respect of people all over the world. Ralph Nader was attacked for daring to run and tell the truth unlike any person ever in our nation s history.? Ralph Nader s running is itself a statement in defense of democracy and the right of those who dissent from the pro Corporate two party dictatorship to speak out. No one has helped build the Green Party and defended the right of our people to hear other points of view more than Ralph Nader. He has held more fund raisers, gotten more media and won new supporters for our party than any other person in our history. WHAT WE NEED TO DO Some Greens have already begun working in support of Nader even though he has not yet announced. We have a web site, http://www.draftnader.org/>www.DraftNader.org, where you can sign up as a supporter. Two leading Greens, Howie Hawkins from New York and Danene Provencher from Minnesota have been proposed as co-chairs of a national draft Nader committee. Pro Nader Greens have already begun organizing to set up a national committee and to make sure all Greens hear Why Nader. In doing this we do not want to show any disrespect for the other candidates running for our national nomination. Quite the contrary we need to show respect for and try to help all candidates views get heard.? Truth can only be ascertained through the conflict of ideas. All our candidates are our friends and working to help build our party. Having debates, discussion, and differences on issues is all part of building a democratic party. Showing respect for all candidates is also part of maintaining internal democracy. I will be proposing on the conference call that we set up a national committee of State coordinators. Each States Draft Nader Committee should elect one or two people to represent their state. We need to make sure that at every nominating State convention pro Nader Greens have representation and can present Why Nader. We should consider expanding the co-chairs to possibly six people to get racial and geographic representation and maintain a 50/50 gender composition ? CALIFORNIA INCLUDES NADER At our most recent State conference in California 82% of our delegates voted to place Nader???s name?on the State primary ballot. This was an important victory for democracy in our party and to let all points of view be heard. Let us build on this important victory to make sure that unlike 2004 Nader gets a genuine hearing at all levels in the nomination process. In 2004 we failed to organize to get our views before our State conferences. Let s not let that happen again. Let s win the primary in California and all states, let s win each State convention. That will send a message to the Democrats that we will fight for democracy and free elections in our nation. That we will not let their spoiler system be used to silence those who favor peace, social justice and the saving of our planet. We need to send a message to all the progressives who capitulated in 2004 and supported a pro war, pro corporate, anti-environmental candidate that this is the time to return to the values they claim to support. In 2008 it is almost certain the Democrats will be back in power. Once again everyone will see their true nature. The pro corporate party that voted just a few years ago for Unequivocal support for George Bush???s conduct of the war in Iraq , that gave Bush 39 standing ovations at the State of the Union speech in 2005, and that supported the Patriot Act.? A new potential for the growth of our party, the struggle for free elections and social justice will develop as people realize the Democrats are not the answer. Let us continue the heritage of the abolitionist Liberty Party, the Greenback Labor Party, the great populist rebellion of the Populist Party, the Debsian socialists and the heroic Women's Party whose leaders were imprisoned and tortured as they fought for the right to vote. Let s fight for building a party that truly represents the interest of our people. Peter Miguel Camejo PS Please email either Howie Hawkins at hhawkins at igc.org or Danene Provencher pro826 at aol.com as I will be out of the country until just prior to the conference call. ? Feel free to forward to any Green Party listservs and individual Greens who are interested in supporting the Draft Nader for 2008 campaign, ? For Peace, Justice, Ecology and Democracy, Danene Provencher, MN Howie Hawkins, NY ***********************************************************************8 Tim McKee Manchester CT Home-860-643-2282 Cell-860-778-1304 BLOG- http://360.yahoo.com/timmckee2008 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From timmckee2008 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 12:37:28 2007 From: timmckee2008 at yahoo.com (Tim McKee) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:37:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Russia bands Green Party!! Message-ID: <597436.13252.qm@web44801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Russia bans third party from parliamentary election MOSCOW (Reuters) - Two more parties have been banned from Russia's Dec 2 parliamentary election for containing fake signatures in their lists, local media said on Sunday, a day after the Green Party was disqualified for the same reason. Small parties have complained that the registration process was too bureaucratic ahead of a vote in which the pro-Kremlin United Russia is expected to keep its majority. President Vladimir Putin will head its list of candidates. The Central Electoral Commission said there were too many discrepancies in the lists sent by the People's Union and the Party for Peace and Unity to let them run, Interfax said. The People's Union pledged to take the case to the Russian Supreme Court. On Saturday the Green party was denied the right to register for the election after the commission said the number of fake signatures in the list of 70,000 party supporters checked by the commission exceeded the permissible five percent. Eleven parties will participate in the polls. An Oct 24 opinion survey from independent pollster Levada Centre showed the United Russia party was backed by 68 percent of voters, up from 55 percent in September. Putin made the surprise announcement on October 1 that he would head United Russia's national list of candidates, in a move to maintain his influence after he leaves office next year. (c) Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world. This article: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1720522007 Last updated: 28-Oct-07 18:18 GMT ***********************************************************************8 Tim McKee Manchester CT Home-860-643-2282 Cell-860-778-1304 BLOG- http://360.yahoo.com/timmckee2008 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From timmckee2008 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 15:54:39 2007 From: timmckee2008 at yahoo.com (Tim McKee) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:54:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Fwd: Meet Green Party candidates for President in nearby Rhode Island! Message-ID: <166574.12889.qm@web44816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Greg Gerritt wrote: Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:38:15 -0400 Subject: Meet Green Party candidates for President From: Greg Gerritt To: Greg Gerritt On Saturday Nov 3 at 1 PM the GPRI will hold its Fall General meeting at the Peace Dale Library 1057 Kingstown Rd in Peace Dale. Agenda follows and the highlight is the presidential Candidates forum. Two candidates are committed to attend, and one other may attend. If you would like a further opportunity to met with Green VP candidate KCM Curry and to really discuss Green presidential prospects for 2008 in detail please come to Greg Gerritt?s house in Providence on Saturday evening Nov 3 at 6:30 PM for informal discussion. If you would like to attend the evening session, email or call Greg (331-0529) so he can have a count of attendees for the evening and can provide you with directions. Of course everyone is welcome and encouraged to attend the GPRI meeting and candidates forum on Saturday afternoon. AGENDA GPRI STATE MEETING SATURDAY November 3 1PM Peacedale Public Library 1057 Kingstown Rd Peace Dale WELCOME, INTRODUCTIONS 20 MINUTES STATE OF THE GREEN PARTY 20 MINUTES International Report 5 min National Report 5 min Treasurer?s Report 5 min Other committee reports 5 min GPRI CODE OF CONDUCT 15 MINUTES Update on drafting a proposed Code 2008 CONVENTION DELEGATE 10 MINUTES SELECTION RULES ELECTION OF OFFICERS 10 MINUTES 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN 60 MINUTES Background 5 Minutes Candidate Forum 40 Minutes Candidate Q & A 15 Minutes ***********************************************************************8 Tim McKee Manchester CT Home-860-643-2282 Cell-860-778-1304 BLOG- http://360.yahoo.com/timmckee2008 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BIO and Green Resume for Ms skcm curry Oct. 2007.doc Type: application/msword Size: 84480 bytes Desc: pat937251311 URL: From roseberry3 at cox.net Mon Oct 29 19:15:46 2007 From: roseberry3 at cox.net (B Barry) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:15:46 -0400 Subject: {news} Proposed agenda for 10-30-07 SCC meeting of CTGP at PortlandSenior Center In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20071029231528.VLSS3771.eastrmmtao102.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> Dear Cliff, Please see ?B? in the proposed agenda which is in every agenda for any such proposal?. via a committee, chapter or 5 Green Party members. As of this time,.. No proposal has been forwarded to me for tomorrows agenda either via: a committee, chapter or 5 Green Party members. However, the agenda will be determined tomorrow by the SCC Barbara _____ From: Clifford Thornton [mailto:efficacy at msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:48 AM To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org; B Barry Subject: Re: {news} Proposed agenda for 10-30-07 SCC meeting of CTGP at PortlandSenior Center I would like to add by laws from Jerry Martin. This should be at every state meeting until we have a solid one. Also a budget for the state party and national scene. Cliff ----- Original Message ----- From: HYPERLINK "mailto:roseberry3 at cox.net"B Barry To: HYPERLINK "mailto:ctgp-news at ml.greens.org"ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 11:45 PM Subject: {news} Proposed agenda for 10-30-07 SCC meeting of CTGP at PortlandSenior Center Connecticut Green Party - Part of the GPUS HYPERLINK "http://www.ctgreens.org/"http://www.ctgreens.org/ - HYPERLINK "http://www.greenpartyus.org/"http://www.greenpartyus.org/ to unsubscribe click here HYPERLINK "mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org"mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml. greens.org Proposed agenda for 10-30-07 SCC meeting of CTGP at Portland Senior Center 7 Waverly Avenue, Portland, CT 7:00PM to 9:00PM Phone: 860-342-6760 Facilitator: To Be Determined A. Preliminaries: 1. (1 minute): Introductions of voting attendees; non-voting attendees; chapters; if quorum was met; timekeeper; ground rules. 2. (2-4 minutes): Approval of tonight's proposed agenda, any deletions or additions. 3. (2-4 minutes): Review and approval of minutes of 8-28-07 and 9-25-07 SCC meeting. 4. (2-4 minutes): Review and acceptance of minutes from the 9-17-07 and 10-16-07 EC meeting. 5. (2-4 minutes): Treasurer's report from Christopher Reilly. B. Any proposals/referendums by chapters, committee e.g. Policies and Procedures Committee or members. C. Reports: 1. (15 minutes): Proposal: Impeachment of Bush/Cheney; town resolutions for impeachment of Bush/Cheney. 2. (10 minutes): Reports about the Green Party candidates in CT. 3. (5-10 minutes): GPUS reports from CTGP representatives: Tim McKee and Charlie Pillsbury; GPAX report; reports from other members of GPUS committees. 4. (5 minutes): Political issues the GP of CT has addressed with legislators during the 2008 Legislative Session: Fight the Hike/universal health coverage. 5. (2-3 minutes): Our websites. 6. (5 minutes): CT Green Times. 7. (5 minutes): Fundraiser position. 8. (1 minute): ACLU lawsuit. 9. (2-5 minutes, each): other Chapter reports. 10. Date, place and time for next SCC meeting 11-27-07 and date, place and time of next EC meeting in 11-07. 11. Any additions Green Party Key Values: non-violence, respect for diversity, grassroots democracy, social justice and equal opportunity, ecological wisdom, decentralization, community-based economics and economic justice, future focus and sustainability, personal and global responsibility, feminism and gender equality. HYPERLINK "http://www.google.com/" \nwww.google.com No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1084 - Release Date: 10/21/2007 3:09 PM To be removed please mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org _______________________________________________ CTGP-news mailing list CTGP-news at ml.greens.org http://ml.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/ctgp-news ATTENTION! The information in this transmission is privileged and confidential and intended only for the recipient listed above. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by email and delete the original message. The text of this email is similar to ordinary or face-to-face conversations and does not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the case of a formal legal opinion and does not constitute a representation of the opinions of the CT Green Party. The responsibility for any messages posted herein is solely that of the person who sent the message, and the CT Green Party hereby leaves this responsibility in the hands of it's members. NOTE: This is an inherently insecure forum, please do not post confidential messages and always realize that your address can be faked, and although a message may appear to be from a certain individual, it is always possible that it is fakemail. This is mail sent by a third party under an illegally assumed identity for purposes of coercion, misdirection, or general mischief. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown. This e-mail transmission may contain confidential information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from your files if you are not the intended recipient. Thank you for your compliance. To be removed please mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1098 - Release Date: 10/29/2007 9:28 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1098 - Release Date: 10/29/2007 9:28 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From edubrule at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 29 19:38:26 2007 From: edubrule at sbcglobal.net (edubrule) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:38:26 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: Important special briefing for LMF Supporting Organizations: Kerrigan decision day plans Message-ID: <005e01c81a8b$5aa4df70$fa864c0c@edgn2b574u14bi> The below was sent to the CT Green Party website. --Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: [Love Makes a Family] To: ... Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 6:29 PM Subject: Important special briefing for LMF Supporting Organizations: Kerrigan decision day plans To the Supporting Organizations and Allies of Love Makes a Family, We are carefully making plans for a CT Supreme Court decision in the Kerrigan marriage equality case. Although we don't know when this ruling will happen, we know that, when it does, we will certainly need the help of our dedicated allies in the ensuing days to ensure our messages of fairness for LGBT people are being communicated consistently, quickly, and effectively. Will you please join us for a special briefing on the Kerrigan case plans? This will be an opportunity for us to update you on the case and decision day plans, and for your questions to be answered. Choose either of the two briefing days below, and dial in at the designated time: Thursday, November 8th at 12:30pm Friday, November 9th at 9am At the time of the conference, dial: 1-641-715-3200. Then, use access code: 280721 followed by the # sign. Please dial in a minute or so early so we all can start promptly. The call should take about 30-40 minutes. (Also, this we use "freeconferencecall.com" you will be charged for a long distance call.) Anne Stanback and I will be facilitating the call. Thank you for your continued support of marriage equality! These are very exciting times, and we are grateful to you for joining us in these efforts. Best regards, Carol Carol Buckheit Associate Director Love Makes a Family 576 Farmington Ave. Hartford, CT 06105 Tel: 860-525-7777 FAX: 860-525-8888 E-mail: carol at lmfct.org Web: www.lmfct.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From timmckee2008 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 10:59:41 2007 From: timmckee2008 at yahoo.com (Tim McKee) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:59:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} COMMENTS-WELCOME TO FORUM LISTSERVE Discussion Has Begun on GP-US Proposal: ID 324 - Delegate Apportionment for the GPUS Presidential Nominating Convention Message-ID: <739104.38384.qm@web44812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> PLEASE POSY ANY QUESTIONS TO THE FORUM LIST SERVE ONLY IN SERVICE TIM MCKEE oting at gpus.org wrote: Date: 29 Oct 2007 04:05:02 -0000 From: voting at gpus.org To: natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org Subject: [usgp-nc] Discussion Has Begun on GP-US Proposal: ID 324 - Delegate Apportionment for the GPUS Presidential Nominating Convention Discussion has begun for the following proposal: Proposal ID: 324 Proposal: Delegate Apportionment for the GPUS Presidential Nominating Convention Floor Manager: Jason Nabewaniec, j_nabs at hotmail.com Discussion Dates: 10/29/2007 - 11/11/2007 Voting Dates: 11/12/2007 - 11/18/2007 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time The GP-US strives for consensus, which involves several steps, taken in order.. Clarifying questions and responses from the group making the proposal. Airing of concerns and discussion about how to improve the proposal by taking into consideration those concersn Call for consensus on the final proposal. Background: The Delegate Apportionment Committee (DAC) was elected pursuant to Green Party of the United States (GPUS) proposal 175, worked for 10 months discussing and negotiating apportionment issues, achieved consensus, accepted amendments, and proposed a new delegate apportionment formula in the form of proposal 256. This proposal needed 66.7% approval to pass; proposal 256 received 65% approval. The DAC had been charged with proposing apportionment in general, including the Presidential nominating convention; after their consensus proposal failed, members ceased work on proposals. GPUS proposal 272, a revision of the proposal 256, was then sponsored by several states, adopted as a formula on April 16, 2007 and implemented on July 4, 2007 with 73% approval. Since the DAC had intended to propose a model for the convention apportionment similar in structure to that proposed in 256, and since several of the people who opposed proposal 256 and 272 said that they thought that such a performance-based menu-option model was suitable for the convention apportionment, this model is being proposed for convention apportionment. The current proposal was developed, with minor amendments, from a proposal for convention apportionment approved by all the members of the original DAC who remained to the end of the committee's work. Proposal: This proposal presents a formula to be used to calculate delegate apportionment for GPUS Presidential nominating conventions, starting with the 2008 convention and until such time another proposal is proposed and adopted. The new Delegate Apportionment Committee to be elected in 2010, pursuant to proposal 272, shall revisit issues of proportionate representation in the GPUS national Presidential nominating convention in light of experience with this formula and make a new proposal for delegate apportionment to the 2012 national convention in 2011. If that proposal is not adopted, this formula shall continue to be in effect. ALLOCATION OF DELEGATES TO THE GPUS PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING CONVENTION ARTICLE I. CALCULATION - The apportionment for the national nominating convention will be calculated every four years, in the odd numbered year preceding the national election year by the Apportionment Standing Committee. Pursuant to proposal 272, this committee will have collected the necessary information from state parties to calculate the National Committee apportionment. The Apportionment Standing Committee shall use this same data to calculate the apportionment for the Presidential nominating convention. The Apportionment Standing Committee shall consider possible corrections to the data since the previous calculation. Should there be any ambiguities in the application of the calculation method, the committee shall rule on these according to its internal challenge process and standards. The results of such rulings shall be reported on its publicly accessible listserv. The Apportionment Standing Committee shall present the results of its calculation of the 2008 convention as soon as possible, and no longer than two months following the adoption of this proposal. It shall present the results of recalculations to the National Committee by November of the year preceding the Presidential election year. The results of the apportionment recalculation must again be approved by the National Committee by a simple majority vote, and shall become effective for the following Presidential nominating convention. ARTICLE II. DELEGATES AND VOTES -Each delegate seat counts for one vote. To compensate for the expense, difficulty and environmental burden of travel to the convention, proxy votes are allowed, under the following rules: 1. The number of proxy votes per delegation may not exceed the number of seated delegates on that delegation. 2. Delegations may cast any allowed proxy votes by consulting their constituent body or consulting a specific delegate whose proxy is held. 3. Delegations with at least four voting members also have the option of casting the proxy votes proportionally to the votes of the seated delegates as a whole. 4. In delegations where individual seated delegates carry proxy votes, no seated delegate may cast more than one proxy vote. ARTICLE III. SIZE OF THE GPUS PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING CONVENTION - The Presidential nominating convention shall consist of 800 ?5 delegates when all accredited state parties and caucuses are included. Should any new state party or caucus become accredited after an apportionment, the convention will be expanded by the number of delegates allotted to the newly entering member party or caucus. ARTICLE IV. MINIMUM VOTE - All accredited state parties are entitled to a minimum of five votes and five delegates. Accredited caucuses are guaranteed three votes. Any GPUS-accredited caucus of a diversity group that is under-represented on the National Committee by a factor of 2 to 1 or greater, relative to the general population, shall be apportioned five votes. ARTICLE V. PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION METHOD - Using the data collected from each state party, the Apportionment Standing Committee will determine the proportion of delegates allocated to each state party to the national convention using four measures of relative Green Party strength. These measures are based on estimating each state party's active contribution to the Green Party in terms of campaign strength, in-state voting strength, Presidential voting strength, and number of members. Within most of these categories, there are multiple methods of determining the strength of a state party relative to parties in other states. The state may choose which method in each category to use. If the state does not choose, the Apportionment Standing Committee will use the method in each category that gives each state party its highest possible score. The final score is given in terms of a percentage of the national Presidential nominating convention. The formula for calculating the number of delegates allocated to a given state party is as follows: 1. Using the choices of the state party, calculate the score in each of the four categories. Normalize each category so that the total percentage is 100%. 2. Add up these scores and divide by 4 to get an average score. This is the percentage of the delegation designated to the state. 3. If the percentage is less than the minimum percentage threshold of delegates allocated to each state, then five delegates will be allocated to that state party. The minimum percentage threshold is {5 /[800 - (number of delegates apportioned to accredited caucuses)]} x 100%. 4. If the percentage is greater than the minimum threshold, that is the initial percentage of delegates allocated to the state party. Once the initial percentages are calculated for all accredited parties, these values must be normalized to assure that the total percent of delegates equals 100%. The formula for normalizing the initial percentages is as follows: 5. Set all states with initial percentage scores below the minimum threshold value equal to the minimum threshold. 6. Add up the initial percentage scores of all states and divide each state's initial percentage by this total. 7. Repeat steps 5. and 6. until the total percentage of delegates allotted to all states (800 - number of delegates apportioned to accredited caucuses) equals approximately 100% (will usually take 3 to 4 iterations), The number of delegates allocated to each state is calculated by multiplying the normalized percentage of each state by [800 - (number of delegates apportioned to accredited caucuses)] and rounding off to the nearest integer. 8. The threshold for rounding may need to be adjusted in order to bring the total number of delegates within the range of ?5 of the target number. ARTICLE VI. ALLOCATION MEASURES The Apportionment Standing Committee will seek submissions of data from state Green Party organizations according to the following criteria: 1. Membership The number of Green Party members in the state party as close as possible to the date of the start of the work of the committee. (This will then be calculated as a percentage of the total number of Green Party members in the United States.) Green Party membership is defined as follows: * In states where the Green Party can register voters, Green Party membership is defined as the number of voters that are registered in the Green Party. Green Party membership in these states may also include those who are ineligible to vote but are extended formal membership by the state party. * In states without Green Party voter registration, Green Party membership is defined as the number of people who have filled the qualifications for membership in that state party, have signed up to be Green Party members, and are included in the database of current members in that state party. Calculations and email lists may not be substituted for membership rolls. State parties without partisan registration that have Green Party primaries may use the number of voters who received Green Party primary ballots as a back up measure for membership. Solely for the purposes of standardizing this apportionment measure between states, after voting in a primary of another political party, Green Party members should re-affirm their Green Party membership with their state party. This may be handled on the honor system and does not require a significant extra administrative burden for the state party. The state party is free to count its own membership however it wants for other purposes; this recommendation is solely for reporting this particular measure to the Apportionment Committee in a manner that makes the numbers as comparable as possible. If state legal action results in a state Green party having its members legally invalidated, they may continue to use the same membership count until the next apportionment cycle. NOTE: For the purposes of #2, Campaign Strength, and #3, State Voting Strength, "Green Party Office Holders" and "Green Party Candidates" must be Green Party members. They may not also be members of the Republican or Democratic Party or running solely on another political party's ballot line. For State Voting Strength, if a candidate is listed on more than one party's ballot line, only the votes for the Green Party ballot line can be counted. 2. Campaign Strength A. The number of Green Party Office Holders in your state as a percentage of the total number of Green Party Office Holders in all affiliated state parties. Green Party office holders are defined as members of the Green Party who are elected to public office in elections (not including internal party offices such as central committees). If they received less than 50 votes to win the office, they will count half. B. The number of local and statewide Green Party Candidates that ran for office in your state during the last four-year election cycle as a percentage of the total number of local and statewide Green Party Candidates that ran for office in the U.S. in all affiliated state parties during the same period. Local or statewide Green Party Candidates are defined as Green Party members who run and appear on the ballot in public elections. If they received less than 50 votes, they will count half. C. The percentage of the total U.S. population that resides in your state, multiplied by 0.5. This measure is designed to compensate for overly restrictive ballot access laws in some states. States are only eligible to use this measure if they do not have ballot access and make a claim that ballot access laws are overly restrictive in their state; states with ballot access may not use this measure for this category. If used here, population may not be used in #3, State Voting Strength or in #4, Presidential Voting Strength. D. As another option to compensate for overly restrictive ballot access laws, states may choose to repeat the Membership measure (Article VI, Section 1, above) in this category. States are only eligible to use this measure if they do not have ballot access and make a claim that ballot access laws are overly restrictive in their state; states with ballot access may not use this measure for this category. 3. State Voting Strength A. The number of votes cast for Green Party Candidates in your state during the last four-year election cycle as a percentage of the total number of votes cast for Green Party Candidates in the U.S during the same time. State parties may use the number of signers of state party ballot access petitions as equivalent to votes cast. B. The highest number of votes received by a single Green Party Candidate in your state during the last four-year election cycle as a percentage of the total number of Green Party votes received by the highest vote getter in each state in the U.S. during the same time. State parties may use the number of signers of state party ballot access petitions as equivalent to votes cast. C. The highest vote percentage received by a Green Party candidate in your state during the last four years in a statewide partisan election for Governor, Lt. Governor or U.S. Senate (or Mayor or Chair of the City Council for the District of Columbia) that is contested by both major political parties, weighted against the same data from every affiliated state Green Party. Because this measure, unlike all the others, is a percentage of a percentage, its effect shall be capped at a maximum of five extra delegates. D. The percentage of the total U.S. population that resides in your state, multiplied by 0.5. This measure is designed to compensate for overly restrictive ballot access laws in some states. If used here, population may not be used in #2, Campaign Strength or in #4, Presidential Voting Strength. States are only eligible to use this measure if they do not have ballot access and make a claim that ballot access laws are overly restrictive in their state; states with ballot access may not use this measure for this category. E. As another option to compensate for overly restrictive ballot access laws, states may choose to repeat the Membership measure (Article VI, Section 1, above) in this category. States are only eligible to use this measure if they do not have ballot access and make a claim that ballot access laws are overly restrictive in their state; states with ballot access may not use this measure for this category. 4. Presidential Voting Strength A. The number of votes cast for Green Party presidential nominee in your state in the November 2000 general election as a percentage of the number of votes cast for the same candidate nationwide. B. The number of votes cast for Green Party presidential nominee in your state in the November 2004 general election as a percentage of the number of votes cast for the same candidate nationwide. C. The percentage of the total U.S. population that resides in your state, multiplied by 0.5. (This measure is designed to compensate for overly restrictive ballot access laws in some states. If used here, population may not be used in #2, Campaign Strength or in #3, State Voting Strength.) D. As another option to compensate for overly restrictive ballot access laws, states may choose to repeat the Membership measure (Article VI, Section 1, above) in this category. Resources: CONTACTS: Cat Woods, cat801 at mindspring.com, 415-897-6989 Aram Falsafi, aram at aramfalsafi.com, 206-723-6827 References: Full details are available at: http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=324 Please send your comments to natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org. Thank you and have a wonderful day! --The GP-US Voting Admin _______________________________________________ Natlcomvotes mailing list To send a message to the list, write to: Natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org To unsubscribe or change your list options, go to: http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomvotes If your state delegation changes, please see: http://gp.org/committees/nc/documents/delegate_change.html To report violations of listserv protocol, write to forummanagers at lists.gp-us.org For other information about the Coordinating Committee, see: http://gp.org/committees/nc/ ***********************************************************************8 Tim McKee Manchester CT Home-860-643-2282 Cell-860-778-1304 BLOG- http://360.yahoo.com/timmckee2008 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Natlcomvotes mailing list To send a message to the list, write to: Natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org To unsubscribe or change your list options, go to: http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomvotes If your state delegation changes, please see: http://gp.org/committees/nc/documents/delegate_change.html To report violations of listserv protocol, write to forummanagers at lists.gp-us.org For other information about the Coordinating Committee, see: http://gp.org/committees/nc/ From timmckee2008 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 10:54:34 2007 From: timmckee2008 at yahoo.com (Tim McKee) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:54:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} PLEASE READ AND COMMENT*** GP-US Proposal: ID 323 - Rules of the Presidential Nominating Convention of the Green Party of the United States Message-ID: <861390.78898.qm@web44813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> PLEASE INCLUDE ANY COMMENTS TO THE FORUM LIST SERVE NOT THE NEWS LIST SERVE IN SERVICE TIM MCKEE voting at gpus.org wrote: Date: 29 Oct 2007 04:05:02 -0000 From: voting at gpus.org To: natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org Subject: [usgp-nc] Discussion Has Begun on GP-US Proposal: ID 323 - Rules of the Presidential Nominating Convention of the Green Party of the United States Discussion has begun for the following proposal: Proposal ID: 323 Proposal: Rules of the Presidential Nominating Convention of the Green Party of the United States Floor Manager: Jim Coplen, jcoplen at fastmail.fm Discussion Dates: 10/29/2007 - 11/11/2007 Voting Dates: 11/12/2007 - 11/18/2007 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time The GP-US strives for consensus, which involves several steps, taken in order.. Clarifying questions and responses from the group making the proposal. Airing of concerns and discussion about how to improve the proposal by taking into consideration those concersn Call for consensus on the final proposal. Background: Previous documents adopted to govern the Green Party's previous Presidential Nominating Conventions included provisions sunsetting those rules. It is therefore necessary to adopt a new set of rules to govern subsequent Conventions. Your Committee on Bylaws, Rules, Policies and Procedures, having reviewed those rules sunset following previous Conventions and the direction of the National Committee in its action to adopt Proposal #168, has considered and endorsed for National Committee consideration the adoption of the following rules. The following articles include rules to govern the Presidential Nominating Convention; for the credentialing of delegations to the Presidential Nominating Convention; for promoting the use of proportional representation in the selection of state party delegations; for the creation and filing of state party delegation plans and their results; and to provide for the applications for waivers from these rules. Proposal: Resolved, that the National Committee of the Green Party of the United States hereby adopts the following as the "Rules of the Presidential Nominating Convention of the Green Party of the United States." Rules of the Presidential Nominating Convention of the Green Party of the United States. ARTICLE I. RULES OF THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING CONVENTION Section 1-1. Name, Findings, Intention, Scope and Powers 1-1.1 This policy shall be known as the "Rules of the Presidential Nominating Convention of the Green Party of the United States", shall apply to the Presidential Nominating Convention of the Green Party of the United States held every four years, and may be cited as the Convention Rules. 1-1.2 The bylaws of the Green Party of the United States provide that "The presidential nominating convention of the Green Party is the delegated decision-making body responsible for nominating the national Green Party's presidential and vice presidential candidates and approving the Green Party's national platform." 1-1.3 It is the intention of Green Party of the United States to provide for Presidential Nominating Conventions whose legitimacy is recognized by the member state Green Parties. 1-1.4 Each Presidential Nominating Convention shall have the powers to: 1-1.4.1 adopt the Report of the Credentials Committee, determining the voting membership of the Convention. 1-1.4.2 adopt the Platform of the Green Party of the United States. 1-1.4.3 conduct an election to name the Green Party nominees for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States. 1-1.5 Limit of powers of the Presidential Nominating Convention Those powers not enumerated herein as delegated to the Presidential Nominating Convention by the National Committee, are reserved to the National Committee or to the state Parties. Section 1-2. Convention of Delegates 1-2.1 Each Presidential Nominating Convention of the Green Party of the United States shall consist of delegates chosen as provided by this policy, among whom shall be apportioned the votes of the convention as provided by this policy. Section 1-3. Delegate Apportionment 1-3.1 The number of delegates to which each state Green Party shall be entitled shall be apportioned according to a Presidential Nominating Convention Apportionment process, procedure or formula approved by the National Committee of the Green Party of the United States; and such process, procedure or formula shall become Article III of these Convention Rules. Section 1-4. Credentialing of Delegates 1-4.1 The manner in which delegates shall be credentialed shall be according to a process or procedure approved by the National Committee of the Green Party of the United States; and such process, procedure or formula shall become Article IV of these Convention Rules. Section 1-5. Voting and Floor Rules 1-5.1 The manner in which votes of the convention shall be cast, and the business of the convention conducted, shall be according to a process or procedure approved by the National Committee of the Green Party of the United States; and such process, procedure or formula shall become Article V of these Convention Rules. ARTICLE II. CONVENTION OF DELEGATES Section 2-1. Delegations per State, District or Territory 2-1.1 One Delegation Per State, District or Territory The convention shall consist of one Green Party delegation from each state entitled under the U.S. Constitution to choose members of the Presidential Electoral College, and from those territories and districts of the United States that are currently disfranchised. 2.1.2 Disfranchised Districts and Territories Until otherwise amended by the National Committee of the Green Party of the United States, the list of those territories and districts that are considered to be disfranchised and are entitled to send a delegation to the Convention include the District of Columbia, the island of American Samoa, the island of Guam, the island of Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands of Saint Croix, Saint John, Saint Thomas and Water Island. 2-1.2(a) Except as explicitly provided, all references in this document to states and statewide Green Parties as it pertains to delegates shall be considered to apply to these districts and territories where there are Greens both organized in them and seeking representation at the convention. Section 2-2 States With An Accredited Green Party 2-2.1 In those states with a statewide Green Party organized under the election laws of their state, and accredited as a member state party of the Green Party of the United States, the Delegation to each Presidential Nominating Convention shall be chosen pursuant to that state party?s rules for naming their delegation to such convention. The votes to which each such Delegation is entitled shall be apportioned in accordance with the state party's rules. Section 2-3 States With A Green Party, Not Accredited With the Green Party of the United States 2-3.1 In those states with a statewide Green Party organized under the election laws of their state, but not accredited as a member state party of the Green Party of the United States, the Delegation to each Presidential Nominating Convention shall be chosen pursuant to that state party's rules for naming their delegation to such convention. The votes to which each such Delegation is entitled shall be apportioned in accordance with the state party's rules. In those states with no accredited statewide Green Party, no application for such an organizing party shall be granted unless the Credentials Committee finds that the applicant would be eligible to join the Green Party of the United States were it to apply. Section 2-4 States With More Than One Green Party 2-4.1 In those states where two or more statewide Green Parties are organized under the election laws of their state prior to October 1 preceding each Presidential Nominating Convention, the Delegation to such Convention shall be chosen as provided by the rules of the statewide Green Party which is accredited as a member state party of the Green Party of the United States. The votes to which the delegation is entitled shall be apportioned as provided by such rules. 2-4.2 In those states where two or more statewide Green Parties are organized under the election laws of their state prior to October 1 preceding each Presidential Nominating Convention, where neither is accredited as a member of the Green Party of the United States and where one but not both of the state parties retain ballot access from a previous election and another party from the state does not have and cannot reasonably be expected to obtain ballot access, the Delegation to such Convention shall be chosen as provided by the rules of the statewide Green Party with ballot access. The votes to which each such Delegation is entitled shall be apportioned in accordance with the state party's rules. Section 2-5 States Without A Green Party 2-5.1 In those states where no Green Party is organized at a state level, any three or more local Green organizations, cumulatively comprising at least 15 individuals, may by joint resolution call a statewide convention under such rules as may be provided in such joint resolution, for the purpose of electing the state's delegation to the Presidential Nominating Convention, where such statewide convention also resolves to organize a statewide Green Party under the laws of the state and to work for ballot access. 2-5.2 Those initiating the call and attending the convention are subject to the following conditions regarding their political party affiliation: 2-5.2(a) In states where party membership is defined by voter registration - and one can legally register Green ? those comprising the call and those attending the convention must be a registered Green Party member; or 2-5.2(b) In states where party membership is defined by voter registration - but one cannot legally register Green - one cannot be a registered voter in another party; or 2-5.2(c) In states where party membership is not defined by voter registration, one cannot also be a member of another party. 2-5.3 Such a call shall be published to all Green locals within the state which have been identified to the Secretary of the Green Party of the United States; and such notice shall be published at least 30 days prior to the proposed statewide convention. 2-5.4 Such a call shall be published to any statewide Green Party in a geographically adjacent state for dissemination to each identified Green local or state organization in such border state with a request to alert any known Greens from the adjacent, unorganized state holding the convention. 2-5.5 Such a call shall be sent to the Secretary of the Green Party of the United States, so that the Secretary may publish the call to the National Committee. 2-5.6 The failure of existing Green organizations within such an unorganized state to publish a call for such a statewide convention prior to March 15th of each year during which a Presidential Nominating Convention is held shall serve as prima-facie evidence of that they will not do so. 2-5.7 In those states with no statewide Green Party where no agreement can be reached among a majority of participants in the state convention on how or whether to elect a Delegation, no such Delegation shall be seated, except by special dispensation of the National Committee, or of the Presidential Nominating Convention once it has convened. Section 2-6. Diversity and Representation in Delegations 2-6.1 Each state Green Party is urged to choose a Delegation that, in addition to being representative of its membership, also reflects the diversity of the people of that state. 2-6.2 Each state Green Party is encouraged to select its delegates in a way that offers representation proportional to the support each candidate enjoys within the party, parties or confederation of locals represented by the delegation, and that allows the delegation to truly reflect the diversity of people within the state. Section 2-7. Delegation Plans for Selection and Instruction of Delegates 2-7.1 Deadline for Submission of Delegate Plans 2-7.1(a) At least 120 days prior to the convening of each Presidential Nominating Convention, each state?s Green Party shall submit to the Credentials Committee, a Delegate Plan for selecting and instructing its delegation. The Credentials Committee shall post a copy of each Delegate Plan on its website. 2-7.2 Content of Delegate Plans 2-7.2(a) Delegate Plans shall include a description of the methods used to learn the preferences of state Green Party members for the nomination for President at the Presidential Nominating Convention. 2-7.2(b) States are urged to provide in their Delegate Plans for a delegate selection process that offers representation proportional to the support each candidate enjoys within the state Green Party represented by the Delegation (or similarly where there is no state Green Party, as defined in Section 2-1) and that allows the Delegation to reflect the diversity within the state Green Party and the state?s population. 2-7.2(c) Delegate Plans shall provide explanation of the process to be employed to apportion delegates among the candidates seeking the nomination of the party, and for those that favor ?none of the above," ?no nominee? or other such preference. 2-7.2(d) Delegate Plans may provide for alternates for delegates, but shall not name, nor shall the Credentials Committee credential, more alternates than the number of delegates to which the state is entitled. Where alternates are provided for, Delegate Plans shall specify the manner in which they take the place of delegates and the instructions they have in doing so. 2-7.3 Change to Delegate Plans 2-7.3(a) After its Delegate Plan has been submitted to the Credential Committee, no change to the rules used by a state Green Party for selecting or instructing its delegation shall be binding unless the state Green Party submits within thirty days of such change to the Credentials Committee a supplementary report describing those amendments. Section 2-8. Reporting the Results of the Delegate Selection Process 2-8.1 Not later than 14 days following any action to fill seats on a state Green Party's convention delegation, a state party shall file with the Credentials Committee the results of its delegate selection process, including vote totals and the proportion of support enjoyed by each candidate seeking the nomination of the party, as well as a list of delegates and alternates and an explanation of how each has been instructed to vote in the first round of voting in the convention's Presidential Nominating process. 2-8.2 A state-by-state summary of delegate pledges shall be made public on the website of the Credential Committee in a timely manner. Section 2-9. Compliance With These Rules 2-9.1 If compliance with these rules and a state's election laws creates a significant burden to a state Green Party, it may apply to the Credentials Committee for a waiver to such provisions of these rules as would best serve the democratic engagement of that state Green Party?s members in the national nominating process. 2-9.2 Each such application for a waiver shall be published on the website of the Committee, accessible to members of the National Committee and to Delegates and Alternates extended preliminary credentials. 2-9.3 The Credentials Committee shall have the discretion to consider such applications, and shall report to the National Committee each action by the Credentials Committee to receive, hold a hearing on, schedule debate on or consider the disposition of each such application. Resources: none References: Hugh Esco hesco at greens.org Audrey Clement aclement65 at hotmail.com http://brpp.campaignfoundations.com/index.php?title=Prepare2008PNC http://brpp.campaignfoundations.com/index.php?title=QPNC_Delegations Full details are available at: http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=323 Please send your comments to natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org. Thank you and have a wonderful day! --The GP-US Voting Admin _______________________________________________ Natlcomvotes mailing list To send a message to the list, write to: Natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org To unsubscribe or change your list options, go to: http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomvotes If your state delegation changes, please see: http://gp.org/committees/nc/documents/delegate_change.html To report violations of listserv protocol, write to forummanagers at lists.gp-us.org For other information about the Coordinating Committee, see: http://gp.org/committees/nc/ ***********************************************************************8 Tim McKee Manchester CT Home-860-643-2282 Cell-860-778-1304 BLOG- http://360.yahoo.com/timmckee2008 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From timmckee2008 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 08:31:12 2007 From: timmckee2008 at yahoo.com (Tim McKee) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:31:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} IMPORTANT- New working group on CT 2008 Presidentail Process!!! Message-ID: <819350.58110.qm@web44816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Dear CT Greens, We have begun the process for OUR rules and processes of choosing HOW, WHEN, and WHERE to select our Presidential delegates to the 2008 Convention is 2008! We need people to do the work on this process- can you help? This group IS NOT a rehash of 2000, 2004 or advocating for one candidate or another. This is an important WORKING committee that needs to set and publish our rules as soon as possible. Last night the State party met and decide to self impose a December deadline for these and we need people to start the work!! Perhaps the best way to do do most of this work in online, but some in person meeting may be called. I sugget we use the yahoo list serve all ready set up for the Presidentail discussion to do this work. Please join this group; http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CTGP-presidential/ (If you have any problems signing up on the yahoo group- please let us know as soon as possible!) On this yahoo group are several documents from the national Greens, that lay back ground information. PLEASE read these documents carefully. Please print out these documents for future referencees. Again- please join us for this discussion and the work for IMPORTANT committee, if you can! In service, Tim McKee National committee member for CT ***********************************************************************8 Tim McKee Manchester CT Home-860-643-2282 Cell-860-778-1304 BLOG- http://360.yahoo.com/timmckee2008 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From timmckee2008 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 09:13:20 2007 From: timmckee2008 at yahoo.com (Tim McKee) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Nader sues Democrats Message-ID: <955375.30731.qm@web44805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Ralph Nader sues Democratic Party Tue Oct 30, 5:40 PM ET Consumer advocate and 2004 independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader sued the Democratic Party on Tuesday, contending officials conspired to keep him from taking votes away from nominee John Kerry. Nader's lawsuit, filed in District of Columbia Superior Court, also named as co-defendants Kerry's campaign, the Service Employees International Union and several so-called 527 organizations such as America Coming Together, which were created to promote voter turnout on behalf of the Democratic ticket. The lawsuit also alleges that the Democratic National Committee conspired to force Nader off the ballot in several states. "The Democratic Party is going after anyone who presents a credible challenge to their monopoly over their perceived voters," Nader said in a statement. "This lawsuit was filed to help advance a free and open electoral process for all candidates and voters. Candidate rights and voter rights nourish each other for more voices, choices, and a more open and competitive democracy." Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that the DNC tried to bankrupt Nader's campaign by suing to keep him off the ballot in 18 states. It also suggests the DNC sent Kerry supporters to crash a Nader petition drive in Portland, Ore., in June 2004, preventing him from collecting enough signatures to get on the ballot. The lawsuit seeks "compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from ongoing and future violations of the law." Nader's attorney, Bruce Afran, argued that the DNC would be terrified of having the case come to trial. He said he hoped the committee would choose to settle the case and apologize. "This is a case designed to make sure other independent and third party candidates will not be subject to the same kind of conspiracy in the future," Afran said. Nader received 463,653 votes in the election, or 0.38% of total votes cast. DNC spokesman Luis Miranda declined comment on the suit, citing a policy on pending litigation. *********************************************************************** Tim McKee Manchester CT Home-860-643-2282 Cell-860-778-1304 Tim McKee, is a National Commitee member of the Green Party of the United States and is a spokesperson for the Green Party of CT. BLOG- http://timmckee2008.blogspot.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Wed Oct 31 13:00:45 2007 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:00:45 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT McKinney on Impeachment Message-ID: <077f01c81bdf$9539cfb0$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> ----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Romanelli To: Pennsylvania Green Party ; Green Party International Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:52 AM Subject: USGP-INT McKinney on Impeachment Here is great commentary on impeachment. This is from Cynthia McKinney's web site. Thanks, Carl www.allthingscynthiamckinney.com Cynthia McKinney The World Didn't Wait "elevate" Democracy Conference October 24, 2007 It is a great pleasure for me to have been invited to participate in this Conference dedicated to democracy. I look forward to joining the international community of activists dedicated to change based on the principles of dignity, justice, self-determination, and peace for all the peoples of the world. Everyone in this room and every participant in this Conference is here because we want peace and justice. And these principles of peace and dignity, justice and self-determination are oftentimes pronounced as the reasons why certain policies are pursued by governments, only later do we discover that the opposite was the case. In the case of my own country, the United States, it pronounces itself a protagonist for peace -- as it makes war; a crusader for religious freedom -- as it targets for sometimes illegal and unconstitutional treatment, members of a particular faith. My country postures as a country deeply concerned about the spread of democracy -- yet denies democracy at home by systematically disfranchising poor, black, and minority voters. And finally, let me not forget to mention the incarceration rate of the U.S. My country incarcerates more people than any other country on the planet -- many of whom are innocent--while it champions its pursuit of "justice." Many people inside the United States struggle selflessly to return our country to a position of economic vitality, Diplomatic trust, and reliability as a true champion for justice and peace. But, from my own personal history and that of many who struggled before me, such independent thinking and confidence in the goodness of our people comes at a personal price. For while our message may ricochet around the world, the people we fight for are rarely in a position to reward such acts of courage. Yet the powers that be always seem to be able to exact their punishment. So oftentimes, where there is courage, truth, compassion, belief in the people, and a solid sense of right and wrong, there is also aloneness, vulnerability, or sometimes even deep disappointment. I was the only Democrat to lose in the entire 2006 election cycle. The War Party Democrats needed 218 votes to pass the war-funding bill in the House. That initial war-funding bill passed exactly by 218 votes, with my replacement in Congress voting to fund the war. Had I been there, the vote would have failed; the war would not have been funded, and we'd be having a different conversation now about the prospects for peace in the world. One vote is important and my one vote -- not being there -- did make a difference. But instead of abandoning the struggle, we come together at conferences like this one to commune with each other, learn from each other, give love and support to each other, recharge our batteries, and continue our work on behalf of what is right in a world currently filled with so much wrong. Last year, I was asked by Debra Sweet to endorse the activities of World Can't Wait, the American pro-peace and pro-impeachment organization. It advocates the impeachment of George Bush because in its view, Bush is such bad news that the World Can't Wait. I agree with them. And so, on my last day in Congress, after 12 years of service to my constituents and my country, I offered Articles of Impeachment against President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of State Rice. Impeachment is America's roadmap back to dignity. Impeachment is the Constitutional way to handle an Administration that has, from the outset, violated the tenets of the U.S. Constitution. It is also a way of the people to say "No, we do not condone what has been done in our name, and we are not complicit." The first time I felt the sting of Republican retribution and Democratic Party indifference was in 2002 when I questioned the Administration's explanation of what happened on September 11th, 2001. I am the Member of Congress who asked the simple question, "What did the Bush Administration know and when did it know it, about the tragic events of September 11th." After I was defeated in 2002, I traveled all over my country supporting the anti-war movement and informing the American people of the lies of the current Administration. The film "American Blackout" tells the whole story of how Republicans stole two Presidential elections and of how Republicans stole two Congressional elections from me. Well, as it turns out, the world didn't wait. And activists in the rest of the world are the people now practicing the art of effective resistance. I guess it started in 1959 with Cuba. However, Cuba is no longer alone in its attempt to chart its own course. In 1998, Venezuelans elected Hugo Chavez who has used oil profits to set up healthcare for all, arts programs for the children, and subsidized education, including free universities. In 2001, the people of Cote d'Ivoire rejected dictatorship and up to today, continue to try and chart an independent course despite huge big power interference due to offshore oil reputed to be of the quality of Nigeria's. In 2002, Brazilians sent shockwaves throughout the Americas by electing the Workers' Party Lula to become their head of state. In 2003 Argentina elected Kirchner, 2004, Spain elected Zapatero, and India rejected the BJP politics of division. In 2005, Bolivia elected Morales; 2006, Bachelet in Chile, Correa in Ecuador, Ortega in Nicaragua were all elected, with one agenda -- to provide prosperity, independence, justice, and peacei -- to the people that they represent. And let us not forget the valiant people of Haiti who twice have had their elected President, Aristide, removed from office by means of U.S. intrigue. But in the midst of an attempt to steal the Haitian election away from Rene Preval, a friend and supporter of Aristide, the Haitian people took to the streets and demanded that their votes be counted and that the election not be stolen. Today, Preval is the President of Haiti because the Haitian people took every step within their means to ensure that their votes and their democracy were respected. Today, even, despite a harsh occupation, the Haitian people stand strong. Against tremendous odds, people who have far less than most Americans have -- in terms at least of material things -- stood up and took their fates in their hands. They did what Mario Savio asked Americans to do in the 1960s. They put their bodies against the levers and the gears and the wheels of the machine and they said to the owners if you don't stop it, we will. And stop it, they did. The people of these countries stopped the machine. And I know that Americans can do it, too. On the day before he was murdered, in his less-celebrated "I've Been to the Mountaintop" speech, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that he was happy to be living in the second half of the 20th Century because something was happening in our world. He said, "The masses of people are rising up. And wherever they are assembled . . . whether in Johannesburg, Nairobi, Accra, or New York City, the cry is alway s the same: 'We want to be free.'" Well, I can stand here nearly 40 years later and say that at the dawn of the 21st Century, "Something is happening in our world." The world's marginalized, exploited, and dispossessed are taking center stage because they have decided to defy imperial domination. They are saying that resource wars that hurt the masses and benefit the few are illegal, immoral, and just plain wrong. If Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were with us today, I think he would be proud of the people around the world who are standing up for themselves. I'm sure Dr. King would wonder why people in the U.S. didn't demand that their votes be counted on election days in 2000 and in 2004. In 2000 there were approximately 2 million voters who went to the polls and thought they voted, but actually, their votes were not counted. Approximately 1 million of those were minority voters. George Bush did not win Florida by 537 votes. Approximately 97,000 blacks who went to the polls and voted had their votes invalidated because the authorities said that the ballots were "spoiled." In 2004, the black vote, once again, was a victim of racial profiling. And again, the Republicans did it and the Democrats let them get away with it. As Talam Acey writes, the new New World Order is that you can win the election and still lose. What is clear is that the world didn't wait for the people of the United States to take their country back. We can also point to action right here in Europe. For example, Aznar in Spain lost the election even at the most painful moment for the people of Spain. Bush's coalition of the willing crumbled as Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Hungary, Norway, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Italy, and Slovakia, in that order Portuguese, and the Norwegians pulled their troops in that order. What surprises me is that so many countries fell for the lies anyway. More importantly, what the world is showing us, is that people power is real and that if we, in the United States, fail to act, we will be the ones left far behind. Here's what the people in the U.S. have faced: Republicans stole the 2000 Presidential election. Then, on September 11th a grave tragedy befell our country. The American people were promised a white paper by Colin Powell stating what happened, how it happened, and who did it. We have yet to receive such a white paper, Osama bin Laden is on the FBI website, but not for September 11th! Hot on the heels of September 11th, however, the Administration pushed through a series of draconian laws that usurp the United States Constitution and the civil liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights that make us "free," the ostensible cause of the September 11th attacks in the first place, according to the Administration story. Then, the Administration seized the September 11th tragedy to invade and occupy Iraq while lying to the American people and the global community about why this action was necessary. A campaign of terror ensued at home with the U.S. government targeting the Muslim community and actually rounding up innocent, law-abiding residents for interrogations. Those of all faiths, races, and ethnicities who dissented from the Administration's policies found themselves targeted for surveillance and worse. Medical records, bank records, telephone conversations, e-mails, regular mail, and more, all became subject to the government's watchful eyes. Even church sermons, environmentalists, and peace groups were monitored. he Administration spied on the American people, breaking U.S. law, and lied to them about it. The introduction of electronic voting machines into U.S. elections inaugurated a whole new level of possible election fraud techniques. As these unreliable machines are introduced into Europe, I believe European voters must become even more vigilant for the future of their democracy. The Administration stole the 2004 Presidential election, and immediately began warmongering against other countries it didn't like. It told us to expect war for the next generation and targeted 60 countries around the world. Its war aims include Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, and North Korea. The current Administration has actually dropped bombs on the poor, defenseless people of Somalia. Ethiopia, a country with a proud heritage of never having succumbed to any colonial power is now firmly a U.S. vassal, part of the Administration's war machine against fellow Africans. Adding further insult to injury in Africa, the Administration has inaugurated its Africa Command within the Pentagon and will locate a permanent presence on the Continent thanks to the acquiescence of Ellen Sirleaf-Johnson, President of Liberia. Interestingly, none of what I've said is a secret in the U.S. It's not on the corporate-owned media, but it is public and could be known by the masses. When Bobby Kennedy was asked about a U.S. military strike on Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, his response was that it was unseemly for a country the size of the United States to use military force against a small country like Cuba. Bobby Kennedy would have been President of the United States had he not been murdered by assassin's bullets. And I'm told that Bobby Kennedy was considering Dr. King to be his Vice President, but the assassins got Dr. King, too. Who could explain today's U.S. behavior to Bobby Kennedy or Dr. King? How do we maintain any dignity or responsibility to our children and to the world's children when we fail to exercise every tool available to us to stop the current Administration and for that matter, any future Administration that would do this in our name? I do believe the American people voted massively in the mid-term elections for a Democratic majority in Congress in an effort to end the war, restore the Constitution, and stop the lies. Instead, the Democratic majority in Congress has funded the war, enabled the illegal spying on the American people, failed to repeal the Patriot Act and other laws that erode civil liberties in our country, and passed bellicose legislation targeting Iran. I have signed so many online petitions, for impeachment, to not vote for any candidate who has ever voted to fund the war, but ultimately our today and tomorrow will be written by those who dare to act. As Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Dr. King, SNCC, and the Black Panthers, and the hundreds of thousands of others who forced the southern part of the United States into the 20th Century. I'm encouraging all peace loving Americans to not only register to vote and to vote, but to run for office so we all can have good people for whom to vote! I have endorsed Cindy Sheehan, the mother who lost her son in the Iraq war, who is now running for Congress in San Francisco against Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Leader who took impeachment off the table and who continues to fund the war. And I might very well become a candidate for President in the United States under the Green Party banner. The complicity of both major political parties in the global and domestic mess emanating from the United States is becoming crystal clear. Each one of us, individually, has no choice but to become the leader we are looking for. Otherwise, we will continue to get what we've always been given: handpicked leaders who don't represent us. We will have to change the structure of U.S. politics because changing the people, clearly, isn't enough. I believe this becomes more possible as the people in the U.S. understand that our two parties have morphed into the War Party and the Money Party and they both are one! Moreover, the inauguration of electronic voting machines into the election process requires vigilance on the part of us all. That approximately one million French citizens voted on electronic voting machines of questionable reliability should give all of us pause and should instruct you in Europe on the need for vigilance. When the Presidential election was stolen in Mexico, defenders of democracy shut Mexico City down for weeks until the unrightful, new Mexican President was sworn in. After that, they formed a "parallel" government. And if Mexican defenders of democracy can do it, certainly American defenders of democracy can accomplish what we need to do, too. For us, nothing less than the soul and character of our country are at stake. But for the world, embroiled in war, nothing less than the fate of mankind is at stake. Thank you for hosting this Conference. Thank you for giving us the encouragement to go forth, especially in the United States, and build an uncompromised movement for dignity and justice, based on peace and love. Thank you. You can learn more about Cynthia McKinney at www.allthingscynthiamckinney.com. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ usgp-int mailing list usgp-int at gp-us.org http://forum.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-int -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.15/1101 - Release Date: 10/31/2007 10:06 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From timmckee2008 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 12:58:40 2007 From: timmckee2008 at yahoo.com (Tim McKee) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Yale News_ Mayors debate-(DeStefano's disgracefull attacks on Ferrucci) Message-ID: <261103.29141.qm@web44807.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> on Ferrucci, Destefano said :Next thing you?ll be going after immigrants and anyone who doesn?t look like you. A leader is not someone who goes after someone. Published: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 (More News articles) Mayoral hopefuls address concerns of youth at debate Aaron Bray Staff Reporter Ben Beitler/Contributing Photographer Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. faced his opponents at Wexler-Grant Community School. Yesterday?s debate was the last before the Nov. 6 election. "); //--> In the final debate before the Nov. 6 mayoral election elicited a greater outpouring of passion and personality from the candidates than past debates, but the issues themselves remained the same. The debate ? held at Wexler-Grant Community School and sponsored by the Democracy Fund and the local chapter of the League of Women Voters ? relied on questions submitted by local high school and college students, including several Yalies. Despite the intended youth focus, some young voters in attendance said they do not think their generation?s concerns were adequately addressed, although they said the debate elucidated key differences between Mayor John DeStefano, Jr., and his challengers on issues such as after-school programs and budget concerns. DeStefano will face Republican Rick Elser ?81 and Green Party candidate Ralph Ferrucci in the Nov. 7 election, when he will seek a record eighth term. Most questions focused on ways that city programs could deal with crime, immigration and education in New Haven. While Ferrucci and DeStefano debated the relative merits of their proposed programs, Elser advocated letting private and religious organizations replace some city-funded programs in order to ease the burden on tax payers. In response to a question about how New Haven can improve the security of Yale dormitories, the candidates mentioned community policing ? one issue on which all were in relative agreement. They said they want to see more police on bicycles and walking beats, rather than simply in patrol cars. Elser and DeStefano both promoted job programs that connect high school and community college students ? such as those at Gateway, whose new campus is planned for downtown ? with future employers in the city. Elser ? who said jokingly that the tone of the questions left Republicans at a serious disadvantage because they presupposed that every good program should be government-run ? said he would increase accountability within various municipal departments if elected. But the audience, which grew in size to about 75 people over the course of an hour, saved the most applause for Ferrucci and DeStefano. The mayor said the city?s vast renovations of public schools are integral to providing a safe and welcoming environment in which children can learn. But Ferrucci said he thinks construction is not as important as reducing class size, and he called for more money to fund public schools. ?When children are dropping out at a high rate, you need to spend more money,? Ferrucci said to heavy applause. ?We need to go after Yale. Yale has to pay a fair share. They can do more for New Haven.? DeStefano criticized Ferrucci?s aggressive approach as poor leadership. ?This isn?t about going after Yale or North Haven or Hamden,? he said, referring to cities whose police officers, Ferrucci said, drop off homeless individuals in New Haven, where people are guaranteed a spot in a homeless shelter. ?Next thing you?ll be going after immigrants and anyone who doesn?t look like you. A leader is not someone who goes after someone. A leader is someone who helps everyone see their self-interest in [working with] others.? Responding to a question about after-school programs, Ferrucci said the city cannot rely solely on initiatives that keep schools open late. ?We need to give [kids] a place to go,? he said. ?Few people want to go back to school after the day is done. Neighborhood-based community centers need to be supported.? DeStefano expressed frustration with Ferrucci and said the third-party candidate?s comments about education illustrate that he does not ?understand what goes on? in schools. A possible future leader should not be ?disrespecting? the schools he hopes to lead one day, DeStefano said. Several youth in attendance said there is no reason to believe that students would be uncomfortable spending time at school after the schoolday is over. Toddchelle Young, a student at Hillhouse High School, said the school, when open after hours, is just another building. ?It?s a place to be,? she said. ?There are a lot of different connections, friendships that kids form at school.? Young said she came to the debate because her high school is often mentioned in connection to crime and other problems in New Haven. Like several others at the debate, she said she wishes the focus had been more youth-oriented, but she appreciated the opportunity to draw distinctions among the candidates. ?Ferrucci was very aggressive,? Young said. ?He tried to relate to regular citizens. He was promoting many [expensive] programs, but with such a tight budget, that doesn?t seem possible.? Jen James ?08, a member of the Democracy Fund, said that while the debate was not entirely youth-focused, it demonstrated the candidates? commitment to the city. ?It was not clearly partisan,? she said. ?Each was talking about the city that they love.? Previous Article Colbert?s ?candidacy? attracts students Wednesday, October 31, 2007 Next Article Relevant aid data should be released Wednesday, October 31, 2007 *********************************************************************** Tim McKee Manchester CT Home-860-643-2282 Cell-860-778-1304 Tim McKee, is a National Commitee member of the Green Party of the United States and is a spokesperson for the Green Party of CT. BLOG- http://timmckee2008.blogspot.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From timmckee2008 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 17:12:07 2007 From: timmckee2008 at yahoo.com (Tim McKee) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:12:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Democracy Now transcript- Carl Mayer speaks of Nader's lawsuit againt the Democrats Message-ID: <526571.10021.qm@web44808.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Democracy Now, Wednesday, October 31st, 2007 *Ralph Nader Files Lawsuit Accusing Democratic Party of Conspiring to Block Presidential Run *http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/31/145208 The lawsuit accuses the Democratic Party of "groundless and abusive litigation" to bankrupt Ralph Nader's campaign and force him off the ballot in 18 states. We speak with Nader attorney Carl Mayer. [includes rush transcript] Consumer advocate and three-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader sued the Democratic Party on Tuesday for conspiring to prevent him from running for president in 2004. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Nader, his vice presidential running mate Peter Miguel Camejo and a group of voters from several states. It names as co-defendants the Kerry-Edwards campaign, the Service Employees International Union, private law firms, and organizations like the Ballot Project and America Coming Together that were created to promote voter turnout on behalf of the Democratic ticket. According to the lawsuit the defendants used "groundless and abusive litigation" to bankrupt Ralph Nader's campaign and force him off the ballot in 18 states. We are joined in the firehouse studio here in New York by public interest attorney Carl Mayer, whom the New York Times has described as "a populist crusader and maverick lawyer." We tried reaching the Democratic National Committee and some of the other defendants to invite them to the show but received no response. Carl Mayer was part of the legal team that filed the lawsuit in Washington, D.C. Tuesday. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: Consumer advocate and three-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader sued the Democratic Party Tuesday for conspiring to prevent him from running for president in 2004. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Nader, his vice presidential running mate Peter Camejo and a group of voters from several states. It names as co-defendants the Kerry-Edwards campaign, the Service Employees International Union, private law firms, organizations like the Ballot Project and America Coming Together that were created to promote voter turnout on behalf of the Democratic ticket. According to the lawsuit, the defendants used "groundless and abusive litigation" to bankrupt Ralph Nader's campaign and force him off the ballot in eighteen states. We're joined now here in New York by public interest attorney Carl Mayer, whom the New York Times has described as "a populist crusader and maverick lawyer." We tried reaching the Democratic National Committee and some of the other defendants to invite them to the show but received no response. Carl Mayer was part of the legal team that filed the lawsuit in D.C. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Carl. CARL MAYER: Thank you, Amy. Thank you for having me on. AMY GOODMAN: Why are you suing? CARL MAYER: To defend democracy. That's the title of the show -- excuse me, is Democracy Now! And this was the most massive anti-democratic campaign to eliminate a third-party candidate from the ballot in -- probably in recent American history. It is -- not content with having all these laws and statutes on the book that make it difficult for third-party and independent candidates to run, the Democratic Party and their allies in over fifty-three law firms, with over ninety lawyers, were engaged in filing litigation in eighteen states. They were to remove Ralph Nader from the ballot. It was an organized, abusive litigation process. The core of the lawsuit is that these lawyers, led by Toby Moffett and Elizabeth Holtzman, and something called the Ballot Project, which was a 527 organization, systematically went around the country and filed lawsuit after lawsuit, twenty-four in all, plus five FEC complaints, to try to completely remove the Nader campaign from the ballot and to, in effect, bankrupt the campaign, which they succeeded in doing. Not content with that, one of the defendants, Reed Smith, which is a large corporate law firm in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, they are now going after Ralph Nader's personal bank account to make him pay some of the cost of this litigation. And, understand, despite being outspent by the Democratic Party and its affiliated lawyers, the vast majority of these lawsuits were won by the Nader campaign, which was a largely volunteer effort. And these lawsuits were won across the country, despite this organized effort of intimidation and harassment. It's basically abusive process and malicious prosecution. Those are common law torts. And it was very clear from the beginning that the Democratic Party was using the legal system for an improper purpose. In fact, Toby Moffett, who's a former congressman from Connecticut, said directly to The Guardian of London in an interview in December of 2004, this wasn't about the law. "I'd be less than honest if I said" this was not about the law; this was about getting Ralph Nader off the ballot. And that's what this effort was about. And it's a shameful anti-democratic process by a party that claims to be a democratic party. And on top of that, the Democratic Party, or its allies, filed five FEC complaints against the campaign, alleging improper -- AMY GOODMAN: Federal Election Commission. CARL MAYER: The Federal Election Commission -- alleging improper funding, improper finances, etc. They were all dismissed by the FEC. Now, let me tell you how bad it got. There was an organized effort of harassment of petitioners who went around trying to collect signatures for the Nader campaign in Ohio, in Oregon and in Pennsylvania. In Ohio, for example, lawyers were hired to call up petitioners and tell them that if they didn't verify the signatures on the petition, they would be guilty of a felony. They were called at home by -- and they were, in many cases, visited by private investigators and told -- this is voter intimidation of the worst order. In the state of Oregon, for example, there was a nominating convention, and you need a thousand signatures at the convention. We have emails from Democratic Party operatives stating, we want our people to go to this convention and then refuse to sign the petition at the convention so Nader will not get enough signatures at the convention to get on the ballot. And they accomplished their goal in Oregon. After the convention, there's an alternative way of getting on the ballot, which is to collect signatures, and the Nader campaign went about doing that, and during the course of that there was further harassment and intimidation of petitioners by law firms, private investigators, calling up and threatening petitioners that they would be called before a court if they did not certify all the petitions. AMY GOODMAN: How did the Service Employees International Union fit into this? Why are they being sued? CARL MAYER: Well, the SEIU very clearly, in emails and on their website, the SEIU had a project, which was called ACT, or Americans Coming Together. There were several 527 groups; these are independent expenditure groups. And the SEIU was involved in them. The SEIU was involved in trying to keep Nader off the ballot by using its members, for example in Oregon, to go into the convention, but in other states -- in other states, to try to actually void petitions by signing in the wrong place. The complaint -- and this is all documented. It's a seventy-three-page complaint, over 250 paragraphs, chapter and verse, about how, for example, the SEIU came up with the strategy of getting its members to go and write signatures in the wrong place on a petition, on Nader's petitions, which would then invalidate the entire petition. So this was a coordinated anti-democratic activity, which in my view has little precedent in American history, and any third-party candidate of whatever stripe -- leftwing, rightwing, populist, conservative -- they should be outraged by what occurred in this case. And we think we have a tremendous case before the D.C. Superior Court and other legal actions we will take, because this conspiracy was so -- they were so adamant and vociferous about it, and the paper trail is very clear. And we're not even into discovery. We can't wait to take the depositions of the party activists, Toby Moffett, Terry McAuliffe, Elizabeth Holtzman, etc., who were at the center of this. In fact, the center of this effort was something called the Ballot Project, which was started by Robert Brandon, who's one of the defendants, and he's a consultant to the Democratic Party. And he held a meeting at the Democratic Convention in 2004 with Moffett, Holtzman and a group of other high-ranking Democrats, and they said, our purpose is to keep Nader off the ballot. And they went, and they proceeded to do it, spending millions of dollars. AMY GOODMAN: What impact will all this have on Ralph Nader now? He has said that if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, he will run for president. It looks like she is the frontrunner right now. CARL MAYER: Well, in terms of 2008, I can't speak to 2008. And in politics, things can change quite quickly. I mean, it's entirely possible that the actual progressive base of the Democratic Party will seek a nominee that reflects their views, which is that America should end this war in Iraq. It hasn't been the history of the Democratic Party, but it's way too early to talk about that. But what this lawsuit will do, and the importance of it is, is to set a precedent so that the two-party monopoly system that shuts out minor parties in a way that other Western democracies never do, that this will set a precedent to prevent this type of intimidation and harassment. That's the goal of the lawsuit. It doesn't matter whether it's Ralph Nader or Michael Bloomberg or any other third-party candidate. The point is, we need as much competition in the political arena as we have in other areas of American life. And it's time to stop rigging the game. And what's unbelievable is that the laws on the books already pose a tremendously high hurdle for third-party candidates. Tens of thousands of signatures, it takes, to get on the ballot in states like Texas and the Carolinas. And there's no other country where it's so difficult to get on the ballot. And those laws are passed by the Democrat and Republican Party to preserve their monopoly. So, "democracy now" -- "democracy now" is not even close. We are not close to a state of democracy. And recall also that in the history of the country, third parties were very important. In the nineteenth century, it was much easier to get on the ballot. The smaller third parties championed first important issues like ending slavery, women's right to vote, Social Security; those were all first advocated by third parties. And if you exclude third parties from the ballot and from the debate, our democracy withers and atrophies. And it is not at all consistent with the vital democratic traditions of our country. These third parties were around since the beginning of the Republic. The first third party was really the -- well, in some respects, was the Anti-Federalist Party, but there was also something called the Anti-Freemason Party, which was started in 1800. From the beginning of the Republic, there were important third parties, which raised important issues. And we're now snuffing that out. And unless we fight for this, this country will continue to have essentially a monopolistic position on every issue, from healthcare to the Iraq war to any of the important issues that so many people in this country care about. AMY GOODMAN: Carl Mayer, we have to leave it there, but we will certainly continue to follow this lawsuit. Carl Mayer is one of the lead attorneys on this lawsuit against the Democratic Party and others who they say conspired to keep former presidential candidate Ralph Nader off of the ballot. ------------------------------ *********************************************************************** Tim McKee Manchester CT Home-860-643-2282 Cell-860-778-1304 Tim McKee, is a National Commitee member of the Green Party of the United States and is a spokesperson for the Green Party of CT. BLOG- http://timmckee2008.blogspot.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Wed Oct 31 20:47:55 2007 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:47:55 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT Desmond Tutu Likens Israeli Actions to Apartheid Message-ID: <08dd01c81c20$f5049ab0$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> ----- Original Message ----- From: bahram To: chicoverde at cox.net Cc: International Committee Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 3:57 PM Subject: Re: USGP-INT Desmond Tutu Likens Israeli Actions to Apartheid This was today on Democracy Now with an interview with an interview with Joel Kovel, former Green Party candidate and born jewish: University of Michigan Press to Continue Publishing Joel Kovel's "Overcoming Zionism" After Initially Dropping Book Due to Rightwing Criticism On 10/29/07, Michael Canney wrote: A timely article... http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/29/4872/ Desmond Tutu Likens Israeli Actions to Apartheid by Adrianne Appel Inter Press Service | October 29, 2007 BOSTON - South African Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu compared conditions in Palestine to those of South Africa under apartheid, and called on Israelis to try and change them, while speaking in Boston Saturday at historic Old South Church."We hope the occupation of the Palestinian territory by Israel will end," Tutu said. _______________________________________________ usgp-int mailing list usgp-int at gp-us.org http://forum.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-int -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ usgp-int mailing list usgp-int at gp-us.org http://forum.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-int -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.13/1099 - Release Date: 10/30/2007 10:06 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: