From efficacy at msn.com Fri Sep 7 07:00:59 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 07:00:59 -0400 Subject: {news} Resolution on the Drug War, endorsed by the DC Statehood Green Party Message-ID: Friday, September 07, 2007 12:25 AM Subject: Resolution on the Drug War, endorsed by the DC Statehood Green Party The following resolution was passed unanimously by the DC Statehood Green Party during our monthly meeting, Thursday evening, September 6. DC Statehood Green delegates are now authorized to sponsor the resolution and help place it before the Green Party's National Committee. -- Scott *A RESOLUTION TO INVESTIGATE THE REAL COST OF THE WAR ON DRUGS* WHEREAS, the "war on drugs" has failed: every community in the U.S. contends with the harmful effects of drug misuse and related problems, and while states have continually increased their expenditures to wage the war on drugs, policies which rely heavily on arrest and incarceration have proved costly and ineffective at addressing these issues; and WHEREAS, the war on drugs is a major force driving the incarceration of over 2.1 million people in the United States, with African Americans disproportionately represented in our country's overflowing jails and prisons; and WHEREAS, the war on drugs perpetuates mandatory minimums, felony disfranchisement, disproportionate over-incarceration, poor access to healthcare, under funded public education, widespread unemployment, and the general criminalization of communities of color in the U.S.; and WHEREAS, paying for the war on drugs means spending limited tax dollars on failed policies instead of proven solutions. Americans spend approximately $140 billion annually on prisons and jails including $24 billion spent on incarcerating over 1.2 million non-violent offenders. In many states, such as New York and California, spending on prisons far surpasses spending on education; and WHEREAS, harm reduction strategies, including access to affordable community-based drug treatment, along with educational and economic opportunities, have shown to be successful at reducing the harms of drug misuse, yet more than half of those Americans in need of drug treatment do not have access to it; and WHEREAS, African Americans are less likely to sell or misuse illicit drugs than Caucasian Americans, yet African Americans experience highly disproportionate levels of death, disease, crime and suffering due both to drug misuse and to misguided drug policies. African Americans comprise only 12.2 percent of the population and 13 percent of drug users, yet they make up 38 percent of those arrested for drug offenses and 59 percent of those convicted of drug offenses; and WHEREAS, our common goal is to advocate those policies which increase the health and welfare of our communities, and to reduce the unacceptable racial disparities both in criminal justice and in access to drug treatment and other services; and WHEREAS, taking steps to reduce the incarceration of non-violent offenders and increasing the availability of treatment not only makes fiscal sense, but is sound public policy that is being implemented in states throughout the country, such as Maryland and California; and WHEREAS, we believe that nonviolent substance abusers are not menaces to our communities but rather a troubled yet integral part of our community who need to be reclaimed; Thereford be it resolved, Cannabis and Hemp, should be regulated and controlled like cigarettes and alcohol. Heroin, Cocaine, Ecstasy, Methamphetamine, should be medicalized and come under the supervision of medical personnel. All the rest of the illegal should be decriminalized for future debate and true and honest medicinal study. Therebefore be it resolved, Taxes derived from the sale of Cannabis and hemp will go back into the communities as reparations to rebuild the infra structure such as public education, health care for those that have been ravished by drug war maladies, treatment programs for addicted people. 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 Fri Sep 7 22:02:57 2007 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 22:02:57 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: Stopping forest loss in the land of Thoreau [AND CT!] Message-ID: <003101c7f1bc$6391e580$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> Stopping forest loss in the land of Thoreau > > States like Massachusetts are losing 72 acres per day to > urbanization. > > By Caitlin Carpenter > > September 06, 2007, Christian Science Monitor > > http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0906/p01s02-usgn.html > > It's enough to make Henry David Thoreau weep. > > New England - the home of Vermont maple trees bursting with > sweet syrup, and balsam fir and red spruce spread across New > Hampshire's White Mountains - is losing its forests. > > Of all America's forests under pressure from development, New > England's are shrinking the fastest. > > The problem is severe enough that some conservation groups say > they have limited time to act. > > "The window for conserving forests is closing," says Andy > Swinton, director of field science with The Nature > Conservancy, a nonprofit habitat conservation organization. > But "there's really an opportunity here, because the next 20 > years will determine the character of New England forests. > This is a race against time, and the time to act is now." > > The region's forests had made quite a comeback in the past two > centuries: As agriculture declined, fields went back to wooded > land. Now, however, those forests are under threat - from > homeowners, this time. In their push to create more housing in > an area where home prices are already through the roof, > developers are moving into wooded land. > > The numbers are stark, particularly in southern New England. > By 2050, 70 percent of Rhode Island and 61 percent of > Connecticut will be urbanized, according to a recent report in > the Journal of Forestry by two researchers with the US > Agriculture Department's Forest Service. Massachusetts is > already losing 40 acres a day to development, estimates Mass > Audubon. These three states will lose the highest percentage > of forest of any state by mid-century, the Forest Service > researchers say. > > Part of the reason for the region's forest loss is its > population density. Its urban areas are already so developed > that they're pushing out, often into surrounding forests. The > other factor is New England's development pattern and > lifestyle. > > Take long-distance commuting. The Southwest may be famous for > its vast metropolises, but the trend is actually more > pronounced in New England, says Kathy Sferra, a land > protection expert at Mass Audubon. > > For example: To be able to afford the cost of living, many > workers live in less expensive housing far from the urban > centers where they work. That leads to more crowded highways. > In addition to the 40 acres the state loses every day to > sprawling development, it loses an additional 38 acres to the > "hidden" cost of development, such as road construction. > > And, as in the rest of New England, most of Massachusetts' > residential developments are low density, meaning few people > living in large houses on big lots. > > Residential lot sizes have increased 47 percent since 1970 in > Massachusetts, according to Mass Audubon. New England's > average lot size for new residential construction is the > largest in the country at 1.3 acres, and its median lot size > is three times the national average, says the Massachusetts > Institute of Technology's Center for Real Estate and the > Massachusetts Housing Partnership. > > Meanwhile, the state's household size has shrunk 20 percent > since 1970 to 2.5 people per household. Small wonder then that > while New England's population increased 6.6 percent between > 1990 and 2000, its total housing units grew 7.4 percent, > according to the Rhode Island Department of Labor and > Training. > > Houses are also getting bigger. The National Association of > Home Builders found that 40 percent of new homes in the > Northeast have four or more bedrooms, making the region the > national leader in terms of the size of homes. > > These trends have spurred conservation groups to work more > strategically, buying and protecting large plots of land in > key areas rather than small, isolated locations. > > "We've learned that doing conservation willy-nilly doesn't > help because we end up with fragmented forests," says Mr. > Swinton. "Since development is going to happen, we now know we > need systematic, collaborative planning with the government, > land trusts, and nonprofits to make sure that development and > conserved forest area are intelligently designed." > > For example: The Nature Conservancy worked with West > Greenwich, R.I., and other conservation groups to purchase > 1,700 acres of forest surrounding its town in an effort to > protect the land. The conservancy's Borderlands Project is > looking to accomplish a similar feat in another town in Rhode > Island or Connecticut. > > Conservation groups are also helping local governments improve > their planning for infrastructure that leads to development, > such as roads and Interstates, while minimizing sprawl and > forest destruction. > > State governments are also getting involved. Last month, > Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell (R) created a state office to "plot > a new, antisprawl course." Rhode Island is now developing a > land-use plan to encourage urban-center development. > Massachusetts announced Aug. 4 that it would spend $50 million > on conservation over the next five years, an increase of $20 > million over its conservation spending during the past four > years. > > Forest-conservation groups next want to convince New England > state governments to allocate some of the revenue generated > through their greenhouse-gas reduction initiative to forest > protection, according to Swinton. > > Conservationists say that they'll need to bring all their > tools to bear on the challenge of deforestation. > > "Forests in this area made a comeback in the last century, but > it looks like the pendulum is swinging in the opposite > direction," he says. > > From edubrule at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 7 22:48:52 2007 From: edubrule at sbcglobal.net (edubrule) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 22:48:52 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: Call-in Day Action Alerts for Immigrant rights & to Stop the war in Iraq; [HOPE OUT LOUD FESTIVAL] Message-ID: <000701c7f1c2$cef412c0$649a4c0c@edgn2b574u14bi> 6-Story Newsletter Template + Images ----- Original Message ----- From: AFSC Connecticut To: edubrule at sbcglobal.net Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 6:00 PM Subject: Call-in Day Action Alerts for Immigrant rights & to Stop the war in Iraq American Friends Service Committee Connecticut In This Issue: Sept 5 2007 . Sept 6 and 7:National Call-in Days Against Immigration Enforcement-only policies . Sept 6: National Call-in day to Tell Congress end the war in Iraq Now & No New war with Iran . Sunday Sept 9: Sixth Annual Hope Out Loud Peace & Music Festival Sept 6 and 7:National Call-in Days Against Immigration Enforcement-only policies PRIORITY COMMUNITY ALERT NATIONAL CALL-IN DAYS American Friends Service Committee and Partners* Invite Your Participation Thursday September 6 & Friday September 7, 2007 Stop Immigration Enforcement-Only Policies Take Action Now: The recently introduced Immigration Enforcement and Border Security Act of 2007 (S. 1984) focuses on punishing immigrant families, adding border fences, walls, and patrol agents, and increasing detention centers and deportations. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) finalized a new rule requiring employers who receive Social Security Administration (SSA) "no-match" letters to follow steps to prove that employees are authorized to work or risk liability. The policy misuses the letters, which are not intended for immigration enforcement, and could result in employment discrimination. Congress has received thousands of calls supporting enforcement-only measures that will harm immigrants and refugees. We must let Senate leaders know that this flawed legislation and DHS policy will not fix the out-of-date immigration system. Spread the word! Call your Senator and Share this Action Alert! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On September 6th and 7th, use this toll free number 1-888-732-9404. Ask to be connected to your Senator's office and tell your Senator: ? Please say NO to S. 1984! - I urge you to oppose the Immigration Enforcement and Border Security Act of 2007 (S. 1984). More fences, walls, detention centers, agents and rounding up immigrants at their homes and workplaces are not the answer. ? Please SUPPORT Congressional oversight of DHS's SSA "no match" letter policy including employer liability for employment discrimination and the complaint process. ? Please say YES to constructive immigration reform that includes a path to permanent residency and citizenship, restores due process rights, stops the militarization of the southern border, and ensures humane policies that keep families together. The toll-free number is provided courtesy of the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker organization which works for social justice and peace (www.afsc.org/immigrants-rights/). AFSC welcomes groups to circulate and use the toll-free number in support of non-partisan goals and without linking the alert to a website soliciting donations or actions which may be used to support partisan lobbying or work. (This nonpartisan disclaimer must be included in publications of the toll-free number). Don't Forget to Forward this Message! For more information contact Sara Ibrahim at sibrahim at afsc.org or 1-202-483-6839. * Partners (In Formation): Center for Community Change; Chicago Workers Collaborative; Church World Service; Coalici?n de Derechos Humanos (AZ); Coloradans for Immigrant Rights; Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition; Denver Justice and Peace Committee; Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; Irish Apostolate USA; Mennonite Central Committee, Washington Office; National Network for Immigrant & Refugee Rights; New Mexico Colonias Development Council; Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, The Workmen's Circle/Arbeter Ring. AFSC AND PARTNERS NATIONAL CALL-IN DAYS TIPS September 6 - 7, 2007 The purpose of these tips is to provide information on what to expect if you have not called Congress before. Please note that this is only an example and does not have to be read word for word. 1. Make sure you have the names of the Senators from your state. Consult the attached table. 2. Dial the toll-free number 1-888-732-9404. This number will connect you to the U.S. Capitol Switchboard. Remember to call between the hours of 9 am - 5 pm EST. 3. When the operator answers, you may as "May I please be connected to Senator ________'s (name of your Senator) office? 4. When you are connected to the office, a staff member will answer: "Hello, this is Senator ______'s (name of your Senator) office." 5. You should say your name, the city that you are from, and the reason you are calling. For example: "Hi, my name is (your name) and I'm calling from (name of your city and state). I'm calling to ask (your Senator) to oppose S. 1984, to endorse Congressional oversight of the DHS's SSA "no-match" letter policy, and to support constructive immigration reform that protects the rights and well-being of immigrants. Can you please make sure he receives my message?" 6. You may be asked for your address, telephone number or e-mail address. The purpose of asking for your information is to track constituent phone calls and to follow-up with you about the Senator's position on the subject. If you wish to provide this information, please state it for the staff member. If you do not wish to provide this information, you may say: "I do not wish to give my address. May I give you my city and zip code?" 7. If you wish to receive information you may ask: "Can you please mail or e-mail me the Senator's position on this issue?" Finish by thanking the staff member for taking the call and let her/him know that you will be monitoring the Senator's action on this issue. 8. Repeat this process for your other Senator. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION AND FOR ADDING YOUR VOICE! ALERTA COMUNITARIA DIAS NACIONALES DE LLAMADAS El Comit? de Servicios de Amigos Americanos y sus Afiliados* Invitan Su Participaci?n Jueves 6 de septiembre y viernes 7 de septiembre del 2007 Pare las medidas abusivas de regulaci?n inmigratoria Tome Acci?n Ahora: El Decreto de la Imposici?n de Regulaciones Inmigratorias y Seguridad Fronteriza del 2007 (S. 1984), recientemente introducido al Senado, penaliza a las familias inmigrantes. Adicionalmente, la nueva regla finalizada por el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS por sus siglas en ingl?s) ordena a los empleadores que reciben cartas "no-coincidentes" de la Administraci?n de Seguridad Social (SSA por sus siglas en ingl?s) de seguir ciertos pasos para comprobar que sus empleados est?n autorizados para trabajar, y as? evitar repercusiones legales. Tenemos que informar a los l?deres del Senado que la actual legislaci?n es inadecuada, y que la nueva pol?tica del DHS no reformar? nuestro sistema inmigratorio obsoleto. ?Comunique la noticia! El 6 y 7 de septiembre, utilice el n?mero gratuito 1-888-732-9404 para llamar a su Senador. Pida que lo comuniquen con la oficina de su Senador y d?gale a su Senador: ? Por favor diga NO a S. 1984: Le pido que se oponga al Decreto de la Imposici?n de Regulaciones Inmigratorias y Seguridad Fronteriza del 2007 (S. 1984). M?s cercas, paredes, centros de detenci?n, agentes y persecuci?n de los inmigrantes en sus hogares y lugares de empleo no son la respuesta. ? Por favor APOYE la supervisi?n Congresal de la pol?tica propuesta por el DHS de las cartas "no-coincidentes" de la SSA, incluyendo la responsabilidad del empleador por discriminaci?n laboral y el proceso de queja por parte del empleado. ? Por favor diga SI a una reforma inmigratoria constructiva que incluya un camino hacia la residencia permanente y la ciudadan?a, que restaure el derecho a un proceso legal ?ntegro, que pare la militarizaci?n de la frontera sur, y que asegure una pol?tica compasiva que mantenga unidas a las familias. El n?mero gratuito es cortes?a del Comit? de Servicios de Amigos Americanos (AFSC por sus siglas en ingl?s), una organizaci?n cu?quera que trabaja por la justicia social y la paz. (www.afsc.org/immigrants-rights/). AFSC invita la diseminaci?n del n?mero a otros grupos con fines no-partidarios, y sin ligar esta alerta a una p?gina web que invite donaciones o acciones que puedan ser utilizadas para apoyar trabajos partisanos o de lobby. (Esta renuncia partidaria debe ser incluida en cualquier publicaci?n del n?mero gratuito). Para m?s informaci?n contacte a Sara Ibrahim (sibrahim at afsc.org) o al 1-202-483-6839. *Lista de afiliados (En elaboraci?n): Center for Community Change, Chicago Workers Collaborative; Church World Service; Coalici?n de Derechos Humanos (AZ); Coloradans for Immigrant Rights; Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition; Denver Justice and Peace Committee; Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; Irish Apostolate USA; Mennonite Central Committee, Washington Office; National Network for Immigrant & Refugee Rights; New Mexico Colonias Development Council; Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, The Workmen's Circle/Arbeter Ring. Estas sugerencias son para proveer informaci?n a aquellos quienes nunca han llamado al Congreso, y no necesariamente tienen que ser le?das palabra por palabra durante la llamada. 1. Aseg?rese de tener en mano los nombres de ambos senadores de su estado. Puede consultar la tabla adjunta. Marque el n?mero sin cargo 1-888-732-9404 para conectarse con el operador del Capitolio. Favor llamar entre las horas de 9 am y 5 pm EST. 2. Cuando conteste el operador, pregunte: "May I please be connected with Senador ___'s (nombre de su senador) office? (Por favor, ?me puede comunicar con la oficina del senador ___?) 3. Cuando lo comuniquen con la oficina, un empleado le contestara: "Hello, this is Senator (nombre de su senador) office." (Hola, esta es la oficina del Senador ______.) 4. Indique su nombre, su ciudad y la raz?n por la cual esta llamando. Por ejemplo: "Hi, my name is (su nombre) and I'm calling from (nombre de su ciudad y de su estado). I'm calling to ask Senator (su senador) to oppose S. 1984, to endorse Congressional oversight of the DHS's SSA "no-match" letter policy, and to support constructive immigration reform that protects the rights and well-being of immigrants. Can you please make sure he receives my message?" (Hola, mi nombre es (su nombre) y estoy llamando de (nombre de su ciudad y de su estado). Estoy llamando para pedirle al senador (nombre de su senador) que se oponga a S 1984, que apoye la supervisi?n del Congreso de la nueva pol?tica "no-match" del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional, y que apoye una reforma inmigratoria constructiva que proteja los derechos y el bienestar de los inmigrantes. ?Puede asegurarse de que reciba mi mensaje?) 5. Puede que le pregunten por su direcci?n: "May I please have your address?" (?Me puede decir su direcci?n por favor?), o por su direcci?n de correo: "May I please have your e-mail address?" (?Me puede dar su direcci?n de correo, por favor?) El prop?sito de esto es para poder mandarle m?s informaci?n acerca de la posici?n de su Senador sobre el tema. Si prefiere no indicar su direcci?n, puede decir: "I do not wish to give my address. Can I give you my city and zip code?" (Prefiero no dar mi direcci?n. ?Puedo dar el nombre de mi ciudad y mi direcci?n postal?) 6. Si quisiera recibir mas informaci?n, indique su direcci?n o direcci?n de correo, y pregunte: "Can you please mail or e-mail me more information on the Senator's position on this issue? (?Me puede mandar mas informaci?n sobre la posici?n de mi Senador acerca de este tema?) 7. Repita este proceso con la oficina de su otro senador GRACIAS POR APORTAR SU VOZ Y POR SU PARTICIPACION! http://www.afsc.org/immigrants-rights/default.htm Sept 6: National Call-in day to Tell Congress end the war in Iraq Now & No New war with Iran Welcome Back Congress National Call-In Day End the U.S. War in Iraq; No New War with Iran! Thursday, Sept. 6 Capitol Hill Switchboard: 202-224-3121 Join the nationwide effort of United for Peace and Justice member groups to flood the offices of our member of Congress with calls demanding an end to the U.S. war in Iraq and no new war with Iran. Call your Representative and both Senators on Thursday, September 6th. Tell them: I want you to act now to end the war and occupation of Iraq and to prevent a war with Iran. The Congress has the Constitutional right and a moral responsibility to use the power of the purse to withdraw all U.S. soldiers and contractors from Iraq on a rapid and binding schedule. Now is the time to use that power! Congress must act to prevent a catastrophic war with Iran - Stop Threatening, Start Talking. I want you to speak out against the Administration's deliberate provocation of Iran and encourage a commitment to diplomatic efforts with Iran. Congress must enact legislation prohibiting the use of funds for military action against Iran. Not sure who represents you in Congress? Look Here. Background: Iraq Spending: In September and October Congress will focus on Iraq. They will vote on the President's request for and additional $200 billion to continue the war. Congress is not required to give Bush any of this money, or even to bring the request to a vote. Congress can also put restrictions, firm withdrawal timelines and other conditions on any funding in order to force an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Iran: (thanks to the National Iranian American Council for this background - minor edits have been made by UFPJ) On August 28, President Bush announced that he has authorized U..S forces in Iraq to confront Iran militarily: "I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities." Simultaneously, U.S. forces raided a hotel in Baghdad and detained ten Iranians who were part of a delegation that had been invited to Iraq to help with reconstruction. The harshness and frequency of the rhetoric has steadily increased. Last week the Bush administration announced its intention to designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity, an unprecedented move. The President has reiterated accusations that Iran was smuggling weapons into Iraq while chastising the Iraqi Prime Minister for his diplomatic relations with Iran. Left unchallenged, all these steps point in one, undeniable direction: War. The recent moves follow a familiar pattern. In January 2007, the President accused Iran of supplying IED's to Iraqi insurgents, signaling his intention to use military force to attack Iran. Simultaneously, U.S . forces detained five Iranians at an Iranian consulate in the Iraqi city of Irbil. Congress successfully averted crisis through swift and strong reactions to the escalated rhetoric. Congress took immediate action by challenging the President to provide evidence for the claims. Now, as the White House is once again escalating tensions, Congress must act to prevent war from occurring. http://unitedforpeace.org/index.php Sunday Sept 9: Sixth Annual Hope Out Loud Peace & Music Festival HOPE OUT LOUD 6 SUNDAY. SEPTEMBER 9TH Noon-5 pm . FREE BUSHNELL PARK, HARTFORD Featuring Fuego del Corazon, Mira with Mind Evolution, Dawn Terese, Just Harmony, Hap Hazard, and more. Plus speakers, poetry, kids activities. Spend the afternoon. Bring a picnic. It's a concert,rally,playground,remembrance, a day of inspiration for renewal and commitment. Hope Out Loud is a sober event. It began as a response to 9/11: a shared call for peaceful, sustainable resolution of conflict in our towns and in our world through equity and social justice. On September 9th we all gotta Hope Out Loud for a peaceful world! For more information call 860.523.4823 or visit www.hopeoutloud.org Sponsored by: The Connecticut Coalition for Peace & Justice (CCPJ), The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), LaPaloma Sabanera Coffee House, Pax Educare, CT Network of Spiritual Progressives, CT Network to Abolish the Death Penalty, Supported in part by the Greater Hartford Arts Council, and the City of Hartford, www.hopeoutloud.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 justinemccabe at earthlink.net Mon Sep 10 13:57:06 2007 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:57:06 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT Global Greens 2008 Message-ID: <047301c7f3d4$00bad8d0$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marnie Glickman" To: "USGP Committee" Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 12:55 PM Subject: USGP-INT Global Greens 2008 Save the date! The next Global Greens conference will be in Brazil on May 1-4, 2008. Marnie Glickman *** Sao Paulo, Brazil, 4th September 2007. Dear Friends GLOBAL GREENS 2008 Humanity is at a crossroads. We must act quickly to confront the global climate crisis that threatens our entire planet. While people around the world are willing to change their ways of living and consuming, major changes in public policy are also necessary to avoid catastrophe ? from our energy policy, industrial processes and the use of technology, to the rules of commerce and international law. That?s where the Green Party comes in. It is from this perspective that we invite you to take part in the most exhilarating, challenging and inspiring meeting of the decade: Global Greens 2008 in Brazil! The focus will be the political, social, economical and ecological aspects of the climate crisis, so that the Greens globally can play a leading role in helping make our planet healthy and safe ? for Humanity and all of Nature. The Greens constitute a global, social-political movement without precedent. During Global Greens 2001, in Canberra, Australia, we formed a Global Greens Network and Coordination, based upon our Global Greens Charter. With over three decades of experience serving in local, state and national governments on six continents, we recognize that to achieve our goals, we must think and act globally and locally. Global Greens 2008 will offer the opportunity to meet Greens from around the world, who share similar goals and ideals, and to learn specifically about the spirit and diversity of Latin America. Our main objective will be to establish a joint Green climate crisis action plan for the next decade, on which Green parties and movements around the world can work cooperatively, showing the way for governments and communities alike. Your participation will be crucial in producing an effective, achievable plan. Brazil was chosen because it has a key role to play in what will happen to the planet over the next few decades. The conference will be held in S?o Paulo, at the Memorial da America Latina. The most populous Latin American city, with more than 18 million inhabitants, S?o Paulo presents all the problems and ingenious solutions of a mega- city side-by-side. Greens are elected there, and overall have hundreds of elected representatives overall in city, state and national governments across the nation. Preparations for the conference are progressing well. The Global Steering Group met in Nairobi, Kenya, in November 2006, and, since then, has held monthly phone conferences. A Brazil-based organizing committee has also been established, led by Marco Antonio Mroz, and has an office in Sao Paulo, with Sergio Dialetachi in charge. A conference web page has also been created and is running (www.globalgreens.org.br). To make our meeting in Brazil a success, the message must reach every Green. To help make this happen, please make sure all your affiliated members and supporters are duly informed. Global Greens 2008 will be a springboard for Green politics around the world, positioning us to act effectively on the climate crisis. In addition to being a center of Green politics, Global Greens 2008 will be a wonderful festival of friendship, fun and optimism. We hope to see you here! With our best Green wishes, Jose Luiz Penna President of the Brazilian Green Party Julia Willebrand, Jorge Gonzalez Torres and Marco Antonio Mroz Co-Chair of the Federation of Green parties of the Americas Details for your calendar: Global Greens 2008 When: 1 - 4 May 2008 Where: Auditorio Simon Bolivar Memorial da America Latina Sao Paulo, Brazil More information: www.globalgreens.org.br or contact at globalgreens.org.br _______________________________________________ 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: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.13/998 - Release Date: 9/10/2007 8:48 AM From dbedellgreen at hotmail.com Mon Sep 10 15:14:11 2007 From: dbedellgreen at hotmail.com (David Bedell) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:14:11 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: Preparation for 2008 convention from PCSC Message-ID: Preparation for 2008 convention from PCSCBelow is a message from the GPUS Presidential Campaign Support Committee. (I received this as a member of the GPUS Coordinated Campaign Committee.) Rather than forward all 8 attachments to the ctgp-news listserv, I will forward them to anyone who requests them. I will also post them to our listserv for the CTGP Presidential Election Committee (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CTGP-presidential ), but I think we really need to appoint a new Presidential Election Committee for 2008. Any volunteers? Tim? Cliff? I think you've expressed interest in a Nader, McKinney, or McKinney-Nader ticket. The two major tasks for this committee will be: 1. sending delegates to the National Nominating Convention to represent the wishes of CT Green Party members. 2. organizing a petition drive for the Green Party to have a presidential ballot line in 2008 (we lost it in 2004). Personally, I do not plan to devote much time to the presidential election, except in conjunction with local or state legislature campaigns. I hope some enthusiastic people will volunteer for the important job of picking a Green Presidential candidate. David Bedell ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Gerritt Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 1:52 PM Subject: Preparation for 2008 convention from PCSC Dear Greens, attached are 8 documents that should help you and your state parties be more prepared for the 2008 National Nominating convention. Please forward them to every Green who could possibly use them, especially within tour state party. Some are general pieces about how candidates will operate, others directly inform you about what you need to know to hold a state convention. Several are templates that your state may wish to adapt so that you are properly electing and instructing delegates to the National Nominating Convention. These documents have been assembled by the GPUS Presidential Campaign Support Committee. No packet like this can actually cover everything. We are sure that you will have questions not covered here, and that many of your state parties will have questions and need assistance in preparing rules and documents. After reviewing this assemblage, if you still have questions, they can be directed to me, Greg Gerritt, at 401-331-0529 or gerritt at mindspring.com . Greg Gerritt co chair GPUS PCSC From edubrule at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 10 20:42:31 2007 From: edubrule at sbcglobal.net (edubrule) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:42:31 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: Clean Slate Committee Press Conference[ex-offenders] Message-ID: <000d01c7f40c$a8c42440$049a4c0c@edgn2b574u14bi> 6-Story Newsletter Template + Images ----- Original Message ----- From: AFSC Connecticut To: edubrule at sbcglobal.net Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 6:00 PM Subject: Clean Slate Committee Press Conference American Friends Service Committee Connecticut In This Issue: Sept 8 2007 . Clean Slate Committee Press Conference Sept 11 Clean Slate Committee Press Conference Sept 11 Are You Fed Up With Connecticut's War On Ex-Offenders? Please join the Clean Slate Committee, CT Coalition for Peace and Justice/Hope Out Loud, CT Undoing Racism, Middletown-Hartford Connection, CT Chapter of National Lawyers Guild, Spanish Speaking Center of New Britain, American Friends Service Committee and Martin Street Neighborhood Committee for a. Press Conference Tuesday, September 11 at 12 Noon Legislative Office Building, Room 2E 300 Capitol Avenue, Hartford The Clean Slate Committee (CSC) is holding the press conference to discuss the status of ex-offenders and their re-integration into society. Following the press conference, the Judiciary Committee will be holding an invitation-only hearing on parole, sentencing and violent crimes. The CSC, a committee of A Better Way Foundation, believes that longer and harsher sentences will not help in controlling crime or protecting potential victims. Longer sentences only serve to further isolate offenders from their communities, families, and social networks, and to stunt their abilities to develop and keep social and job skills. In addition, ex-offenders continue to have a felony record resulting in housing and job discrimination. A person with a record must wait five years to apply to have the record expunged. A quicker process is being developed, but not fully implemented. Plans for re-integration that include job training, job availability, halfway and permanent housing, and drug counseling and rehabilitation will better serve those who have been released from prison. Speakers will include State Representative Marie Kirkley-Bey, and representatives from the Connecticut chapter of the National Lawyer's Guild, the American Friends Service Committee and Connecticut Undoing Racism. Community testimony will be given be Marcus Jarvis and Barbara Fair. For more info call: (860) 570-0782 or email: samuelssloflo at aol.com http://www.abwf-ct.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 efficacy at msn.com Tue Sep 11 13:40:44 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:40:44 -0400 Subject: {news} McKinney Withdraws Name fromConsideration Message-ID: From: John A. Murphy To: Green Party of PA Delegates Discussion List Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:41 PM Subject: [gppa-delegates-discuss] TEXT McKinney Withdraws Name fromConsideration To: Steering Committee of the Green Party of the United States Fm: Cynthia McKinney, Georgia Date: September 10th, 2007 As I'm sure you know, I have been approached by many within the Green Party over the preceeding year who have asked that I consider seeking the nomination of the Green Party of the United States as its candidate for President of the United States. In 2003 I was similiarly approached about my potential interest in the 2004 race. I have seriously weighed the options, travelled extensively holding first private, then more public events with Greens over the preceding year, exploring such a possibility with Greens in at least a dozen state parties, meeting with the chair of your Presidential Campaign Support Committee, with the members of your Steering Committee and speaking at, and entertaining questions from the Party's Annual Meeting in Reading Pennsylvania this past July. Since the Reading meeting, I have also begun to help Green candidates raise money for their campaigns. For months I have answered questions about my intentions for this race in 2008 by saying that while I am not yet in, neither am I out of this race. After careful consideration about the political conditions facing our nation, the level of development within the Party, my own readiness to take on such a daunting task and my own long postponed personal priorities, I write to inform the Party that I must at this time withdraw my name from consideration for the Party's 2008 Presidential Nominating contest. I remain committed to our collective work of transforming our nation and to mobilizing peace loving Americans, justice seeking activists and others disfranchised by the powers which currently control our nation toward that end. Sincerely yours, Cynthia McKinney -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ GPPA-Delegates-Discuss mailing list GPPA-Delegates-Discuss at gpofpa.org http://gpofpa.org/mailman/listinfo/gppa-delegates-discuss --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GP Black Caucus" group. To post to this group, send email to gpbc at googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gpbc-unsubscribe at googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gpbc?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chapillsbury at gmail.com Tue Sep 11 23:28:04 2007 From: chapillsbury at gmail.com (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:28:04 -0400 Subject: {news} Fwd: Preparation for 2008 convention from PCSC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <10859a090709112028m1eaa393fwb302d69fe9832c00@mail.gmail.com> fyi, c. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Gerritt Date: Sep 10, 2007 2:44 PM Subject: Preparation for 2008 convention from PCSC Dear Greens, attached are 8 documents that should help you and your state parties be more prepared for the 2008 National Nominating convention. Please forward them to every Green who could possibly use them, especially within tour state party. Some are general pieces about how candidates will operate, others directly inform you about what you need to know to hold a state convention. Several are templates that your state may wish to adapt so that you are properly electing and instructing delegates to the National Nominating Convention. These documents have been assembled by the GPUS Presidential Campaign Support Committee. No packet like this can actually cover everything. We are sure that you will have questions not covered here, and that many of your state parties will have questions and need assistance in preparing rules and documents. After reviewing this assemblage, if you still have questions, they can be directed to me, Greg Gerritt, at 401-331-0529 or gerritt at mindspring.com . Greg Gerritt co chair GPUS PCSC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WI caucus rules.doc Type: application/msword Size: 39424 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GPUS Green Paper - How State Green Parties Fit into the Presidential Campaign.doc Type: application/msword Size: 61952 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FAQ SEPT 07.doc Type: application/msword Size: 55296 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GPUS Green Paper - How to Win the Green Party Nomination for President of the United States.doc Type: application/msword Size: 61952 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GPUS Green Paper - Petitioning for Stand-In Candidates for President and Vice-President[3].doc Type: application/msword Size: 35840 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: large state template.doc Type: application/msword Size: 76288 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: recent thoughts.doc Type: application/msword Size: 48128 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GPUS Convention voting.doc Type: application/msword Size: 33792 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chapillsbury at gmail.com Tue Sep 11 23:33:47 2007 From: chapillsbury at gmail.com (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:33:47 -0400 Subject: {news} a better forum for state parties Green Party ballot access endeavors Message-ID: <10859a090709112033s2b427e5di64ff42d77f2093f5@mail.gmail.com> On 9/9/07, Phil Huckelberry wrote: There are two listservs associated with the GPUS Ballot Access Committee. One list, 'bac', is the main committee list. There is also a second list, 'ballot-access', which was originally intended as sort of an open list, but it has really not been used much since it was created. Recently there have been some messages on GNC lists about ongoing ballot drives in particular states and the need those state parties have for financial assistance. Based partially on those messages, partially on recognizing that the GNC lists are not well-suited for sending out broad updates or frequent updates about specific ballot drives, and partially on trying to solve a couple of other related problems, I put forward the idea of changing the 'ballot-access' list into a relatively low-volume announcement list where we would try to get hundreds of interested Greens involved. This, then, is something of an experiment, to see if we can raise the level of interest and also participation in Green Party ballot access endeavors by creating a better forum for state parties to get the word out about what they're doing and what they need. To subscribe, send email to: ballot-access-subscribe at lists.gp-us.org > > One example of what you'll see in the next couple of weeks is a request > for > out-of-state help with limited petition validation for the ongoing drive > in > Arkansas. Their people _in_ Arkansas need to be out collecting > signatures, > but they also have a need for verifying signatures to ensure that they're > getting a high validity rate, so that they'll a) know that their paid > petitioners are doing a good job and b) be able to estimate how many raw > signatures they'll really need to ensure 10,000 valid signatures. > > The two reasons why such requests don't make sense for GNC lists are > really > simple. First, we want a whole lot more people than just GNC delegates > and > alternates receiving these messages, and potentially assisting. Second, > when we get into peak petitioning, there will be more messages on that > list, and GNC members will appreciate being able to separate those > messages > from the business before the GNC. > > Please feel free to forward this message to your respective state > parties. If you have any difficulty subscribing to the list or if you > have > any questions, please email me off-list. Remember that this is an > experiment right now, so it might not take off at all, but maybe it will > turn into a valuable tool to support our ballot drives. > > Phil Huckelberry > Co-Chair, GPUS > Co-Chair, Ballot Access Committee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chapillsbury at gmail.com Thu Sep 13 23:01:18 2007 From: chapillsbury at gmail.com (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:01:18 -0400 Subject: {news} Voting on GP-US Proposal: ID 311 - Implementation of Standards for Recognizing Presidential Candidates Message-ID: <10859a090709132001o67851de1t289052779ebdc52b@mail.gmail.com> I'm inclined to vote YES on this proposal currently under consideration. What do you think? Charlie ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: voting at gpus.org Date: 12 Sep 2007 04:05:01 -0000 Subject: [usgp-nc] Voting Has Begun on GP-US Proposal: ID 311 - Implementation of Standards for Recognizing Presidential Candidates To: natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org Voting has begun for the following proposal: Proposal ID: 311 Proposal: Implementation of Standards for Recognizing Presidential Candidates Floor Manager: Jason Nabewaniec, j_nabs at hotmail.com Voting Dates: 09/12/2007 - 09/18/2007 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time Background: The Presidential Campaign Support Committee has attempted to create a wide-open nomination process for 2008. One of the hallmarks of this has been trying to establish a transparent, balanced system where no candidates are the benefit of any institutional bias. Several individuals have already gone through the steps required to become recognized candidates. The process, however, has proven to be fraught with unexpected problems. Candidates who are clearly not intending to run serious campaigns and candidates with seemingly no Green credentials have announced. Unlike the corporatist parties, for the Green Party, the imprimatur of identifying which candidates are seeking the nomination falls squarely upon the party itself. When the Green Party releases a list of official candidates and some of those candidates include people who are clearly not credible candidates, the effect is to marginalize both the party and the remainder of the candidates. Similarly, when the party extends resources to candidates, it should not be extending resources to any random person who has submitted a questionnaire. Listing a candidate's name and website on the GPUS website constitutes providing a significant resource, and PCSC has also been developing information resources for candidates. It is not good practice to squander the time and efforts of Greens on candidates who are not serious, or worse, who may misrepresent themselves and the position of the Green Party and use the imprimatur of GPUS recognition to do so. The purpose of this proposal is to establish clear standards for the formal recognition of presidential candidates, where such recognition may qualify a candidate for GPUS identification and other resources. Such recognition is not intended to imply any status with regard to the conduct of voting at the Presidential Nominating Convention, and is not intended to exclude the participation or consideration of any individuals at the convention. It should be noted, though, that the list of recognized candidates may be employed by state parties in determining the roster of candidates to submit to their membership for the presidential preference voting process in their respective states. This may require future action from PCSC. It is also understood that there are numerous individuals who might best be considered "prospective candidates". Such persons are understood to be undeclared and undecided, and perhaps not engaged in a formal "exploratory" process in the eyes of the FEC. Nevertheless, these individuals could reasonably be asserted to be informally considering their options and they might therefore have some need for certain resources generated by PCSC or other elements of GPUS. The potential popularity of such candidates compels facilitating the potential for such candidates to seek the party nomination while respecting certain issues that may arise from being considered a formal or "exploring" candidate in the eyes of the FEC. A category of "draft candidate" is therefore included in this proposal, where "draft candidates" are understood to be undeclared and undecided but desirous of certain party resources. Proposal: The Green National Committee formally adopts the following policies for recognizing declared and draft candidates for the Green Party nomination for President: Policy for Recognition of Declared Candidates for the Green Party Nomination for President 1. An individual may become an officially recognized candidate for the Green Party nomination for President provided that he/she: a. submits an official Candidate Questionnaire to the Presidential Campaign Support Committee; b. is not a registrant of any state or national level political party in the individual's primary state of residence except for a state party which has affiliated with GPUS, or a party forming for the intent of GPUS affiliation in a state where there is no GPUS affiliated state party; c. has pledged to use all offered Green Party ballot lines; d. has a website for his/her candidacy. 2. Provided that the above standards have been met, any such individual should also: a. receive verifiable support from 100 Green Party members, including members from at least 5 state parties, no later than December 1, 2007; b. establish a campaign committee and file with the Federal Elections Commission, no later than December 31, 2007; c. raise at least $5,000, not including self-financing, for the purpose of his/her campaign, no later than February 1, 2008. 3. If any such individual meets all standards identified above, then the Presidential Campaign Support Committee shall consider the matter of whether such individual shall be extended official recognition as a candidate for the Green nomination. The PCSC co-chairs shall report when an individual has met such standards. If no action is taken within seven days of such notification, then the candidate shall be extended official recognition. Within those seven days, any member of PCSC may introduce a proposal, specifying cause, to refuse to extend official recognition to an individual who meets the delineated standards. Such a proposal will be acted upon per the standard policies and procedures of the PCSC, and candidate recognition shall only be refused upon a standard 2/3 vote of the committee. Should such a proposal fail, the candidate will be extended official recognition. 4. Once a candidate has been extended official recognition by the PCSC, such recognition may be rescinded by a proposal, specifying cause, acted upon per the standard policies and procedures of the PCSC, with a standard 2/3 vote of the committee. Such cause may include failure to comply with the time-specific standards delineated in Section 2 of this policy. 5. Individuals who are officially recognized candidates may be eligible for GPUS provided resources, including information on GPUS sponsored websites, contact lists, and other resources that GPUS might provide. Policy for Recognition of Draft Candidates for the Green Party Nomination for President 1. An individual may become an officially recognized draft candidate for the Green nomination for President provided that he/she: a. has demonstrable, verifiable support from 100 Green Party members, including members from at least 5 state parties; b. is not a registrant of any state or national level political party in the individual's primary state of residence except for a state party which has affiliated with GPUS, or a party forming for the intent of GPUS affiliation in a state where there is no GPUS affiliated state party; c. is aware of the draft candidacy and has not formally notified the PCSC that he/she does not wish to be considered a draft candidate as per this policy; lack of notification will not be considered as an indication on the part of the individual that he/she is a declared or otherwise formal candidate. 2. If any such individual meets all standards identified above, then the Presidential Campaign Support Committee shall consider the matter of whether such individual shall be extended official recognition as a draft candidate for the Green nomination. The PCSC co-chairs shall report when an individual has met such standards. If no action is taken within seven days of such notification, then the candidate shall be extended official recognition as a draft candidate. Within those seven days, any member of PCSC may introduce a proposal, specifying cause, to refuse to extend official recognition to an individual who meets the delineated standards. Such a proposal will be acted upon per the standard policies and procedures of the PCSC, and draft candidate recognition shall only be refused upon a standard 2/3 vote of the committee. Should such a proposal fail, the individual will be extended official draft candidate recognition. 3. Upon recognition of a draft candidate, the individual shall be notified, and shall be requested to meet the conditions of being an official declared candidate, per the relevant policy, no later than December 31, 2007 if the individual wishes to maintain status as a recognized candidate for the nomination. 4. Once a draft candidate has been extended official recognition by the PCSC, such recognition may be rescinded by a proposal, specifying cause, acted upon per the standard policies and procedures of the PCSC, with a standard 2/3 vote of the committee. Such cause may include failure to comply with the time-specific standards delineated in Section 2 of this policy. 5. Individuals who are officially recognized draft candidates may be eligible for GPUS provided resources, including information on GPUS sponsored websites, contact lists, and other resources that GPUS might provide. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efficacy at msn.com Thu Sep 13 23:40:00 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:40:00 -0400 Subject: {news} online magazine? Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Jason West Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 11:17 PM Subject: online magazine? Folks -- I'm sending this out after deleting several dozen green emails irrelevant to real organizing. I'd like to have an online magzine or blog of some sort for both myself and the general public to have a steady source of analysis, insight and news about the green party, from a perspective I share. While i generally dislike writing, I would be willing to set up a site and give certain Greens carte blanche access to write what they choose. The only editorial control I would exert would be the choice as to who would be able to post articles. Those I've sent this to share my broad vision as to both how change happens, what is needed and some level of frustration with the choices the Green Party has made. There are a few people -- such as Kevin Zeese and Austin King -- for whom I don't have a current email address and I would be open to other suggestions. I'm writing this to see if there is enough -- if any -- interest among you to write for such a website. I would hope for postings about political issues and analysis, strategy and tactics for the Green Party, discussion of internal party debates, etc. Essentially, a website to serve the functions of both a theoretical journal, a practical on-the-ground how to organize forum and an analysis of current events from a party perspective such as the old sectarian marxist parties still produce on a weekly basis. I'd love to be able to read a Green publication with the fire and passion of the "Revolutionary Worker" without the clinging to failed dogmatism, for instance. So that's my offer -- if enough of you think it's worthwhile, are willing to write your thoughts about politics, agree with the rough idea of the site, I'd be willing to design it and put it up, and contribute a bit myself. With Peter's permission, i'd like to name it "Northstar", after the guiding light of the abolitionists, and am open to other, or better ideas as to name, contributors or format. I'd also ask that you not forward this around -- if it gets off the ground, I'd like to keep it to ourselves for now, just in case it doesn't fly. Jason West New Paltz, NY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chapillsbury at gmail.com Fri Sep 14 19:46:38 2007 From: chapillsbury at gmail.com (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:46:38 -0400 Subject: {news} Fwd: [usgp-nc] State Convention documents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <10859a090709141646m52e0e992m278241a5704054f5@mail.gmail.com> fyi, charlie ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Gerritt Date: Sep 14, 2007 6:27 AM Subject: [usgp-nc] State Convention documents To: national comm votes One of the purposes of sending out the documents recently posted was to stimulate further conversation about the processes leading up to the national convention. There was one type of document that was not included in the previous packet as I did not have anything that could serve as a model for state parties that will choose and instruct delegates at their state convention. The url?s included below lead to documents from the Georgia Green Party that can serve as models. My guess is that these documents will be most useful to the smaller state parties and those without ballot access. Thanks to the GGP for sending these along. Again, if your state party has questions the PCSC is happy to provide counsel. Greg Gerritt GPRI, PCSC http://www.greens.org/georgia.static/pdf/GvrnDocs/PNC-Policy.pdf http://www.greens.org/georgia.static/pdf/GvrnDocs/GGP-NC-Rules.pdf http://www.greens.org/georgia.static/pdf/GvrnDocs/ConventionProcess.pdf _______________________________________________ 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/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roseberry3 at cox.net Mon Sep 17 00:53:40 2007 From: roseberry3 at cox.net (B Barry) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:53:40 -0400 Subject: {news} proposed agenda for the 9-17-07 EC meeting at 7pm Message-ID: <20070917045257.SAYR18594.eastrmmtao106.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> Agenda for 9-17-07 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 9-25-07 SCC meeting which might include but not limited to: 1. CT Green Times newspaper status: Will another edition be available for the 9-2-07 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. Any proposals? e.g. from Process and Procedure Committee members 8. Place of next EC meeting scheduled for 10-07. 9. Place for next SCC meeting 9-25-07 SCC meeting. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.21/1012 - Release Date: 9/16/2007 6:32 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efficacy at msn.com Tue Sep 18 09:02:42 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:02:42 -0400 Subject: {news} Political Maturity: On phantom candidates, pre-determined outcomes and fan clubs Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Hugh Esco Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:43 PM Subject: Political Maturity: On phantom candidates, pre-determined outcomes and fan clubs >From hesco Mon Sep 17 02:28:01 2007 To: natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org Subject: Political Maturity: On phantom candidates, pre-determined outcomes and fan clubs Reply-To: hesco at greens.org Status: R Dear Members of the Green National Committee: I write to ask when we might find the political maturity necessary to be taken seriously by those candidates we might seek to recruit to our slate? In my more frustrated moments I have often mused that one day I hope to work with a political party which has a modiucm of self-respect. Any organization which has been around long enough for the ink to dry on its governing documents has already begun to develop and institutionalize its own organizational culture. The term 'culture' (according to wikipedia) 'generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significant importance,' and as 'the universal human capacity to classify, codify and communicate their experiences symbolically.' Some aspects of the organizational culture of the Green Party of the United States we inherit from the broader context of the society we operate in, and the life experiences of the participants who's involvement makes possible our work. The fact that our organization evolved for instance within a social culture grounded in the ideology of white-male supremacy leaves us with that same foundation as the larger society we are a part of. The fact that some of our members are not white or male does not insulate those members, nor our organizational culture from the taint of an ideology which organizes power, control and access to resources along those binary determinants. In general, Black and Brown folks are acculturated with internalized racial inferiority to no less an extent than white folks are brought up early to possess a belief in the internalized myth of our own racial superiority. Its the same societal clues which inculcate these beliefs in all of us. Just as we are 'racialized' by our acculturation, so too are we 'gendered' by that process as well. Gender here is seen as no less a social construction than is race and is distinct from sex, anatomy and reproduction (just as race has nothing to do with melanin content), but refers to the ways our society has conditioned us to behave and believe in ways deemed appropriate for our anatomy, and our culture's place for us. I wanted to address three aspects of the Green Party culture I have observed which I feel work against our stated intention of serving as a vehicle for the democratic organization of the political power necessary to effect a Green-Justice agenda. phantom candidates We expect flesh and blood Green Party candidates, at least for President of the United States, to participate in a nominating process which pits them against phantom candidates, persons who have not declared their intention to seek the nomination of the Green Party of the United States. For evidence of this phenomena, we do not have to revisit the absurdity of the Milwaulkee Presidential Nominating Convention for which we provided rules permitting us to 'endorse' a candidate who refused to seek or accept our nomination. The far more recent Riverside General Assembly of the California Green Party will serve as a case in point. Candidate campaigns were informed of rules expressing a consensus that favors the inclusion of 'announced candidates', and where the 'recommended candidates list' included only those candidates who had 'affirmatively expressed an interest in seeking the GPUS nomination for U.S. President'. Those rules further provided that 'In the absence of consensus for inclusion of any additional candidate(s), the question of additional names will be decided by a written ballot. A candidate receiving 2/3rds or more of the total votes cast will be included on the list to the California Secretary of State.' There are conflicting stories coming out of California as to whether the document from which this language was quoted had been adopted / was binding on the ballot setting process that occurred in the September 8th Plenary. So either we believe that no rule existed and their ballot was set by something closer to mob rule, than to a process in which the participants were duly notified of the ground rules; or we believe that the rule was adopted and then ignored. In either instance the six Green Party members who had 'affirmatively expressed an interest in seeking the GPUS nomination for U.S. President', were subjected to disparate treatment in the ballot setting process when compared to the treatment experienced by a seventh candidate who presumably reported third hand in an oral phone message that he was 'flattered' to be considered, had made no decisions about his intentions for 2008 but had 'no objection' to being included on the Primary ballot. Six candidates and Green Party members complied with the 'affirmatively expressed interest' rule required to assure them a place on the 'recommended candidates list'. One wealthy attorney from Connecticut with a dead-daddy story about why he won't join our Party did not. At that point the rule, whether it existed or not, whether it had been adopted, or had merely been explained to candidates' representatives as if it did govern, was thrown out the window. The rule was less important than our organization's cultural commitment to setting our Presidential Preference ballot to include its very own 'phantom candidate'. pre-determined outcomes We have an organizational culture which favors pre-determined outcomes over the messiness of democratic engagement with its unpredictable outcomes. This cultural predisposition of ours expresses itself in multiple ways. The phantom candidate practice is only one manifestation of this aspect of our cultural makeup. Another way this trait exhibits itself in our Party's culture is the ongoing speculation about whether we ought to run a Nader-McKinney ticket or a McKinney-Nader ticket. I wonder how many folks who have engaged in such speculation have actually had a conversation with either or both of the players in their fantasy team. Are either of these candidates willing to have the other as a running mate? Based on what evidence? And given the interest each has expressed in the past (if not now) in our Presidential nomination, what makes any of us think they would want that 'one heartbeat away' job, instead? Speaking from my own experience, I will say that my work to bring Ms. McKinney to our Party's slate has focused on negotiating the conditions under which she might be willing to seek our nomination for President of the United States. And on September 8th, her letter stating her intent to do just that was read on the floor of the California Plenary. I see the question of her running mate as a question for her to answer, sometime next year. But for the next nine months, long before she needs to make a decision on running mates, there are many other questions our potential campaign must answer: mostly dealing with matters of fundraising, messaging, scheduling, staffing, primary and general ballot access, and delegate counts. The question of pre-determining outcomes grows from a sense of entitlement many of us may choose to exercise from time to time. Entitlement refers to a 'guarantee of access to benefits'. The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights would assert that we are entitled to family, language, political rights, economic rights, food, water, shelter, security in our old age and related benefits of living in a civilized world. But I'm not talking here about those sort of entitlements, the ones guaranteed by law. I refer here to the entitlements we would presume to exercise on behalf of others: the entitlement say to choose our nominee's running mates for them, or a person's future for them. While we may all at one time or another find ourselves seeking to exercise an inappropriate sense of entitlement, the dynamics of life in a culture based on the supremacy of white males generally reserves the effective exercise of such power to, you guessed it, white males. Women and people of color are welcome to go along and expected to permit others to plan their lives for them in this way. The democratic process is antithetical to our cultural predisposition to pre-determine outcomes. Democracy is messy. You put those sorts of decisions in the hands of a collective of ordinary people and we lose control over the final result. Which is precisely why an institution, even one espousing grassroots democracy as a key value, must create and support cultural norms like the 'phantom candidate' and 'predetermined outcomes' so it can maintain control over the result; you know, after the rabble have had their say. party or fan club Our Party made a tactical choice in 1996 and in 2000 which has colored our development ever since. That choice was to recruit to our ranks as its standard bearer, a cultural icon who had never joined our Party. As a part of the negotiations which made that campaign possible, apparently we were willing to offer not so much a nomination (won in a contested process), but more of a coronation provided as a fait-accompli, a pre-determined outcome. The rest of those campaigns were essentially scripted drama for the folks who did not broker those deals, did not negotiate the final outcome, and whose votes were seen as props for the inevitable result we all knew would come of the exercise. Those were useful tactics in our early days. But we seem to have mistaken our tactics for our goals. We now face within the leadership bodies of this organization folks who comport themselves more as members of a fan club than as voters belonging to a political party. Their words, votes and deeds seem more appropriate to the obsessive adulation of the target of their fandom, than the strategic building of the capacity required to harness political power in service of a Green-Justice agenda. That candidate in 2000 told us all that he was working with us to build the Green Party because we needed a viable vehicle with which to organize for political power. That same candidate in 2004 declined to seek our nomination and instead began the process of building a new political party, the Populist Party, but also worked with the Reform Party and others to secure ballot lines and went so far as to permit his paid campaign staff to interfere with the ballot lines our Party had secured for the use of our nominated slate. At the Milwaulkee Convention I had hope that our Party had grown up; that we had pushed through the soil and matured to the point of leaving coronations behind us. I was hopeful that our Party was beginning to show the political maturity necessary to build capacity for the long term. But the Riverside Plenary suggested otherwise. The California Party at the Riverside Plenary ignored the rules its officers had advertised to prospective candidates and sought to exercise its cultural entitlement to pre-determine outcomes by running a phantom candidate against the flesh and blood Party members who have taken the personal risks necessary to put themselves out there as seeking our nomination for President of the United States. In doing so they acted more like a fan club than a political party and cost us a candidate many feel is capable of uniting our Party for the 2008 election cycle. -- In conversations with Ms. McKinney about the sort of campaign which would be possible were she to seek and win the Green Party nomination for President of the United States, she pointed out to me recently that all the Black folks who had tried to do what we were discussing -- uniting people nationally across lines of race in support of economic justice -- had died a premature death of unnatural causes. Besides postponing her own personal priorities, sending her letter of intent to the Riverside Plenary also involved embarking on a course of action involving actual risks to her personal safety, evoking the concerns of her family and friends. She has lived under death threats before and understands the impact that has on one's life. I'm not the candidate here, but my own partner has expressed concerns for the risks I assume for being in proximity to her. But it would seem that our Party has not matured sufficiently to honor those risks with an open and democratic process for determining its nominee. If we are to offer Green voters a Presidential nominating process contested by multiple viable candidates, we must learn to take ourselves seriously enough to demand that our candidates actually seek our nomination. We must insulate our nominating process from trivial candidates who are not seeking our nomination. While we might choose in each of our state parties to permit our members to initiate efforts to draft reluctant candidates to our slate, we ought to distinguish in our rules, as was done by the California CCWG's ballot setting process, the candidates who seek our nomination from those who do not. And when we draw those distinctions in our rules, we ought to honor those flesh and blood Green Party members who seek our nomination by having the integrity to enforce those distinctions and permit our members to decide for themselves whether they belong to a fan club or a political party. The question now is will we grow up and stand up for what we have to offer the voters of this nation? Or will we remain in the fetal position, convinced of our unworthiness to lead our nation from the abyss and that we are dependent on some outside savior to make us relevant? Are we ready to muster a modicum of self-respect for the work that we do and the opportunities we are prepared to offer the American people? Are we ready to field Party members who have declared their intention to seek our nomination? Or will we content ourselves with playing fan club in the midst of public elections? This is serious business we are engaged in. Our work is a matter of life or death. How we answer these questions in the coming days and months may very well determine whether we have any future worth building for. -- Hugh Esco, Delegate Georgia Green Party 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 Tue Sep 18 09:48:49 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:48:49 -0400 Subject: {news} Is Green Party Ready for a McKinney Campaign? Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Hugh Esco Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:43 PM Subject: Is Green Party Ready for a McKinney Campaign? >From hesco Sat Sep 1 12:53:29 2007 To: natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org Subject: Is the Green Party ready for a McKinney Campaign? Status: RO Dear Greens: I write this to our Party's leadership to ask whether the Green Party is ready to serve as a vehicle for a Cynthia McKinney Presidential bid. I write this from the road on the way back to Atlanta from New Orleans Louisiana. I traveled to NOLA with Congresswoman McKinney to honor her commitment as a Convenor of the Peoples International Tribunal for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. While there, she was approached by International Delegates from multiple nations often speaking through interpreters, expressing broadly held hopes from their home countries that she might lead an electoral challenge to transform our rogue nation into an honest broker for peace in the world. We traveled to New Orleans in a twenty-two hour overnight drive from a Delaware event which ended a thirteen stop speaking and fundraising tour, largely organized and hosted by Green Party activists, of New England and the Mid-Atlantic states. Our intent was to retire what was left of the $50,000 debt left from her 2006 Congressional Campaign where, for the second time, a malicious cross-over vote in Georgia's open primaries served to turn her out of Congress where for six terms she had provided authentic representation to Georgia's Fourth District. When we started we still had more to go. As we return home, although having made a serious dent in the balance, that debt is not yet retired, but we thank those contributors who are helping us get where we need her to be for her full consideration of her options for 2008. Having worked in her Congressional office on Capitol Hill, I can say that her constituency stretches across 435 Congressional districts and that the phones never stopped ringing with people across this nation seeking a sympathetic ear on the Hill in spite of their own elected Congressmembers failure to represent their interests. A few of you are already aware that I have for much of the past year, worked quietly in the background to prepare the way for a Green Party McKinney campaign. Early in that process it became clear that there would be no such Green Party campaign unless there were also a Black, Brown and Green, Green Party McKinney campaign. No declaration would be made by Congresswoman McKinney for our nomination, unless it could be a part of a larger effort which was prepared to ride the momentum being created by the Black-Brown Unity organizing already under way, led by the Black Liberation Movement and the Immigrant community. No such effort would materialize unless it was a part of a larger effort to involve and engage Native and Asian and African and Latino/a communities in a central and meaningful way. The biggest obstacle we as the Green Party face, to having a role in such an historic and seminal campaign is the white culture which so dominates our Party. Our biggest obstacle is the impression among community activists of color that the Green Party has no place for them at the center of decision making within the Green Party. While understanding the historic imperative for urgent action which we face, Cynthia McKinney also could look back with pride on sixteen years of service in publicly elected office. She could choose to retire to complete her long postponed Doctoral Dissertation. She could choose to have a private life for nearly the first time in her adult life. First in the Georgia General Assembly, and later in the U.S. Congress, McKinney offered herself as a vehicle for the aspirations of communities struggling for justice against the corporate and public institutions which continue to undermine democracy and the living and working conditions we face. It was the poorest of voters in the Central Georgia Black Belt which first sent her to Congress on a $25,000 campaign in the three way 1992 Primary where we defeated the two Black candidates chosen to represent the predominently Black folks of the old Eleventh by Georgia's most powerful competing white politicians, then Governor Zell Miller and then Speaker Tom Murphy. These were people without running water in their homes. These were people who faced Klan violence for their support of her. As former Georgia Green Party Chairman, the Reverend Zack Lyde often reminded us, the work we do is serious business, a matter of life and death. And as Ms. McKinney often reminds people, she is a student of COINTELPRO, which she asserts did more to shape the on-the-ground conditions faced today in the Black community than any other single factor. It was building black and white unity to challenge racism, poverty and war which got Dr. King assassinated. And our own tax dollars had a hand in that, just as they did in the assassinations of George Jackson, Chairman Fred Hampton, the Kennedy brothers and Malcolm X. It is important that we not be naive about the barriers we face, nor the risks we would ask her to assume. Even so, the future of our nation and our communities demands that we not shirk from this historic responsibility to offer the Party we've spent twenty years building as a vehicle for such an important campaign. But to do so we can not sit on our laurels. Having forty or even fifty-one ballot lines to offer will not be sufficient if we fail to offer a place at the table for our partners in such an alliance. And that will require that we step outside our comfort zones, that we learn to operate effectively and respectfully in the very communities we seek to represent. As we were checking out this morning, in the hotel lobby we ran into a former Green who currently serves in a leadership role within the California Federation of Labor. Back in the day, he worked in early efforts to build Labor Party Advocates. He has remained in communication with those labor activists who became frustrated by the LPA's refusal to challenge its financial base's relationship with the Democrat Party by engaging in electoral politics, and their resistence to challenging the comfort levels of its predominently white base by responding to the legitimate demands of its Black supporters. In organizing now under way which has grown from last year's Katrina Survivors People's Assembly held in Mississippi, and as work proceeds for the Second Survivors Assembly scheduled for New Orleans, December 8th and 9th of this year, growing momentum has developed for a Reconstruction Party as an electoral vehicle, described by Kali Akuno, Executive Director of the People's Hurricane Relief Fund and Oversight Coalition, as: a strategic instrument that will enable the Gulf Coast Self-Determination and Reconstruction Movement to implement the restorative measures called for by the Tribunal through the institution of the state. http://www.peopleshurricane.org/ed-blog/ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Reconstruction+Party%22+Hurricane&btnG=Search As reported that morning by that former California Green we met in the lobby, the Reconstruction movement, and the old Labor Party Advocates and a broad range of other independent political forces have already issued a broadly supported letter to Congresswoman McKinney asking that she consider carrying their banner in an electoral effort for 2008. I was brought into this conversation to hear his concerns that the Green Party is not a suitable vehicle for such a run. Even aware of the tremendous heavy lifting it has taken for us to have our ballot lines to offer, he was of the mind that autonomy and self-determination for a Black and Brown led political movement was too important to risk for the short term gains to be enjoyed by subsuming such an effort in a predominently white Green Party. >From my past work with the Congresswoman, it is clear that she has no interest in serving as the titular head of a Party not ready to embrace its role of providing a vehicle for such participation. Ms. McKinney was clear, that the only reason she would participate in a Green campaign was to support such a Reconstruction agenda, including the agenda of creating a framework which would honor the need for autonomy and self-determination by communities of color. Clinton ran on a Platform of naming a Cabinet which looked like America. But images are not enough. We must do more than colorize our Board photos. We must go further and build a Party which at every level involves and engages, not just those Greens of color that those of us who are white might be comfortable working with, but those community activists who legitimately represent the authentic leadership of communities of color. We must be ready to operate in our discomfort zone. We must recreate this Party so that these authentic leaders are offered a seat at the table of decision making within the Green Party. So I return to the question with which I opened this letter: Are we ready as a Party to be a vehicle for such an effort? Are we ready to open our Platform development process, leadership bodies and slates to the leadership which would emanate from those communities ready to coalesce around a McKinney campaign? Because if we are not yet ready to do our internal work to create a safe place where we can struggle together toward such an outcome, I would rather tell my old friend not to bother with next week's deadline for the California Presidential Preference Primary. I would rather protect her from the abuse and disappointment, than try to pretend that our state Parties were ready for something we are not yet prepared to engage in, as principled allies. That question is left to us. And with the California Green Party General Assembly setting their Primary ballot on the weekend of September 8th and 9th, the window for responding to that question is quickly closing. Cynthia McKinney has offered a contact form on her website where she welcomes feedback from Greens on these concerns and regarding folks' thoughts on possibilities for 2008 in general. Please reply at: http://www.allthingscynthiamckinney.com/TalkBack2008 -- Hugh Esco, Delegate Georgia Green Party -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efficacy at msn.com Tue Sep 18 09:56:02 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:56:02 -0400 Subject: {news} Are we ready? Apparently not. Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Hugh Esco Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:43 PM Subject: Are we ready? Apparently not. >From hesco Mon Sep 10 15:09:16 2007 To: natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org Subject: Are we ready? Apparently not. Reply-To: hesco at greens.org Status: RO Are we ready? Apparently not. About a week ago I posed the question: "Is the Green Party Ready for a McKinney Campaign". I have to look at this weekend's action by the California Green Party and suggest already that the answer is likely: "Apparently not". In that letter, I asked: Are we ready to open our Platform development process, leadership bodies and slates to the leadership which would emanate from those communities ready to coalesce around a McKinney campaign? I'd say that judging from how the business transpired on the floor in California this weekend, at least with respect to the inclusion of Ms. McKinney on the slate, the answer seems to be "yes". But her access to that ballot was made available in a disparate way which seems to privilege one candidate over all of the others. The formulation of the motion to be presented as a unified ballot to the General Assembly of the California Green Party. The motion was to include every candidate, among the ten vetted (for inclusion in the Candidates' Forum at the Reading Convention) by the Presidential Campaign Support Committee of the Green Party of the United States, who was deemed viable and Green by the Campaigns and Candidates Working Group of the Green Party of California. That gave us a five member slate including: Jared Ball, Elaine Brown, Jesse Johnson, Kent Mesplay and Kat Swift. Understanding that draft efforts were under way for additional candidates, the process adopted provided for two additional ways to access the ballot. The CCWG delegated to their Chair the power to amend the unified motion to account for any additional candidate who declared their intention to seek the nomination of the Party. Georgia Green Party member and former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney qualified for inclusion under this provision, giving the motion six candidates. The process agreed to in the setting of the agenda provided that if this motion failed to achieve the support of two-thirds of the body, the question was to be split, with each candidate standing for a two-thirds up or down vote on their inclusion. The Chair was also authorized to entertain a motion from a draft effort to add any candidate who had not declared their intention to seek the nomination, with their inclusion on the California Green Party's Presidential Preference Primary ballot subject to a stand alone vote at the same two-thirds threshold. Cat Woods of Sonoma County made such a motion, except that she insisted, in spite of the agreed to process, that Ralph Nader's name be included as a part of the unified motion. Participants suggested that she lost quite a bit of credibility when she cursed and blew up during the debate. But in the end the bully tactics prevailed. Nader is not a member of the Party. He has not stated his intent to seek the nomination of the Green Party of the United States. But he did apparently deliver a message, by way of Cat Woods with whom he had spoken by phone, that he was 'flattered' to be considered and while he has not yet made a decision with respect to his intentions for 2008, he would not object to be included on the ballot. Objections were raised, but Cat persisted. Everyone was exhausted. And the CCWG Chair relented, in a confused moment, and then there were seven. Asked why this breech of process was not more strenuously resisted, I'm told over and over, "Its the LA thing", referring to a controversy over the composition of the delegation from the state's largest county. The issue, a long standing one riddled with long held personality conflicts managed to distract the Party from its essential work yet again. The previous General Assembly had by a narrow margin rejected a resolution asking for the resignation of the state committee. But this time, delegates elected by their counties sat at home, avoiding the long drive down for the meeting, and even more grueling, the endurance test of attrition which has characterized the Party's General Assemblies. By the time the bullied manipulation of the process worked to carry Nader, on the coattails of the six Party members declared for our nomination, onto the ballot, Delegates were exhausted. But one keeps coming back to the fact that a former six term Member of Congress, who has also served two terms in the Georgia Assembly was subjected to a disparate standard for entry to the ballot, when compared to the hurdle for entry faced by another candidate added to the ballot at the Riverside Plenary. Cynthia McKinney, who since December 21st, 2003 has been a member of the Georgia Green Party, and was seeking our nomination for President of the United States faced one hurdle, advertised to her by the CCWG. But privileged access to the California ballot was granted to the candidate who after the successful 2000 campaign had abandoned his commitment to help us build the Green Party, and in 2004 actually dispatched his hired staff to sabotage the ballot lines of our Party in Vermont and Utah (while trying to do likewise in Florida and California and New York, that I am aware of). Is this what the racism and sexism looks like, that I was concerned about when I asked: Is our Party Ready? I'd suggest that our Party, if it is to develop its relevancy, must grapple with those questions. All the good intentions, explanations, circumstances and stories are not going to change the facts that we have offered disparate access to our ballot in a way which significantly threatens our integrity and our credibility as a Party which is actually committed to its values. And if we are not prepared to acknowledge that, then perhaps we are not ready for a McKinney campaign. -- Hugh Esco, Delegate Georgia Green Party -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efficacy at msn.com Tue Sep 18 09:56:58 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:56:58 -0400 Subject: {news} Political Maturity: On phantom candidates, pre-determined outcomes and fan clubs Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Hugh Esco Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:43 PM Subject: Political Maturity: On phantom candidates, pre-determined outcomes and fan clubs >From hesco Mon Sep 17 02:28:01 2007 To: natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org Subject: Political Maturity: On phantom candidates, pre-determined outcomes and fan clubs Reply-To: hesco at greens.org Status: R Dear Members of the Green National Committee: I write to ask when we might find the political maturity necessary to be taken seriously by those candidates we might seek to recruit to our slate? In my more frustrated moments I have often mused that one day I hope to work with a political party which has a modiucm of self-respect. Any organization which has been around long enough for the ink to dry on its governing documents has already begun to develop and institutionalize its own organizational culture. The term 'culture' (according to wikipedia) 'generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significant importance,' and as 'the universal human capacity to classify, codify and communicate their experiences symbolically.' Some aspects of the organizational culture of the Green Party of the United States we inherit from the broader context of the society we operate in, and the life experiences of the participants who's involvement makes possible our work. The fact that our organization evolved for instance within a social culture grounded in the ideology of white-male supremacy leaves us with that same foundation as the larger society we are a part of. The fact that some of our members are not white or male does not insulate those members, nor our organizational culture from the taint of an ideology which organizes power, control and access to resources along those binary determinants. In general, Black and Brown folks are acculturated with internalized racial inferiority to no less an extent than white folks are brought up early to possess a belief in the internalized myth of our own racial superiority. Its the same societal clues which inculcate these beliefs in all of us. Just as we are 'racialized' by our acculturation, so too are we 'gendered' by that process as well. Gender here is seen as no less a social construction than is race and is distinct from sex, anatomy and reproduction (just as race has nothing to do with melanin content), but refers to the ways our society has conditioned us to behave and believe in ways deemed appropriate for our anatomy, and our culture's place for us. I wanted to address three aspects of the Green Party culture I have observed which I feel work against our stated intention of serving as a vehicle for the democratic organization of the political power necessary to effect a Green-Justice agenda. phantom candidates We expect flesh and blood Green Party candidates, at least for President of the United States, to participate in a nominating process which pits them against phantom candidates, persons who have not declared their intention to seek the nomination of the Green Party of the United States. For evidence of this phenomena, we do not have to revisit the absurdity of the Milwaulkee Presidential Nominating Convention for which we provided rules permitting us to 'endorse' a candidate who refused to seek or accept our nomination. The far more recent Riverside General Assembly of the California Green Party will serve as a case in point. Candidate campaigns were informed of rules expressing a consensus that favors the inclusion of 'announced candidates', and where the 'recommended candidates list' included only those candidates who had 'affirmatively expressed an interest in seeking the GPUS nomination for U.S. President'. Those rules further provided that 'In the absence of consensus for inclusion of any additional candidate(s), the question of additional names will be decided by a written ballot. A candidate receiving 2/3rds or more of the total votes cast will be included on the list to the California Secretary of State.' There are conflicting stories coming out of California as to whether the document from which this language was quoted had been adopted / was binding on the ballot setting process that occurred in the September 8th Plenary. So either we believe that no rule existed and their ballot was set by something closer to mob rule, than to a process in which the participants were duly notified of the ground rules; or we believe that the rule was adopted and then ignored. In either instance the six Green Party members who had 'affirmatively expressed an interest in seeking the GPUS nomination for U.S. President', were subjected to disparate treatment in the ballot setting process when compared to the treatment experienced by a seventh candidate who presumably reported third hand in an oral phone message that he was 'flattered' to be considered, had made no decisions about his intentions for 2008 but had 'no objection' to being included on the Primary ballot. Six candidates and Green Party members complied with the 'affirmatively expressed interest' rule required to assure them a place on the 'recommended candidates list'. One wealthy attorney from Connecticut with a dead-daddy story about why he won't join our Party did not. At that point the rule, whether it existed or not, whether it had been adopted, or had merely been explained to candidates' representatives as if it did govern, was thrown out the window. The rule was less important than our organization's cultural commitment to setting our Presidential Preference ballot to include its very own 'phantom candidate'. pre-determined outcomes We have an organizational culture which favors pre-determined outcomes over the messiness of democratic engagement with its unpredictable outcomes. This cultural predisposition of ours expresses itself in multiple ways. The phantom candidate practice is only one manifestation of this aspect of our cultural makeup. Another way this trait exhibits itself in our Party's culture is the ongoing speculation about whether we ought to run a Nader-McKinney ticket or a McKinney-Nader ticket. I wonder how many folks who have engaged in such speculation have actually had a conversation with either or both of the players in their fantasy team. Are either of these candidates willing to have the other as a running mate? Based on what evidence? And given the interest each has expressed in the past (if not now) in our Presidential nomination, what makes any of us think they would want that 'one heartbeat away' job, instead? Speaking from my own experience, I will say that my work to bring Ms. McKinney to our Party's slate has focused on negotiating the conditions under which she might be willing to seek our nomination for President of the United States. And on September 8th, her letter stating her intent to do just that was read on the floor of the California Plenary. I see the question of her running mate as a question for her to answer, sometime next year. But for the next nine months, long before she needs to make a decision on running mates, there are many other questions our potential campaign must answer: mostly dealing with matters of fundraising, messaging, scheduling, staffing, primary and general ballot access, and delegate counts. The question of pre-determining outcomes grows from a sense of entitlement many of us may choose to exercise from time to time. Entitlement refers to a 'guarantee of access to benefits'. The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights would assert that we are entitled to family, language, political rights, economic rights, food, water, shelter, security in our old age and related benefits of living in a civilized world. But I'm not talking here about those sort of entitlements, the ones guaranteed by law. I refer here to the entitlements we would presume to exercise on behalf of others: the entitlement say to choose our nominee's running mates for them, or a person's future for them. While we may all at one time or another find ourselves seeking to exercise an inappropriate sense of entitlement, the dynamics of life in a culture based on the supremacy of white males generally reserves the effective exercise of such power to, you guessed it, white males. Women and people of color are welcome to go along and expected to permit others to plan their lives for them in this way. The democratic process is antithetical to our cultural predisposition to pre-determine outcomes. Democracy is messy. You put those sorts of decisions in the hands of a collective of ordinary people and we lose control over the final result. Which is precisely why an institution, even one espousing grassroots democracy as a key value, must create and support cultural norms like the 'phantom candidate' and 'predetermined outcomes' so it can maintain control over the result; you know, after the rabble have had their say. party or fan club Our Party made a tactical choice in 1996 and in 2000 which has colored our development ever since. That choice was to recruit to our ranks as its standard bearer, a cultural icon who had never joined our Party. As a part of the negotiations which made that campaign possible, apparently we were willing to offer not so much a nomination (won in a contested process), but more of a coronation provided as a fait-accompli, a pre-determined outcome. The rest of those campaigns were essentially scripted drama for the folks who did not broker those deals, did not negotiate the final outcome, and whose votes were seen as props for the inevitable result we all knew would come of the exercise. Those were useful tactics in our early days. But we seem to have mistaken our tactics for our goals. We now face within the leadership bodies of this organization folks who comport themselves more as members of a fan club than as voters belonging to a political party. Their words, votes and deeds seem more appropriate to the obsessive adulation of the target of their fandom, than the strategic building of the capacity required to harness political power in service of a Green-Justice agenda. That candidate in 2000 told us all that he was working with us to build the Green Party because we needed a viable vehicle with which to organize for political power. That same candidate in 2004 declined to seek our nomination and instead began the process of building a new political party, the Populist Party, but also worked with the Reform Party and others to secure ballot lines and went so far as to permit his paid campaign staff to interfere with the ballot lines our Party had secured for the use of our nominated slate. At the Milwaulkee Convention I had hope that our Party had grown up; that we had pushed through the soil and matured to the point of leaving coronations behind us. I was hopeful that our Party was beginning to show the political maturity necessary to build capacity for the long term. But the Riverside Plenary suggested otherwise. The California Party at the Riverside Plenary ignored the rules its officers had advertised to prospective candidates and sought to exercise its cultural entitlement to pre-determine outcomes by running a phantom candidate against the flesh and blood Party members who have taken the personal risks necessary to put themselves out there as seeking our nomination for President of the United States. In doing so they acted more like a fan club than a political party and cost us a candidate many feel is capable of uniting our Party for the 2008 election cycle. -- In conversations with Ms. McKinney about the sort of campaign which would be possible were she to seek and win the Green Party nomination for President of the United States, she pointed out to me recently that all the Black folks who had tried to do what we were discussing -- uniting people nationally across lines of race in support of economic justice -- had died a premature death of unnatural causes. Besides postponing her own personal priorities, sending her letter of intent to the Riverside Plenary also involved embarking on a course of action involving actual risks to her personal safety, evoking the concerns of her family and friends. She has lived under death threats before and understands the impact that has on one's life. I'm not the candidate here, but my own partner has expressed concerns for the risks I assume for being in proximity to her. But it would seem that our Party has not matured sufficiently to honor those risks with an open and democratic process for determining its nominee. If we are to offer Green voters a Presidential nominating process contested by multiple viable candidates, we must learn to take ourselves seriously enough to demand that our candidates actually seek our nomination. We must insulate our nominating process from trivial candidates who are not seeking our nomination. While we might choose in each of our state parties to permit our members to initiate efforts to draft reluctant candidates to our slate, we ought to distinguish in our rules, as was done by the California CCWG's ballot setting process, the candidates who seek our nomination from those who do not. And when we draw those distinctions in our rules, we ought to honor those flesh and blood Green Party members who seek our nomination by having the integrity to enforce those distinctions and permit our members to decide for themselves whether they belong to a fan club or a political party. The question now is will we grow up and stand up for what we have to offer the voters of this nation? Or will we remain in the fetal position, convinced of our unworthiness to lead our nation from the abyss and that we are dependent on some outside savior to make us relevant? Are we ready to muster a modicum of self-respect for the work that we do and the opportunities we are prepared to offer the American people? Are we ready to field Party members who have declared their intention to seek our nomination? Or will we content ourselves with playing fan club in the midst of public elections? This is serious business we are engaged in. Our work is a matter of life or death. How we answer these questions in the coming days and months may very well determine whether we have any future worth building for. -- Hugh Esco, Delegate Georgia Green Party -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efficacy at msn.com Tue Sep 18 10:12:57 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:12:57 -0400 Subject: {news} $15 Billion in new military dollars for the drug war Message-ID: The Washington Post article below describes a gigantic new contract for the drug war - billions of dollars to defense contractors for "counter-narcoterrorism activities." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601308.html FEDERAL CONTRACTS 5 Firms to Join Anti-Drug Campaign By Michael Hardy Special to the Washington Post Monday, September 17, 2007; Page D04 The Defense Department has picked five companies, four of them from the Washington area, for a contract to support the Pentagon's counter-narcoterrorism activities. The government may spend as much as $15 billion through the five-year contract. The local companies are Arinc of Annapolis, Lockheed Martin of Bethesda, Raytheon Technical Services of Reston and Northrop Grumman Information Technology of McLean. The fifth company is Blackwater USA of Moyock, N.C. The companies will provide equipment, material and services to the Defense Department's Counter-Narcoterrorism Technology Program Office (CNTPO). The office's mission is to attack the narcotics trade and the flow of money and support from drug traffickers to terrorist groups. Drug trafficking provides money for terror organizations in various ways. According to a 2002 report that the Library of Congress's Federal Research Division prepared for the Defense Department, the drug trade funds guerrilla groups in Latin America and Islamic fundamentalist organizations -- including Al Qaeda -- around the world. The funding comes directly, from proceeds of drug sales, and indirectly, through use of drugs to bartering for weapons or other supplies. The contract is broad in scope and could involve several divisions of the winning companies, said Kerry Beresford, senior director of advance aviation applications at Arinc. That unit, based in Oklahoma City, is likely to handle many task orders that come through the contract, but other Arinc divisions specializing in intelligence gathering and other disciplines would be better suited for other demands, he said. Although the companies on the contract have diverse capabilities, Beresford said he didn't expect them to carve out niches. "All of the [prime contractors] that are given the award are fully capable of satisfying any requirement," he said. "I expect there to be a lot of competition" for each task order. The Army Space and Missile Command awarded the contract on behalf of the counter-narcoterrorism office, which is based at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, Va. The work that could come through the contract includes specialized aircraft, advanced communications technologies, security training and other equipment and support services. About 80 percent of the work be outside of the United States. Raytheon Technical Services specializes in mission support, counterterrorism and counter-proliferation activities, said Tom Arnsmeyer, vice president of the Homeland Security Solutions product line of the Raytheon subsidiary's integrated support systems businesses. Michael Hardy is an associate editor with Washington Technology magazine. For information on this and other contracts, go tohttp://www.washingtontechnology.com. 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 Tue Sep 18 10:16:29 2007 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:16:29 -0400 Subject: {news} Comments on Hillary Clinton's "American Health Choices Plan": ongoing need for single payer Message-ID: <074b01c7f9fe$86d7d690$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> Two essays on health reform/ 2008 election: -Dr.Don Canne works with Physicans for a National Health Program (PNHP) which supports a Canadian-style, single payer health care system, which is not what any of the Democratic (or Republican) candidates endorse, including Clinton. Hillary's plan is followed by Don's comments. -Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein co-founded PNHP. They give some history/update on US health reform and need for single payer. Justine ========================================== Hillary for President September 17, 2007 The American Health Choices Plan: Ensuring Affordable, Quality, Health Care for All Americans Today, Hillary Clinton unveiled the third part of her plan to ensure that all Americans have affordable, quality health insurance. Her American Health Choices Plan covers every American - finally addressing the needs of the 47 million uninsured and the tens of millions of workers with coverage who fear they could be one pink slip away from losing their health coverage. Providing a Choice of Insurance Plans The American Health Choices Plan preserves existing health insurance and offers new choices to those with insurance and to the 47 million people in the United States without insurance. It ensures portability so that Americans do not lose coverage when they change or lose their jobs. Americans will have three options: 1) Keep Current Health Care Coverage: Americans who are satisfied with the coverage they have today can keep it. 2) A Choice of Health Plan Options: Businesses, employees, and the uninsured will have the option of buying group insurance through a new Health Choices Menu. This Menu will give all Americans the same set of insurance options that their Member of Congress has. Without creating new bureaucracy, the Menu will be part of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP), which includes numerous, high-quality private health insurance options. 3) A Choice of a Public Plan Option: In addition to the array of private insurance choices offered, the Health Choices Menu will also provide Americans with a choice of a public plan option, which could be modeled on the traditional Medicare program, but would cover the same benefits as guaranteed in private plan options in the Health Choices Menu without creating a new bureaucracy. The alternative will compete on a level playing field with traditional private insurance plans. Promoting Shared Responsibility Hillary Clinton's American Health Choices Plan is based on the principle of shared responsibility. This plan ensures that all who benefit from the system contribute to its financing and management. Specifically, responsibilities include: Insurance and drug companies: For insurers, to end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions or expectations of illness and ensure high value for every premium dollar; and for drug companies, to offer fair prices and accurate information; Individuals: To get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible; Providers: To work collaboratively to provide high-quality care; Employers: To contribute to health coverage, with large firms required to provide health insurance or contribute to the cost of the system, and small businesses offered tax incentives to continue or begin to offer coverage; Government: To ensure that health insurance is always affordable through investments in tax credits and the safety net so that coverage is never again a crushing financial burden; to improve the quality performance of the system; and to end the upward cost spiral of the system that threatens our health and economy. Ensuring Affordable Health Coverage for All 1) Ensuring Premium Affordability Through Refundable Tax Credits 2) Limiting Premium Payments to a Percentage of Income 3) Promoting Shared Responsibility for Large Employers 4) Creating Small Business Tax Credit 5) Strengthening Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program to Serve All Low-Income Individuals 6) Creating a Retiree Health Legacy Initiative http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf Comment: Hillary Clinton's proposal "preserves existing health insurance," and includes the responsibility of individuals "to get and keep insurance" through the current private insurance market, or through a "Health Choices Menu" of private FEHBP-type plans, or through a Medicare-type public program. Thus her proposal is an individual mandate to purchase private insurance that is no longer affordable for average-income individuals, or to purchase a public plan that will be even more expensive because of adverse selection. To make the plans affordable for individuals, she would use a combination of refundable tax credits and a cap on premiums at a percentage of income. Assuming that the plans would provide adequate benefits and adequate protection against financial hardship, the increased spending through the tax system would be exponentially more than the estimates in her plan. And most of the proposed savings to pay for these increases are largely nebulous, and some of those measures would actually increase costs. Further, the administrative complexities of refundable tax credits and means-tested premium caps would still leave many without coverage. Coverage will never be universal unless it is truly automatic for everyone. If we are going to use the tax system to pay for health care anyway then why should we waste funds on the profoundly inefficient system of segregated private health plans? A universal risk pool that is equitably funded through the tax system is the most efficient and least expensive method of ensuring comprehensive coverage for everyone. Many will try to contrast the differences in the Clinton, Obama and Edwards proposals, but they are all basically the same. In spite of their rhetoric, they have each made the protection and enhancement of the private insurance plans a higher priority than patients. _______________________________________________ http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/17/health_reform_failure/ Boston Globe September 17, 2007 In 1966 - just before Medicare and Medicaid were launched - 47 million Americans were uninsured. By 1975, the United States had reached an all time low of 21 million without coverage. Now, according to the Census Bureau's latest figures, we're back where we started, with 47 million uninsured in 2006 - up 2.2 million since 2005. But this time, most of the uninsured are neither poor nor elderly. The middle class is being priced out of healthcare. Virtually all of this year's increase was among families with incomes above $50,000; in fact, two- thirds of the newly uncovered were in the above-$75,000 group. And full-time workers accounted for 56 percent of the increase, with their children making up much of the rest. The new Census numbers are particularly disheartening for anyone hoping for a Massachusetts miracle. In the Commonwealth, 651,000 residents are uninsured, 65 percent more than the figure used by state leaders in planning for health reform. Their numbers came from a telephone survey done in English and Spanish. But that misses people who lack a land-line phone - 43.9 percent of phoneless adults are uninsured, according to other studies. It also skips over the 523,000 non-English speakers in Massachusetts whose native language isn't Spanish (e.g. Portuguese, Chinese, or Haitian-Creole), another group with a high uninsurance rate. In contrast, the Census Bureau goes door-to-door for its survey and has translators for almost every language. It gets a more complete picture. In sum, Massachusetts health reform planners have been wishing away a quarter of a million uninsured people. Recent Patrick administration claims that health reform is succeeding are based on cooked books. According to the state's figures, almost half of the previously uninsured gained coverage under the health reform bill by July 1. But according to the Census Bureau, the new sign-ups amount to less than one-quarter of the uninsured. Moreover, it's likely that much of that gain has already been wiped out by shrinking job-based coverage - a longstanding and nationwide trend. Why has progress been so meager? Because most of the promised new coverage is of the 'buy it yourself' variety, with scant help offered to the struggling middle class. According to the Census Bureau, only 28 percent of Massachusetts uninsured have incomes low enough to qualify for free coverage. Thirty-four percent more can get partial subsidies - but the premiums and co-payments remain a barrier for many in this near-poor group. And 244,000 of Massachusetts uninsured get zero assistance - just a stiff fine if they don't buy coverage. A couple in their late 50s faces a minimum premium of $8,638 annually, for a policy with no drug coverage at all and a $2,000 deductible per person before insurance even kicks in. Such skimpy yet costly coverage is, in many cases, worse than no coverage at all. Illness will still bring crippling medical bills - but the $8,638 annual premium will empty their bank accounts even before the bills start arriving. Little wonder that barely 2 percent of those required to buy such coverage have thus far signed up. While the middle class sinks, the health reform law has buoyed our state's wealthiest health institutions. Hospitals like Massachusetts General are reporting record profits and enjoying rate increases tucked into the reform package. Blue Cross and other insurers that lobbied hard for the law stand to gain billions from the reform, which shrinks their contribution to the state's free care pool and will force hundreds of thousands to purchase their defective products. Meanwhile, new rules for the free care pool will drastically cut funding for the hundreds of thousands who remain uninsured, and for the safety-net hospitals and clinics that care for them. (Disclosure - we've practiced for the past 25 years at a public hospital that is currently undergoing massive budget cuts.) Health reform built on private insurance isn't working and can't work; it costs too much and delivers too little. At present, bureaucracy consumes 31 percent of each healthcare dollar. The Connector - the new state agency created to broker coverage under the reform law - is adding another 4.5 percent to the already sky-high overhead charged by private insurers. Administrative costs at Blue Cross are nearly five times higher than Medicare's and 11 times those in Canada's single payer system. Single payer reform could save $7.7 billion annually on paperwork and insurance profits in Massachusetts, enough to cover all of the uninsured and to upgrade coverage for the rest of us. Of course, single payer reform is anathema to the health insurance industry. But breaking their stranglehold on our health system and our politicians is the only way for health reform to get beyond square one. __________ Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein co- founded Physicians for a National Health Program and are primary care doctors at Cambridge Hospital. (c) 2007 The Boston Globe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efficacy at msn.com Tue Sep 18 11:51:27 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:51:27 -0400 Subject: {news} The war over there vs. The war over here Message-ID: The war over there vs. The war over here Most Nutmeggers have always opposed the Bush regime's illegal Iraq war, seeing through the false rationales for it, and understanding that it is ultimately a power-grab for control of middle eastern petroleum -- supposedly the most valuable military-strategic prize in the history of the world. However, we in our state, and we in our country, are still not taking a close enough look at another fantastically-expensive war -- more costly in the number of human lives adversely affected than the Iraq boondoggle. This, of course, is the never-ending Drug War, the so-called 'War on Drugs' that began with the Harrison Narcartics Act in the early part of the 20th century, and increased greatly with the inception of the Rockefeller drug laws in New York state, the crack cocaine scare of the early 1980s, federal 'mandatory minimum' sentences, and 'three strikes you're out' laws. The authorities, in effect, have gone into the poorest areas, taken help away, turned them into battlefields, and put a tempting basket of goodies in the middle of the street, seducing children who see no hope in their futures. This big bright basket of drug dealing falsly offers youngsters the things they probably otherwise would not attain. Then we tell them they must not touch, and have imposed terrible penalties for doing so. It is as if we deliberately have set these traps to destroy them. The stereotype of a young, dangerous minority criminal has done incalculable damage to race relations. The fear shown by whites has caused a backlash of loathing from young blacks. The real enemy is displaced. Too many people value security more than privacy or freedom. The image of violent young minority males has exacerbated racism and interracial distrust. The drug war has pitted individuals against one another. Through our drug control strategies we have taught an entire generation to be abusive and disrespectful of the rights of others! The so-called 'peace dividend' after the end of the cold war was immediately diverted to the drug war. Funds that should be used for urban renewal and educational programs are used to fight the drug war and terrorism, while schools literally crumble around our children. The drug war is the insidious cause of this cultural retrogression. It has succeeded because we the people have embraced the war. Deliberate or not, the drug war is an ingenious 'divide and conquer' scheme. It is so brilliant that most people support it as it tears society, freedom, and democracy apart. This country has had almost a century of drug prohibition, four decades of the war on drugs, yet there are more drug at cheaper prices on our streets than ever before and we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on interdiction alone. Those who insist on a continuation of 21st century Prohibition are directly agreeing that both production and distribution of drugs be left in control of criminals, funding terrorists and cartels. Drug use should be handled as a public health issue, not one of crime. Citizens must carefully consider the policy options in this complex issue. If they endorse and lend their support to advocacy efforts to end the destructive and counterproductive "War on Drugs", change will happen for the benefit of all of us. Those calling for an end to drug Prohibition are primarily non-users of illicit drugs. We are parents and grandparents - serious citizens who want to see the street dealers shut down for good. We see the drug war as mean-spirited. We believe that risky drugs should be licensed and dealers regulated, just as is currently done with alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceuticals. However, my dear friends and neighbors, it is long past time to legalize, medicalize and decriminalize other controlled substances. Our society is consuming itself and its economic output with a futile 'drug war' that will have no end, but which like the Iraq fiasco also creates huge vested interests -- people who profit from it. We don't need all the 'private contractor' companies (who now outnumber our troops in Iraq) to do our government's work. We should oppose a new prison, the one they are now talkin about building in Meriden. The Corrections Department wants to increase capacity by 758 prisoners but would need $30 million more per year, at $40,000 per prisoner. We don't need another prison, we don't need the huge criminal INjustice, prison-industrial complex to imprison, stigmatize, and even enslave huge segments of our population at home. Like the Iraq war the drug war is meant to be waged not won. Clifford Wallace Thornton, Jr. 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 Tue Sep 18 20:42:20 2007 From: amyvasnunes at hotmail.com (Amy Vas Nunes) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:42:20 -0400 Subject: {news} Are we ready? Apparently not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is not about Sexism or Racism but about unclear uneven non transparent Policy and Procedure in an "advanced" GP the most advanced. All the more reason to patch holes in CTGP, The ByLaws were manipulated to kick me out! I have seen the same thing happen at our most recent convention and at least 2 others in the past that went on in Calif.! Nader is Brilliant,cagey and coy , we use him he uses us. And what about that bullshit "I am not Green because I swore on my father's death bed. Grow up! He is all we have that people have name recognition of, look at all the loses we took last time with an unkown to ballot access and funding and "safe state "{devised by Tom Sivigney in CtGP's name with no discussion} stragey. I heard the SCSU Environmental group were calling us spoilers at the recent exposition. What can we do ?AMY >From: "Clifford Thornton" >To: "ctgp-news" >Subject: {news} Are we ready? Apparently not. >Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:56:02 -0400 > >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 > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Hugh Esco > >Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:43 PM >Subject: Are we ready? Apparently not. > > > >From hesco Mon Sep 10 15:09:16 2007 >To: natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org >Subject: Are we ready? Apparently not. >Reply-To: hesco at greens.org >Status: RO > >Are we ready? Apparently not. > >About a week ago I posed the question: "Is the Green Party Ready >for a McKinney Campaign". I have to look at this weekend's >action by the California Green Party and suggest already that >the answer is likely: "Apparently not". > >In that letter, I asked: > Are we ready to open our Platform development process, > leadership bodies and slates to the leadership which would > emanate from those communities ready to coalesce around a > McKinney campaign? > >I'd say that judging from how the business transpired on the >floor in California this weekend, at least with respect to the >inclusion of Ms. McKinney on the slate, the answer seems to be >"yes". But her access to that ballot was made available in >a disparate way which seems to privilege one candidate over >all of the others. > >The formulation of the motion to be presented as a unified >ballot to the General Assembly of the California Green Party. >The motion was to include every candidate, among the ten >vetted (for inclusion in the Candidates' Forum at the Reading >Convention) by the Presidential Campaign Support Committee of >the Green Party of the United States, who was deemed viable >and Green by the Campaigns and Candidates Working Group of >the Green Party of California. That gave us a five member >slate including: Jared Ball, Elaine Brown, Jesse Johnson, >Kent Mesplay and Kat Swift. > >Understanding that draft efforts were under way for additional >candidates, the process adopted provided for two additional >ways to access the ballot. > >The CCWG delegated to their Chair the power to amend the >unified motion to account for any additional candidate who >declared their intention to seek the nomination of the Party. >Georgia Green Party member and former Congresswoman Cynthia >McKinney qualified for inclusion under this provision, giving >the motion six candidates. > >The process agreed to in the setting of the agenda provided >that if this motion failed to achieve the support of two-thirds >of the body, the question was to be split, with each candidate >standing for a two-thirds up or down vote on their inclusion. > >The Chair was also authorized to entertain a motion from a >draft effort to add any candidate who had not declared their >intention to seek the nomination, with their inclusion on the >California Green Party's Presidential Preference Primary ballot >subject to a stand alone vote at the same two-thirds threshold. > >Cat Woods of Sonoma County made such a motion, except that >she insisted, in spite of the agreed to process, that Ralph >Nader's name be included as a part of the unified motion. >Participants suggested that she lost quite a bit of credibility >when she cursed and blew up during the debate. But in the >end the bully tactics prevailed. > >Nader is not a member of the Party. He has not stated his >intent to seek the nomination of the Green Party of the United >States. But he did apparently deliver a message, by way of Cat >Woods with whom he had spoken by phone, that he was 'flattered' >to be considered and while he has not yet made a decision with >respect to his intentions for 2008, he would not object to be >included on the ballot. > >Objections were raised, but Cat persisted. Everyone was >exhausted. And the CCWG Chair relented, in a confused moment, >and then there were seven. > >Asked why this breech of process was not more strenuously >resisted, I'm told over and over, "Its the LA thing", referring >to a controversy over the composition of the delegation from the >state's largest county. The issue, a long standing one riddled >with long held personality conflicts managed to distract the >Party from its essential work yet again. The previous General >Assembly had by a narrow margin rejected a resolution asking >for the resignation of the state committee. But this time, >delegates elected by their counties sat at home, avoiding >the long drive down for the meeting, and even more grueling, >the endurance test of attrition which has characterized the >Party's General Assemblies. > >By the time the bullied manipulation of the process worked to >carry Nader, on the coattails of the six Party members declared >for our nomination, onto the ballot, Delegates were exhausted. > >But one keeps coming back to the fact that a former six term >Member of Congress, who has also served two terms in the Georgia >Assembly was subjected to a disparate standard for entry to >the ballot, when compared to the hurdle for entry faced by >another candidate added to the ballot at the Riverside Plenary. > >Cynthia McKinney, who since December 21st, 2003 has been >a member of the Georgia Green Party, and was seeking our >nomination for President of the United States faced one hurdle, >advertised to her by the CCWG. But privileged access to the >California ballot was granted to the candidate who after the >successful 2000 campaign had abandoned his commitment to help >us build the Green Party, and in 2004 actually dispatched >his hired staff to sabotage the ballot lines of our Party in >Vermont and Utah (while trying to do likewise in Florida and >California and New York, that I am aware of). > >Is this what the racism and sexism looks like, that I was >concerned about when I asked: Is our Party Ready? I'd suggest >that our Party, if it is to develop its relevancy, must grapple >with those questions. All the good intentions, explanations, >circumstances and stories are not going to change the facts >that we have offered disparate access to our ballot in a way >which significantly threatens our integrity and our credibility >as a Party which is actually committed to its values. > >And if we are not prepared to acknowledge that, then perhaps >we are not ready for a McKinney campaign. > >-- Hugh Esco, Delegate >Georgia Green Party > >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 From efficacy at msn.com Tue Sep 18 21:33:24 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:33:24 -0400 Subject: {news} Are we ready? Apparently not. References: Message-ID: I do not know what we are going to do. But this is a chance to put other people up front(Mckinney--perhaps). Maybe some of the same people Nader perhaps. This is just another opprotunity in a line of other opprotunities since I've been a Green. This is not about sexism or racism--well that is debatable. That is all I heard in Mass during her tour and it did not come from her or any person of color. So, I don't know what we are going to do. But really, I am tired of doing little to nothing. Perhaps we should try and get both of them on the same ticket. Cliff ----- Original Message ----- From: Amy Vas Nunes To: efficacy at msn.com ; ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 8:42 PM Subject: RE: {news} Are we ready? Apparently not. This is not about Sexism or Racism but about unclear uneven non transparent Policy and Procedure in an "advanced" GP the most advanced. All the more reason to patch holes in CTGP, The ByLaws were manipulated to kick me out! I have seen the same thing happen at our most recent convention and at least 2 others in the past that went on in Calif.! Nader is Brilliant,cagey and coy , we use him he uses us. And what about that bullshit "I am not Green because I swore on my father's death bed. Grow up! He is all we have that people have name recognition of, look at all the loses we took last time with an unkown to ballot access and funding and "safe state "{devised by Tom Sivigney in CtGP's name with no discussion} stragey. I heard the SCSU Environmental group were calling us spoilers at the recent exposition. What can we do ?AMY >From: "Clifford Thornton" > >To: "ctgp-news" > >Subject: {news} Are we ready? Apparently not. >Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:56:02 -0400 > >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 > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Hugh Esco> > >Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:43 PM >Subject: Are we ready? Apparently not. > > > >From hesco Mon Sep 10 15:09:16 2007 >To: natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org> >Subject: Are we ready? Apparently not. >Reply-To: hesco at greens.org> >Status: RO > >Are we ready? Apparently not. > >About a week ago I posed the question: "Is the Green Party Ready >for a McKinney Campaign". I have to look at this weekend's >action by the California Green Party and suggest already that >the answer is likely: "Apparently not". > >In that letter, I asked: > Are we ready to open our Platform development process, > leadership bodies and slates to the leadership which would > emanate from those communities ready to coalesce around a > McKinney campaign? > >I'd say that judging from how the business transpired on the >floor in California this weekend, at least with respect to the >inclusion of Ms. McKinney on the slate, the answer seems to be >"yes". But her access to that ballot was made available in >a disparate way which seems to privilege one candidate over >all of the others. > >The formulation of the motion to be presented as a unified >ballot to the General Assembly of the California Green Party. >The motion was to include every candidate, among the ten >vetted (for inclusion in the Candidates' Forum at the Reading >Convention) by the Presidential Campaign Support Committee of >the Green Party of the United States, who was deemed viable >and Green by the Campaigns and Candidates Working Group of >the Green Party of California. That gave us a five member >slate including: Jared Ball, Elaine Brown, Jesse Johnson, >Kent Mesplay and Kat Swift. > >Understanding that draft efforts were under way for additional >candidates, the process adopted provided for two additional >ways to access the ballot. > >The CCWG delegated to their Chair the power to amend the >unified motion to account for any additional candidate who >declared their intention to seek the nomination of the Party. >Georgia Green Party member and former Congresswoman Cynthia >McKinney qualified for inclusion under this provision, giving >the motion six candidates. > >The process agreed to in the setting of the agenda provided >that if this motion failed to achieve the support of two-thirds >of the body, the question was to be split, with each candidate >standing for a two-thirds up or down vote on their inclusion. > >The Chair was also authorized to entertain a motion from a >draft effort to add any candidate who had not declared their >intention to seek the nomination, with their inclusion on the >California Green Party's Presidential Preference Primary ballot >subject to a stand alone vote at the same two-thirds threshold. > >Cat Woods of Sonoma County made such a motion, except that >she insisted, in spite of the agreed to process, that Ralph >Nader's name be included as a part of the unified motion. >Participants suggested that she lost quite a bit of credibility >when she cursed and blew up during the debate. But in the >end the bully tactics prevailed. > >Nader is not a member of the Party. He has not stated his >intent to seek the nomination of the Green Party of the United >States. But he did apparently deliver a message, by way of Cat >Woods with whom he had spoken by phone, that he was 'flattered' >to be considered and while he has not yet made a decision with >respect to his intentions for 2008, he would not object to be >included on the ballot. > >Objections were raised, but Cat persisted. Everyone was >exhausted. And the CCWG Chair relented, in a confused moment, >and then there were seven. > >Asked why this breech of process was not more strenuously >resisted, I'm told over and over, "Its the LA thing", referring >to a controversy over the composition of the delegation from the >state's largest county. The issue, a long standing one riddled >with long held personality conflicts managed to distract the >Party from its essential work yet again. The previous General >Assembly had by a narrow margin rejected a resolution asking >for the resignation of the state committee. But this time, >delegates elected by their counties sat at home, avoiding >the long drive down for the meeting, and even more grueling, >the endurance test of attrition which has characterized the >Party's General Assemblies. > >By the time the bullied manipulation of the process worked to >carry Nader, on the coattails of the six Party members declared >for our nomination, onto the ballot, Delegates were exhausted. > >But one keeps coming back to the fact that a former six term >Member of Congress, who has also served two terms in the Georgia >Assembly was subjected to a disparate standard for entry to >the ballot, when compared to the hurdle for entry faced by >another candidate added to the ballot at the Riverside Plenary. > >Cynthia McKinney, who since December 21st, 2003 has been >a member of the Georgia Green Party, and was seeking our >nomination for President of the United States faced one hurdle, >advertised to her by the CCWG. But privileged access to the >California ballot was granted to the candidate who after the >successful 2000 campaign had abandoned his commitment to help >us build the Green Party, and in 2004 actually dispatched >his hired staff to sabotage the ballot lines of our Party in >Vermont and Utah (while trying to do likewise in Florida and >California and New York, that I am aware of). > >Is this what the racism and sexism looks like, that I was >concerned about when I asked: Is our Party Ready? I'd suggest >that our Party, if it is to develop its relevancy, must grapple >with those questions. All the good intentions, explanations, >circumstances and stories are not going to change the facts >that we have offered disparate access to our ballot in a way >which significantly threatens our integrity and our credibility >as a Party which is actually committed to its values. > >And if we are not prepared to acknowledge that, then perhaps >we are not ready for a McKinney campaign. > >-- Hugh Esco, Delegate >Georgia Green Party > >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 greenpartyct at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 08:48:44 2007 From: greenpartyct at yahoo.com (Green Party-CT) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 05:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: PLEASE MOVE TO DISCUSSION (FORUM) LIST*****RE: {news} Are we ready? Apparently not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <562569.76202.qm@web81413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 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 This is not about Sexism or Racism but about unclear uneven non transparent Policy and Procedure in an "advanced" GP the most advanced. All the more reason to patch holes in CTGP, The ByLaws were manipulated to kick me out! I have seen the same thing happen at our most recent convention and at least 2 others in the past that went on in Calif.! Nader is Brilliant,cagey and coy , we use him he uses us. And what about that bullshit "I am not Green because I swore on my father's death bed. Grow up! He is all we have that people have name recognition of, look at all the loses we took last time with an unkown to ballot access and funding and "safe state "{devised by Tom Sivigney in CtGP's name with no discussion} stragey. I heard the SCSU Environmental group were calling us spoilers at the recent exposition. What can we do ?AMY >From: "Clifford Thornton" >To: "ctgp-news" >Subject: {news} Are we ready? Apparently not. >Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:56:02 -0400 > >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 > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Hugh Esco > >Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:43 PM >Subject: Are we ready? Apparently not. > > > >From hesco Mon Sep 10 15:09:16 2007 >To: natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org >Subject: Are we ready? Apparently not. >Reply-To: hesco at greens.org >Status: RO > >Are we ready? Apparently not. > >About a week ago I posed the question: "Is the Green Party Ready >for a McKinney Campaign". I have to look at this weekend's >action by the California Green Party and suggest already that >the answer is likely: "Apparently not". > >In that letter, I asked: > Are we ready to open our Platform development process, > leadership bodies and slates to the leadership which would > emanate from those communities ready to coalesce around a > McKinney campaign? > >I'd say that judging from how the business transpired on the >floor in California this weekend, at least with respect to the >inclusion of Ms. McKinney on the slate, the answer seems to be >"yes". But her access to that ballot was made available in >a disparate way which seems to privilege one candidate over >all of the others. > >The formulation of the motion to be presented as a unified >ballot to the General Assembly of the California Green Party. >The motion was to include every candidate, among the ten >vetted (for inclusion in the Candidates' Forum at the Reading >Convention) by the Presidential Campaign Support Committee of >the Green Party of the United States, who was deemed viable >and Green by the Campaigns and Candidates Working Group of >the Green Party of California. That gave us a five member >slate including: Jared Ball, Elaine Brown, Jesse Johnson, >Kent Mesplay and Kat Swift. > >Understanding that draft efforts were under way for additional >candidates, the process adopted provided for two additional >ways to access the ballot. > >The CCWG delegated to their Chair the power to amend the >unified motion to account for any additional candidate who >declared their intention to seek the nomination of the Party. >Georgia Green Party member and former Congresswoman Cynthia >McKinney qualified for inclusion under this provision, giving >the motion six candidates. > >The process agreed to in the setting of the agenda provided >that if this motion failed to achieve the support of two-thirds >of the body, the question was to be split, with each candidate >standing for a two-thirds up or down vote on their inclusion. > >The Chair was also authorized to entertain a motion from a >draft effort to add any candidate who had not declared their >intention to seek the nomination, with their inclusion on the >California Green Party's Presidential Preference Primary ballot >subject to a stand alone vote at the same two-thirds threshold. > >Cat Woods of Sonoma County made such a motion, except that >she insisted, in spite of the agreed to process, that Ralph >Nader's name be included as a part of the unified motion. >Participants suggested that she lost quite a bit of credibility >when she cursed and blew up during the debate. But in the >end the bully tactics prevailed. > >Nader is not a member of the Party. He has not stated his >intent to seek the nomination of the Green Party of the United >States. But he did apparently deliver a message, by way of Cat >Woods with whom he had spoken by phone, that he was 'flattered' >to be considered and while he has not yet made a decision with >respect to his intentions for 2008, he would not object to be >included on the ballot. > >Objections were raised, but Cat persisted. Everyone was >exhausted. And the CCWG Chair relented, in a confused moment, >and then there were seven. > >Asked why this breech of process was not more strenuously >resisted, I'm told over and over, "Its the LA thing", referring >to a controversy over the composition of the delegation from the >state's largest county. The issue, a long standing one riddled >with long held personality conflicts managed to distract the >Party from its essential work yet again. The previous General >Assembly had by a narrow margin rejected a resolution asking >for the resignation of the state committee. But this time, >delegates elected by their counties sat at home, avoiding >the long drive down for the meeting, and even more grueling, >the endurance test of attrition which has characterized the >Party's General Assemblies. > >By the time the bullied manipulation of the process worked to >carry Nader, on the coattails of the six Party members declared >for our nomination, onto the ballot, Delegates were exhausted. > >But one keeps coming back to the fact that a former six term >Member of Congress, who has also served two terms in the Georgia >Assembly was subjected to a disparate standard for entry to >the ballot, when compared to the hurdle for entry faced by >another candidate added to the ballot at the Riverside Plenary. > >Cynthia McKinney, who since December 21st, 2003 has been >a member of the Georgia Green Party, and was seeking our >nomination for President of the United States faced one hurdle, >advertised to her by the CCWG. But privileged access to the >California ballot was granted to the candidate who after the >successful 2000 campaign had abandoned his commitment to help >us build the Green Party, and in 2004 actually dispatched >his hired staff to sabotage the ballot lines of our Party in >Vermont and Utah (while trying to do likewise in Florida and >California and New York, that I am aware of). > >Is this what the racism and sexism looks like, that I was >concerned about when I asked: Is our Party Ready? I'd suggest >that our Party, if it is to develop its relevancy, must grapple >with those questions. All the good intentions, explanations, >circumstances and stories are not going to change the facts >that we have offered disparate access to our ballot in a way >which significantly threatens our integrity and our credibility >as a Party which is actually committed to its values. > >And if we are not prepared to acknowledge that, then perhaps >we are not ready for a McKinney campaign. > >-- Hugh Esco, Delegate >Georgia Green Party > >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 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 great_land_trust at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 19 11:42:34 2007 From: great_land_trust at sbcglobal.net (Colin Bennett) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:42:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Are we ready? Apparently not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <554912.86287.qm@web82807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I don't particularly care that much (read: I'm not interested in an argument) but I am slightly curious as to where this idea that the SCSU Environmental Futurists (EF) referred to Green Party candidates as spoilers. I would also like to set the recored straight. I happen to be a member of the SCSU Environmental Futurists, the longest serving member as a matter of fact, as well as an municipal office holder for the Connecticut Green Party, so I am in a unique position to comment. I am not saying that a member of the EF did not say something like that, however, if it was said, it definitely does not represent the opinion of the group. Members of the EF come from a diversity of backgrounds, as such, bring to the group a diversity of opinions, including I am proud to say, opinions about politics. In my extensive experience with the EF I have never heard any member of the group refer to Green Party candidates as spoilers; there are a few group members that feel extremely disenfranchised but usually their resentment is directed to the political process in this country, not the Green Party, i.e. these members do not berate the Green Party in order to benefit the Democrats, they just hate politics. In any case, to set the record straight, the SCSU Environmental Futurists have no position on the Green Party, negative or otherwise, even though several of our members are also Green Party members. And just so you know, the Environmental Futurists happen to be one of, if not the most effective student groups in Connecticut. If you are interested you can read a little more about us below. PEACE and LOVE. -Colin Southern News- http://seanp284.typepad.com/snews/2007/04/environmental_f.html#more http://seanp284.typepad.com/snews/2007/04/tackling_recycl.html http://seanp284.typepad.com/snews/2007/05/working_to_pres.html http://seanp284.typepad.com/snews/2007/05/recycling_probl.html New Haven Register- http://www.nhregister.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=18749892&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=517515&rfi=8 http://www.nhregister.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=18693405&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=517515&rfi=8 http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18039151&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=7576&rfi=6 New Haven Independent- http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/02/a_management_pl.php Connecticut Business News Journal- http://www.conntact.com/article_page.lasso?id=41206 Clifford Thornton 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 do not know what we are going to do. But this is a chance to put other people up front(Mckinney--perhaps). Maybe some of the same people Nader perhaps. This is just another opprotunity in a line of other opprotunities since I've been a Green. This is not about sexism or racism--well that is debatable. That is all I heard in Mass during her tour and it did not come from her or any person of color. So, I don't know what we are going to do. But really, I am tired of doing little to nothing. Perhaps we should try and get both of them on the same ticket. Cliff ----- Original Message ----- From: Amy Vas Nunes To: efficacy at msn.com ; ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 8:42 PM Subject: RE: {news} Are we ready? Apparently not. This is not about Sexism or Racism but about unclear uneven non transparent Policy and Procedure in an "advanced" GP the most advanced. All the more reason to patch holes in CTGP, The ByLaws were manipulated to kick me out! I have seen the same thing happen at our most recent convention and at least 2 others in the past that went on in Calif.! Nader is Brilliant,cagey and coy , we use him he uses us. And what about that bullshit "I am not Green because I swore on my father's death bed. Grow up! He is all we have that people have name recognition of, look at all the loses we took last time with an unkown to ballot access and funding and "safe state "{devised by Tom Sivigney in CtGP's name with no discussion} stragey. I heard the SCSU Environmental group were calling us spoilers at the recent exposition. What can we do ?AMY >From: "Clifford Thornton" >To: "ctgp-news" >Subject: {news} Are we ready? Apparently not. >Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:56:02 -0400 > >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 > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Hugh Esco > >Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:43 PM >Subject: Are we ready? Apparently not. > > > >From hesco Mon Sep 10 15:09:16 2007 >To: natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org >Subject: Are we ready? Apparently not. >Reply-To: hesco at greens.org >Status: RO > >Are we ready? Apparently not. > >About a week ago I posed the question: "Is the Green Party Ready >for a McKinney Campaign". I have to look at this weekend's >action by the California Green Party and suggest already that >the answer is likely: "Apparently not". > >In that letter, I asked: > Are we ready to open our Platform development process, > leadership bodies and slates to the leadership which would > emanate from those communities ready to coalesce around a > McKinney campaign? > >I'd say that judging from how the business transpired on the >floor in California this weekend, at least with respect to the >inclusion of Ms. McKinney on the slate, the answer seems to be >"yes". But her access to that ballot was made available in >a disparate way which seems to privilege one candidate over >all of the others. > >The formulation of the motion to be presented as a unified >ballot to the General Assembly of the California Green Party. >The motion was to include every candidate, among the ten >vetted (for inclusion in the Candidates' Forum at the Reading >Convention) by the Presidential Campaign Support Committee of >the Green Party of the United States, who was deemed viable >and Green by the Campaigns and Candidates Working Group of >the Green Party of California. That gave us a five member >slate including: Jared Ball, Elaine Brown, Jesse Johnson, >Kent Mesplay and Kat Swift. > >Understanding that draft efforts were under way for additional >candidates, the process adopted provided for two additional >ways to access the ballot. > >The CCWG delegated to their Chair the power to amend the >unified motion to account for any additional candidate who >declared their intention to seek the nomination of the Party. >Georgia Green Party member and former Congresswoman Cynthia >McKinney qualified for inclusion under this provision, giving >the motion six candidates. > >The process agreed to in the setting of the agenda provided >that if this motion failed to achieve the support of two-thirds >of the body, the question was to be split, with each candidate >standing for a two-thirds up or down vote on their inclusion. > >The Chair was also authorized to entertain a motion from a >draft effort to add any candidate who had not declared their >intention to seek the nomination, with their inclusion on the >California Green Party's Presidential Preference Primary ballot >subject to a stand alone vote at the same two-thirds threshold. > >Cat Woods of Sonoma County made such a motion, except that >she insisted, in spite of the agreed to process, that Ralph >Nader's name be included as a part of the unified motion. >Participants suggested that she lost quite a bit of credibility >when she cursed and blew up during the debate. But in the >end the bully tactics prevailed. > >Nader is not a member of the Party. He has not stated his >intent to seek the nomination of the Green Party of the United >States. But he did apparently deliver a message, by way of Cat >Woods with whom he had spoken by phone, that he was 'flattered' >to be considered and while he has not yet made a decision with >respect to his intentions for 2008, he would not object to be >included on the ballot. > >Objections were raised, but Cat persisted. Everyone was >exhausted. And the CCWG Chair relented, in a confused moment, >and then there were seven. > >Asked why this breech of process was not more strenuously >resisted, I'm told over and over, "Its the LA thing", referring >to a controversy over the composition of the delegation from the >state's largest county. The issue, a long standing one riddled >with long held personality conflicts managed to distract the >Party from its essential work yet again. The previous General >Assembly had by a narrow margin rejected a resolution asking >for the resignation of the state committee. But this time, >delegates elected by their counties sat at home, avoiding >the long drive down for the meeting, and even more grueling, >the endurance test of attrition which has characterized the >Party's General Assemblies. > >By the time the bullied manipulation of the process worked to >carry Nader, on the coattails of the six Party members declared >for our nomination, onto the ballot, Delegates were exhausted. > >But one keeps coming back to the fact that a former six term >Member of Congress, who has also served two terms in the Georgia >Assembly was subjected to a disparate standard for entry to >the ballot, when compared to the hurdle for entry faced by >another candidate added to the ballot at the Riverside Plenary. > >Cynthia McKinney, who since December 21st, 2003 has been >a member of the Georgia Green Party, and was seeking our >nomination for President of the United States faced one hurdle, >advertised to her by the CCWG. But privileged access to the >California ballot was granted to the candidate who after the >successful 2000 campaign had abandoned his commitment to help >us build the Green Party, and in 2004 actually dispatched >his hired staff to sabotage the ballot lines of our Party in >Vermont and Utah (while trying to do likewise in Florida and >California and New York, that I am aware of). > >Is this what the racism and sexism looks like, that I was >concerned about when I asked: Is our Party Ready? I'd suggest >that our Party, if it is to develop its relevancy, must grapple >with those questions. All the good intentions, explanations, >circumstances and stories are not going to change the facts >that we have offered disparate access to our ballot in a way >which significantly threatens our integrity and our credibility >as a Party which is actually committed to its values. > >And if we are not prepared to acknowledge that, then perhaps >we are not ready for a McKinney campaign. > >-- Hugh Esco, Delegate >Georgia Green Party > >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 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 greenpartyct at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 14:13:23 2007 From: greenpartyct at yahoo.com (Green Party-CT) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:13:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Roll Call ponder McKinney race for Congress againin Message-ID: <707528.36078.qm@web81411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Ex-Congresswoman Won?t Run for President, Ponders House Race By John McArdle Roll Call Staff September 18, 2007 Now that former Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) has withdrawn her name from consideration as the Green Party?s long-shot presidential nominee, speculation is mounting that the woman who is known, among other things, as a comeback specialist, is setting herself up for another run at her old seat. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Sep 19 16:48:59 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:48:59 -0400 Subject: {news} "Problem isn't parole; it's drug criminalization" Message-ID: http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18832500&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=458252&rfi=6 09/19/2007 Criminalization's the problem Most Nutmeggers have always opposed the Bush regime's illegal Iraq war, seeing through the false rationales for it and understanding that it is ultimately a power-grab for control of Middle Eastern petroleum - supposedly the most valuable military-strategic prize in the world's history. However, we are still not taking a close enough look at another fantastically-expensive war - more costly in the number of human lives affected than the Iraq boondoggle. Chris Powell illustrates this in his powerful column "Problem isn't parole; it's drug criminalization" (Sept. 8). This, of course, is the never-ending Drug War, the so-called "War on Drugs," that began with the outlawing of marijuana in the early part of the 20th century, and increased greatly with the inception of the Rockefeller drug laws in New York , the crack cocaine scare of the early 1980s, federal "mandatory minimum" sentences, and "three strikes you're out" laws. Many violent criminals are let out of jail early to make room for drug offenders. I am talking about murders, rapists, and child molesters. At Web sites, one can view a clock that estimates the ongoing and increasing cost of these terrible laws to Americans. All this for a problem that is essentially not a crime problem, but a public health challenge, because that's what addiction essentially is - a medical problem. Stay away from intoxicants, especially including alcohol and tobacco, which generate far more medical and accidental harm than the illegal ones. As long as people drink or get high and get behind the wheel of a car, there is a reason for some laws against the use of substances. However, it is long past time to legalize and regulate the use of other controlled substances. Marijuana does very little harm, and has real medical uses. Our society is consuming itself and its economic output with a futile "drug war" that will have no end, but which like the Iraq fiasco also creates huge vested interests - people who profit from it. We don't need all the "private contractor" companies (who now outnumber our troops in Iraq) to do our government's work, and we don't need the huge criminal injustice, prison-industrial complex to imprison, stigmatize, and even enslave huge segments of our population at home. As Chris Powell says the problem isn't parole; it's drug criminalization. Clifford Wallace Thornton Jr. Glastonbury 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 Wed Sep 19 17:09:45 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:09:45 -0400 Subject: {news} GP RELEASE Greens: Drop all Jena Six charges, probe racism in justice system Message-ID: GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES http://www.gp.org For Immediate Release: Wednesday, September 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 Shawn Christy, Green Party of Louisiana Coordinating Committee, 318-218-7159, revolutionarylove at gmail.com Greens urge Louisiana to drop all charges against the Jena Six, call for a national discussion of racial bias in criminal justice systems throughout the US WASHINGTON, DC -- Green Party leaders called on the State of Louisiana to drop all charges in the Jena Six prosecution, and urged a national discussion on the US justice system's unequal treatment of African Americans and other people of color. Greens will be among the thousands rallying in front of the Jena, Louisiana, courthouse on Thursday, September 20, as the next Jena Six trial begins. Many Greens and the DC Statehood Green Party have contributed to the Jena Six defense fund. (For background on the Jena Six, see the article links below.) The Green Party of Louisiana >, at its September 8 statewide convention, passed a resolution by consensus declaring, "We, as the Green Party of Louisiana call for the justice and freedom of the Jena 6, the Angola 3, Gary Tyler, and all other political prisoners." "Two things are obvious about the Jena Six prosecution -- first, that the extreme charges would never have been brought against the students if they had been white, and second, that if not for the national attention the case has drawn, the students would have already quietly been thrown in jail," said Malik Rahim, former Green city council candidate in New Orleans. "We urge the Louisiana Govenor Kathleen Blanco to drop all of the charges against Jena Six defendents, but that's not enough. The case has focused attention on how the legal system treats black and brown people, and how poor Americans and people of color suffer more severe charges and harsher sentencing, indaquate legal representation, and plea bargain deals forced on the innocent. Let this be an occasion for a national debate on how to restore justice to our criminal justice system," added Mr. Malik, who is also co-founder and organizer of the Common Ground Collective >, which provides relief for victims of hurricane disasters in the Gulf Coast region and support in rebuilding affected communities in the New Orleans area. Greens have called for an end to the war on drugs and abolition of the death penalty, both of which have been applied disproportionately against people of color. Green leaders also support the repeal of zero tolerance and mandatory sentencing statutes, which enlarge the power of prosecutors and erode judicial discretion. (See "Green Party says racially biased US justice system needs drastic overhaul," Green Party press release, July 25, 2007 >.) "In many towns and states across the US, lynch mobs and Jim Crow laws have merely been replaced with police, prosecutors, and judges who make a special effort to target African Americans. The result has been gross racial disparities in incarceration, with black people imprisoned at over five times the rate of whites and Latinos at nearly twice the white rate. Injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere," said Cliff Thornton, co-chair of the Green Party of Connecticut and co-founder of Efficacy, Inc. >, which promotes major reforms in drug policy. Greens cite the fact that the US also has the world's highest incarceration rate, with 5% of the world's population and 25% of all the world's prisoners, as evidence that the justice system needs drastic reform. Louisiana has the highest incarceration in the US. The Green Party -- unlike the Democratic and Republican parties -- has strongly opposed the expansion of the private prison industry, warning that the demand for corporate profits creates a national economic incentive to fill cells. "An appeals court has overturned the conviction of Mychal Bell, one of the Jena Six, because he should not have been charged as an adult. This is a clue that Jena prosecutors were out for blood when they targeted black students, while going easy on white students who've gotten into fights. Jena will deservedly be the focus of greater national anger if the charges are allowed to stand; but we need to investigate and fix the criminal justice system throughout the US, wherever racial and economic bias is evident," said Alfred Molison, Green candidate for City Council in Houston, Texas >, Co-Chair of the Green Party Black Caucus >, and keynote speaker at Louisiana Green Party's state convention. 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/ "Tipping the Scales of Justice in Jena" By Amy Goodman, TruthDig.com, September 18, 2007 http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070918_tipping_the_scales_of_justice_in_jena/ "Apart from the noose, this is an everyday story of modern America: The racial tensions which flared in a small southern town have laid bare the bias infecting the nation's justice system" By Gary Younge, The Guardian, September 17, 2007 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2170644,00.html The Sentencing Project http://www.sentencingproject.org ~ END ~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roseberry3 at cox.net Wed Sep 19 21:36:38 2007 From: roseberry3 at cox.net (B Barry) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:36:38 -0400 Subject: {news} Proposed agenda for 9-25-07 SCC meeting at 6:30PM of CTGP at Middletown's Russell Public Library in Middletown, CT Message-ID: <20070920013550.VNEP27100.eastrmmtao101.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> Proposed agenda for 9-25-07 SCC meeting of CTGP at Middletown?s Russell Public Library, Reading Room 3 123 Broad Street, Middletown, CT 06457 Phone: 860-347-2528 Time: summer hours: 6:30PM to 8:30PM 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 SCC meeting. 4. (2-4 minutes): Review and acceptance of minutes from the 9-17-07 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 from the candidates. 3. (5-10 minutes): GPUS reports from CTGP representatives: Tim McKee and Charlie Pillsbury; GPAX report; reports from other members of GPUS committees; vetting of other possible candidates for other committee positions. 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 10-30-07 and date, place and time of next EC meeting in 10-07. 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/"www.google.com No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.25/1018 - Release Date: 9/19/2007 3:59 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From greenpartyct at yahoo.com Fri Sep 21 16:40:06 2007 From: greenpartyct at yahoo.com (Green Party-CT) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:40:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} A possible recuirted candidate??*** US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District argues for impeachment Message-ID: <355976.76725.qm@web81401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Tim McKee wrote: Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:37:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Tim McKee Subject: Fwd: FW: [usgp-dx] US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District argues for impeachment To: greenpartyct at yahoo.com Greg Gerritt wrote: Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:46:25 -0400 Subject: FW: [usgp-dx] US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District argues for impeachment From: Greg Gerritt To: Tim McKee How hard are y'all working to recruit him? Anything I can do in my role as chair of CCC? greg ------ Forwarded Message From: Scott McLarty Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:31:57 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: [usgp-dx] US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District argues for impeachment (fwd) The author of the essay below, Harold Burbank , is currently running as an independent for the US House in Connecticut's 5th district in the 2008 election. He's seeking Green Party support, and there's some chance he might decide to run as a Green, perhaps if he gets encouragement to do so from Green Party members. -- Scott Why Won't Chris Murphy Defend and Save Our Constitution By Impeaching George W. Bush? I attended Congressman Murphy's September 13, 2007 town hall meeting in New Britain to ask him why, given his attorney and congressional oaths to uphold and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, he would not do so by moving to impeach an admittedly criminal administration which savages our Founding Fathers constitutional design every day; the most obvious examples of which are the lies and half truths spewed to maintain the Iraq and Afghanistan wars of occupation.Congressman Murphy not only failed to answer my question - he never once used the word "oath" - but his attempt to obscure his plain refusal to uphold his oath, with a meandering pitch about rebuilding and fixing the Constitution with legislation, was insulting. Responsible congressmen cannot avoid the Bush administration's obscene assault on our fundamental law, our Constitution, on which all other US law depends, by considering it like a junk car. The Constitution was not intended to be "rebuilt", but as the unshakeable foundation of a democratic and free Republic. It was clear to me that Congressman Murphy either does not think he can protect and defend the Constitution, which his Connecticut law license and congressional oath demand, or he does not want to. In either case, we are all at risk of losing our most sacred American birthright, our Constitution, to the most criminal administration in US history, and to congressmen who can, but will not for their own reasons, save our Constitution for "We, The People..." The current unprecedented level of threat to our Constitution was not unforeseen by our forefathers, who as most school children know wisely formulated a system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative and judicial government branches to prevent any one of them from having the power to destroy the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands. Our Founders knew despots would attempt to seize excessive governmental power, so the Constitution provides the House of Representatives - the people's' house - the remedy of initiating impeachment for any official overreaching their constitutional powers. Congressman Murphy agreed with me that the Bush administration has overreached. But, because he thinks new laws can "repair" the Constitution, he will not impeach the administration for destroying it. Indeed, save for 20 co-sponsors of Congressman Dennis Kucinich's House Resolution 333 to impeach Vice President Richard Cheney, the entire House, and its Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, refuse to consider impeachment, arguing that they have a "plan" for the Constitution's safekeeping superior in wisdom to that of our Founding Fathers - arguably the wisest men ever assembled for free government. The Pelosi "plan" is pure self-interested arrogance to get a Democrat elected to the 2008 presidency. For this she will gladly risk our Republic by granting a free pass to administrative evil - no investigation, disclosure and prosecution of our constitutional crisis - in return for the veneer of constitutional normalcy. Bush's and Pelosi's Tammany Hall era attitude of "What is the Constitution among friends?", is in plain view. What are patriotic Americans to do when faced with government so corrupt that it will not defend the Constitution by impeachment? As our revolutionary Founders did, Connecticut citizens must stand up to bullies and cowards who would enslave them, their country and their planet for the profit, greed and power. They must organize their friends and neighbors. They must petition and protest, and they must find new candidates for public office, especially the US House, who will protect them, as the Founders intended under our Constitution. As one speaker, a lawyer, eloquently put it in New Britain, the Constitution is being destroyed before our eyes by private US and others interests who prefer American empire, in Iraq and worldwide, to American constitutional democracy. This empire is destroying our Republic, and only our Congress can save it without, perhaps, a second American Revolution. The constitutional mechanism to thwart greed and imperial war by a president is impeachment. It is the only legal, civilized power we have to check the madness before us, and it depends on our US House of Representatives for its initiation.It is clear that Congressman Murphy does want to risk taking on the Bush administration to save the Constitution. He is satisfied with, and expects you and me to accept, an unrecognizable Constitution and Republic. Mr. Murphy said it was more important to work with a dysfunctional Congress than to pursue constitutional democracy. His answers avoided the central questions of harm to the Constitution itself. You do not have a constitutional democracy if you must revive its founding fundamental law. You have government with no foundation at all. Those like me who cherish the Constitution consider such thinking treasonous. Mr. Murphy and the Congress have no right to ignore damage to the Constitution, nor to deny us its fundamental protections against an imperial presidency. I implore all readers to search their minds and hearts on these matters. Constitutional democracy is not a partisan issue. Your children and their children may soon realize that unless we get Congress to impeach, we will have failed to protect and defend our free society. Congressman Murphy has admitted that he will not protect and defend the Constitution from tyrants and criminals, foreign and domestic. Accordingly, beginning now, I will run a campaign against him for his 5th congressional seat in the 2008 election, and I ask 5th district voters to please consider supporting my (independent) candidacy today, based on a commitment to seek impeachment of executives who fail to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and pledge no war in Iran, Syria, and regional states. I will consider withdrawing my candidacy if Congressman Murphy immediately files bills of impeachment against GW Bush, Richard Cheney and Condoleeza Rice, but I do not expect him to do so. I asked him about it publicly, and he declined. All impeachment supporters should try to find candidates in their congressional districts who will run for Congress, starting now, against any incumbents who will not file or support articles of impeachment immediately to end the wars. I would welcome challenges from other candidates in the 5th District who would run pro-impeachment campaigns (Libertarians, others), and may the best candidate win. We have only our Constitution and democratic republic to lose if we do not put ourselves to these time-proven tests of American liberty. END PRESS RELEASE: Independent Harold H. Burbank, II of Canton, Connecticut has announced that he will challenge incumbent Democratic Congressman Chris Murphy for his 5th District US House Seat in the 2008 election beginning immediately and run primarily on the issue of impeaching the Bush administration for lying America into its current wars. Burbank, a Canton attorney with an international law background, began his campaign in reponse to a challenge from his colleague Dr. Francis A. Boyle, a renowned international human rights scholar, teacher and lawyer at the University of Illinois School of Law, who has lectured throughout the world that unless the damage done to our Constitution by the Bush administration is fully restored by the impeachment process, the country will devolve into World War III. "It is time to stop kidding ourselves about the necessity of impeaching this administration so we can end these illegal wars of aggression, get our troops home safely, save our treasury, avoid new wars, and defend our Constitution," Burbank said. "Chris Murphy refuses to do this. He will not support Dennis Kucinich's House Resolution 333 to impeach Richard Cheney and he will not introduce his own articles. I promise that upon election I will introduce impeachment articles against any executive officer who refuses to end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars begun under President Bush, refuses to end all US military involvement there, and refuses to end funding for any vestige of these illegal and immoral occupations. The arguments for continuing them are false, do not serve the interests of average Americans, and threaten our children's futures with unending war." Burbank's campaign has been endorsed by Dr. Francis Boyle in a national radio interview, and by Dr. Robert Bowman, director of the Star Wars Program during the Reagan administration. Burbank may be contacted about his campaign at hburbankii at att.net ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ 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/ ------ End of Forwarded Message ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 vogel at ct.metrocast.net Fri Sep 21 18:19:34 2007 From: vogel at ct.metrocast.net (Robert Vogel) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:19:34 -0400 Subject: {news} A candidate??*** US House candidate inConn.'s 5th District argues for impeachment References: <6140040.1190407505160.JavaMail.root@m48> Message-ID: <000201c7fcc5$a848f920$0300a8c0@your55e5f9e3d2> Sounds to me like an excellent candidate. Go for it. Robert L. Vogel www.seconnecticut.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Green Party-CT To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org ; ElectionsCTGP ; HarfordGreens Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 4:40 PM Subject: {news} A possible recuirted candidate??*** US House candidate inConn.'s 5th District argues for impeachment 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tim McKee wrote: Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:37:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Tim McKee Subject: Fwd: FW: [usgp-dx] US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District argues for impeachment To: greenpartyct at yahoo.com Greg Gerritt wrote: Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:46:25 -0400 Subject: FW: [usgp-dx] US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District argues for impeachment From: Greg Gerritt To: Tim McKee How hard are y'all working to recruit him? Anything I can do in my role as chair of CCC? greg ------ Forwarded Message From: Scott McLarty Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:31:57 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: [usgp-dx] US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District argues for impeachment (fwd) The author of the essay below, Harold Burbank , is currently running as an independent for the US House in Connecticut's 5th district in the 2008 election. He's seeking Green Party support, and there's some chance he might decide to run as a Green, perhaps if he gets encouragement to do so from Green Party members. -- Scott Why Won't Chris Murphy Defend and Save Our Constitution By Impeaching George W. Bush? I attended Congressman Murphy's September 13, 2007 town hall meeting in New Britain to ask him why, given his attorney and congressional oaths to uphold and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, he would not do so by moving to impeach an admittedly criminal administration which savages our Founding Fathers constitutional design every day; the most obvious examples of which are the lies and half truths spewed to maintain the Iraq and Afghanistan wars of occupation.Congressman Murphy not only failed to answer my question - he never once used the word "oath" - but his attempt to obscure his plain refusal to uphold his oath, with a meandering pitch about rebuilding and fixing the Constitution with legislation, was insulting. Responsible congressmen cannot avoid the Bush administration's obscene assault on our fundamental law, our Constitution, on which all other US law depends, by considering it like a junk car. The Constitution was not intended to be "rebuilt", but as the unshakeable foundation of a democratic and free Republic. It was clear to me that Congressman Murphy either does not think he can protect and defend the Constitution, which his Connecticut law license and congressional oath demand, or he does not want to. In either case, we are all at risk of losing our most sacred American birthright, our Constitution, to the most criminal administration in US history, and to congressmen who can, but will not for their own reasons, save our Constitution for "We, The People..." The current unprecedented level of threat to our Constitution was not unforeseen by our forefathers, who as most school children know wisely formulated a system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative and judicial government branches to prevent any one of them from having the power to destroy the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands. Our Founders knew despots would attempt to seize excessive governmental power, so the Constitution provides the House of Representatives - the people's' house - the remedy of initiating impeachment for any official overreaching their constitutional powers. Congressman Murphy agreed with me that the Bush administration has overreached. But, because he thinks new laws can "repair" the Constitution, he will not impeach the administration for destroying it. Indeed, save for 20 co-sponsors of Congressman Dennis Kucinich's House Resolution 333 to impeach Vice President Richard Cheney, the entire House, and its Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, refuse to consider impeachment, arguing that they have a "plan" for the Constitution's safekeeping superior in wisdom to that of our Founding Fathers - arguably the wisest men ever assembled for free government. The Pelosi "plan" is pure self-interested arrogance to get a Democrat elected to the 2008 presidency. For this she will gladly risk our Republic by granting a free pass to administrative evil - no investigation, disclosure and prosecution of our constitutional crisis - in return for the veneer of constitutional normalcy. Bush's and Pelosi's Tammany Hall era attitude of "What is the Constitution among friends?", is in plain view. What are patriotic Americans to do when faced with government so corrupt that it will not defend the Constitution by impeachment? As our revolutionary Founders did, Connecticut citizens must stand up to bullies and cowards who would enslave them, their country and their planet for the profit, greed and power. They must organize their friends and neighbors. They must petition and protest, and they must find new candidates for public office, especially the US House, who will protect them, as the Founders intended under our Constitution. As one speaker, a lawyer, eloquently put it in New Britain, the Constitution is being destroyed before our eyes by private US and others interests who prefer American empire, in Iraq and worldwide, to American constitutional democracy. This empire is destroying our Republic, and only our Congress can save it without, perhaps, a second American Revolution. The constitutional mechanism to thwart greed and imperial war by a president is impeachment. It is the only legal, civilized power we have to check the madness before us, and it depends on our US House of Representatives for its initiation.It is clear that Congressman Murphy does want to risk taking on the Bush administration to save the Constitution. He is satisfied with, and expects you and me to accept, an unrecognizable Constitution and Republic. Mr. Murphy said it was more important to work with a dysfunctional Congress than to pursue constitutional democracy. His answers avoided the central questions of harm to the Constitution itself. You do not have a constitutional democracy if you must revive its founding fundamental law. You have government with no foundation at all. Those like me who cherish the Constitution consider such thinking treasonous. Mr. Murphy and the Congress have no right to ignore damage to the Constitution, nor to deny us its fundamental protections against an imperial presidency. I implore all readers to search their minds and hearts on these matters. Constitutional democracy is not a partisan issue. Your children and their children may soon realize that unless we get Congress to impeach, we will have failed to protect and defend our free society. Congressman Murphy has admitted that he will not protect and defend the Constitution from tyrants and criminals, foreign and domestic. Accordingly, beginning now, I will run a campaign against him for his 5th congressional seat in the 2008 election, and I ask 5th district voters to please consider supporting my (independent) candidacy today, based on a commitment to seek impeachment of executives who fail to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and pledge no war in Iran, Syria, and regional states. I will consider withdrawing my candidacy if Congressman Murphy immediately files bills of impeachment against GW Bush, Richard Cheney and Condoleeza Rice, but I do not expect him to do so. I asked him about it publicly, and he declined. All impeachment supporters should try to find candidates in their congressional districts who will run for Congress, starting now, against any incumbents who will not file or support articles of impeachment immediately to end the wars. I would welcome challenges from other candidates in the 5th District who would run pro-impeachment campaigns (Libertarians, others), and may the best candidate win. We have only our Constitution and democratic republic to lose if we do not put ourselves to these time-proven tests of American liberty. END PRESS RELEASE: Independent Harold H. Burbank, II of Canton, Connecticut has announced that he will challenge incumbent Democratic Congressman Chris Murphy for his 5th District US House Seat in the 2008 election beginning immediately and run primarily on the issue of impeaching the Bush administration for lying America into its current wars. Burbank, a Canton attorney with an international law background, began his campaign in reponse to a challenge from his colleague Dr. Francis A. Boyle, a renowned international human rights scholar, teacher and lawyer at the University of Illinois School of Law, who has lectured throughout the world that unless the damage done to our Constitution by the Bush administration is fully restored by the impeachment process, the country will devolve into World War III. "It is time to stop kidding ourselves about the necessity of impeaching this administration so we can end these illegal wars of aggression, get our troops home safely, save our treasury, avoid new wars, and defend our Constitution," Burbank said. "Chris Murphy refuses to do this. He will not support Dennis Kucinich's House Resolution 333 to impeach Richard Cheney and he will not introduce his own articles. I promise that upon election I will introduce impeachment articles against any executive officer who refuses to end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars begun under President Bush, refuses to end all US military involvement there, and refuses to end funding for any vestige of these illegal and immoral occupations. The arguments for continuing them are false, do not serve the interests of average Americans, and threaten our children's futures with unending war." Burbank's campaign has been endorsed by Dr. Francis Boyle in a national radio interview, and by Dr. Robert Bowman, director of the Star Wars Program during the Reagan administration. Burbank may be contacted about his campaign at hburbankii at att.net ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ 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/ ------ End of Forwarded Message ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim McKee cell (860) 778-1304 or (860) 643-2282 National Committee Member of the Green Party(Connecticut) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 great_land_trust at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 22 00:36:10 2007 From: great_land_trust at sbcglobal.net (Colin Bennett) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:36:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} A candidate??*** US House candidate inConn.'s 5th District argues for impeachment In-Reply-To: <000201c7fcc5$a848f920$0300a8c0@your55e5f9e3d2> Message-ID: <870314.47643.qm@web82807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Am I missing something? Is there a reason that we would want this person to run as a Green Party candidate? Does anybody know anything about him other than he opposes the war? -Colin Robert Vogel 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 Sounds to me like an excellent candidate. Go for it. Robert L. Vogel www.seconnecticut.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Green Party-CT To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org ; ElectionsCTGP ; HarfordGreens Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 4:40 PM Subject: {news} A possible recuirted candidate??*** US House candidate inConn.'s 5th District argues for impeachment 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 --------------------------------- Tim McKee wrote: Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:37:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Tim McKee Subject: Fwd: FW: [usgp-dx] US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District argues for impeachment To: greenpartyct at yahoo.com Greg Gerritt wrote: Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:46:25 -0400 Subject: FW: [usgp-dx] US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District argues for impeachment From: Greg Gerritt To: Tim McKee How hard are y'all working to recruit him? Anything I can do in my role as chair of CCC? greg ------ Forwarded Message From: Scott McLarty Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:31:57 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: [usgp-dx] US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District argues for impeachment (fwd) The author of the essay below, Harold Burbank , is currently running as an independent for the US House in Connecticut's 5th district in the 2008 election. He's seeking Green Party support, and there's some chance he might decide to run as a Green, perhaps if he gets encouragement to do so from Green Party members. -- Scott Why Won't Chris Murphy Defend and Save Our Constitution By Impeaching George W. Bush? I attended Congressman Murphy's September 13, 2007 town hall meeting in New Britain to ask him why, given his attorney and congressional oaths to uphold and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, he would not do so by moving to impeach an admittedly criminal administration which savages our Founding Fathers constitutional design every day; the most obvious examples of which are the lies and half truths spewed to maintain the Iraq and Afghanistan wars of occupation.Congressman Murphy not only failed to answer my question - he never once used the word "oath" - but his attempt to obscure his plain refusal to uphold his oath, with a meandering pitch about rebuilding and fixing the Constitution with legislation, was insulting. Responsible congressmen cannot avoid the Bush administration's obscene assault on our fundamental law, our Constitution, on which all other US law depends, by considering it like a junk car. The Constitution was not intended to be "rebuilt", but as the unshakeable foundation of a democratic and free Republic. It was clear to me that Congressman Murphy either does not think he can protect and defend the Constitution, which his Connecticut law license and congressional oath demand, or he does not want to. In either case, we are all at risk of losing our most sacred American birthright, our Constitution, to the most criminal administration in US history, and to congressmen who can, but will not for their own reasons, save our Constitution for "We, The People..." The current unprecedented level of threat to our Constitution was not unforeseen by our forefathers, who as most school children know wisely formulated a system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative and judicial government branches to prevent any one of them from having the power to destroy the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands. Our Founders knew despots would attempt to seize excessive governmental power, so the Constitution provides the House of Representatives - the people's' house - the remedy of initiating impeachment for any official overreaching their constitutional powers. Congressman Murphy agreed with me that the Bush administration has overreached. But, because he thinks new laws can "repair" the Constitution, he will not impeach the administration for destroying it. Indeed, save for 20 co-sponsors of Congressman Dennis Kucinich's House Resolution 333 to impeach Vice President Richard Cheney, the entire House, and its Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, refuse to consider impeachment, arguing that they have a "plan" for the Constitution's safekeeping superior in wisdom to that of our Founding Fathers - arguably the wisest men ever assembled for free government. The Pelosi "plan" is pure self-interested arrogance to get a Democrat elected to the 2008 presidency. For this she will gladly risk our Republic by granting a free pass to administrative evil - no investigation, disclosure and prosecution of our constitutional crisis - in return for the veneer of constitutional normalcy. Bush's and Pelosi's Tammany Hall era attitude of "What is the Constitution among friends?", is in plain view. What are patriotic Americans to do when faced with government so corrupt that it will not defend the Constitution by impeachment? As our revolutionary Founders did, Connecticut citizens must stand up to bullies and cowards who would enslave them, their country and their planet for the profit, greed and power. They must organize their friends and neighbors. They must petition and protest, and they must find new candidates for public office, especially the US House, who will protect them, as the Founders intended under our Constitution. As one speaker, a lawyer, eloquently put it in New Britain, the Constitution is being destroyed before our eyes by private US and others interests who prefer American empire, in Iraq and worldwide, to American constitutional democracy. This empire is destroying our Republic, and only our Congress can save it without, perhaps, a second American Revolution. The constitutional mechanism to thwart greed and imperial war by a president is impeachment. It is the only legal, civilized power we have to check the madness before us, and it depends on our US House of Representatives for its initiation.It is clear that Congressman Murphy does want to risk taking on the Bush administration to save the Constitution. He is satisfied with, and expects you and me to accept, an unrecognizable Constitution and Republic. Mr. Murphy said it was more important to work with a dysfunctional Congress than to pursue constitutional democracy. His answers avoided the central questions of harm to the Constitution itself. You do not have a constitutional democracy if you must revive its founding fundamental law. You have government with no foundation at all. Those like me who cherish the Constitution consider such thinking treasonous. Mr. Murphy and the Congress have no right to ignore damage to the Constitution, nor to deny us its fundamental protections against an imperial presidency. I implore all readers to search their minds and hearts on these matters. Constitutional democracy is not a partisan issue. Your children and their children may soon realize that unless we get Congress to impeach, we will have failed to protect and defend our free society. Congressman Murphy has admitted that he will not protect and defend the Constitution from tyrants and criminals, foreign and domestic. Accordingly, beginning now, I will run a campaign against him for his 5th congressional seat in the 2008 election, and I ask 5th district voters to please consider supporting my (independent) candidacy today, based on a commitment to seek impeachment of executives who fail to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and pledge no war in Iran, Syria, and regional states. I will consider withdrawing my candidacy if Congressman Murphy immediately files bills of impeachment against GW Bush, Richard Cheney and Condoleeza Rice, but I do not expect him to do so. I asked him about it publicly, and he declined. All impeachment supporters should try to find candidates in their congressional districts who will run for Congress, starting now, against any incumbents who will not file or support articles of impeachment immediately to end the wars. I would welcome challenges from other candidates in the 5th District who would run pro-impeachment campaigns (Libertarians, others), and may the best candidate win. We have only our Constitution and democratic republic to lose if we do not put ourselves to these time-proven tests of American liberty. END PRESS RELEASE: Independent Harold H. Burbank, II of Canton, Connecticut has announced that he will challenge incumbent Democratic Congressman Chris Murphy for his 5th District US House Seat in the 2008 election beginning immediately and run primarily on the issue of impeaching the Bush administration for lying America into its current wars. Burbank, a Canton attorney with an international law background, began his campaign in reponse to a challenge from his colleague Dr. Francis A. Boyle, a renowned international human rights scholar, teacher and lawyer at the University of Illinois School of Law, who has lectured throughout the world that unless the damage done to our Constitution by the Bush administration is fully restored by the impeachment process, the country will devolve into World War III. "It is time to stop kidding ourselves about the necessity of impeaching this administration so we can end these illegal wars of aggression, get our troops home safely, save our treasury, avoid new wars, and defend our Constitution," Burbank said. "Chris Murphy refuses to do this. He will not support Dennis Kucinich's House Resolution 333 to impeach Richard Cheney and he will not introduce his own articles. I promise that upon election I will introduce impeachment articles against any executive officer who refuses to end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars begun under President Bush, refuses to end all US military involvement there, and refuses to end funding for any vestige of these illegal and immoral occupations. The arguments for continuing them are false, do not serve the interests of average Americans, and threaten our children's futures with unending war." Burbank's campaign has been endorsed by Dr. Francis Boyle in a national radio interview, and by Dr. Robert Bowman, director of the Star Wars Program during the Reagan administration. Burbank may be contacted about his campaign at hburbankii at att.net ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ 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/ ------ End of Forwarded Message ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim McKee cell (860) 778-1304 or (860) 643-2282 National Committee Member of the Green Party(Connecticut) --------------------------------- 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.orgTo 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 smderosa at cox.net Sat Sep 22 01:57:33 2007 From: smderosa at cox.net (Mike DeRosa) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 01:57:33 -0400 Subject: {news} A candidate??*** US House candidate inConn.'s 5th Districtargues for impeachment In-Reply-To: <870314.47643.qm@web82807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <000201c7fcc5$a848f920$0300a8c0@your55e5f9e3d2> <870314.47643.qm@web82807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <66CAA580FE13435FA598FA60D63B9633@OwnerPC> Colin: That's a good question. He has approached us and he is interested in running in 2008. It is really up to the Green Party of CT to ask whether he is the best candidate for the job. He is committed to impeachment and is very anti-war. He is a lawyer and was an assistant attorney general in ME some years ago. He has had contact with Nader, with me and, Richard Duffee. Let's talk to him and see if he has a real commitment to Green Values and to make sure he isn't going to sell us out for $1.98. There are others coming forward. As the war drags on and the Dems continue to support the empire and the war with Republican light people will be moved to action. Very good and serious candidates will probably come forward. The important thing in my opinion is to start the petitioning early (i.e. Jan 2008) so we can have a place for these excellent candidates as Nov. 2008 approaches. That's my take on it anyway. Sincerely, Mike DeRosa _____ From: ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org [mailto:ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org] On Behalf Of Colin Bennett Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 12:36 AM To: Robert Vogel; HarfordGreens; ctgp-news at ml.greens.org; Green Party-CT Subject: Re: {news} A candidate??*** US House candidate inConn.'s 5th Districtargues for impeachment Am I missing something? Is there a reason that we would want this person to run as a Green Party candidate? Does anybody know anything about him other than he opposes the war? -Colin Robert Vogel 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 Sounds to me like an excellent candidate. Go for it. Robert L. Vogel www.seconnecticut.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Green Party-CT To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org ; ElectionsCTGP ; HarfordGreens Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 4:40 PM Subject: {news} A possible recuirted candidate??*** US House candidate inConn.'s 5th District argues for impeachment 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 _____ Tim McKee wrote: Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:37:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Tim McKee Subject: Fwd: FW: [usgp-dx] US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District argues for impeachment To: greenpartyct at yahoo.com Greg Gerritt wrote: Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:46:25 -0400 Subject: FW: [usgp-dx] US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District argues for impeachment From: Greg Gerritt To: Tim McKee How hard are y'all working to recruit him? Anything I can do in my role as chair of CCC? greg ------ Forwarded Message From: Scott McLarty Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:31:57 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: [usgp-dx] US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District argues for impeachment (fwd) The author of the essay below, Harold Burbank , is currently running as an independent for the US House in Connecticut's 5th district in the 2008 election. He's seeking Green Party support, and there's some chance he might decide to run as a Green, perhaps if he gets encouragement to do so from Green Party members. -- Scott Why Won't Chris Murphy Defend and Save Our Constitution By Impeaching George W. Bush? I attended Congressman Murphy's September 13, 2007 town hall meeting in New Britain to ask him why, given his attorney and congressional oaths to uphold and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, he would not do so by moving to impeach an admittedly criminal administration which savages our Founding Fathers constitutional design every day; the most obvious examples of which are the lies and half truths spewed to maintain the Iraq and Afghanistan wars of occupation.Congressman Murphy not only failed to answer my question - he never once used the word "oath" - but his attempt to obscure his plain refusal to uphold his oath, with a meandering pitch about rebuilding and fixing the Constitution with legislation, was insulting. Responsible congressmen cannot avoid the Bush administration's obscene assault on our fundamental law, our Constitution, on which all other US law depends, by considering it like a junk car. The Constitution was not intended to be "rebuilt", but as the unshakeable foundation of a democratic and free Republic. It was clear to me that Congressman Murphy either does not think he can protect and defend the Constitution, which his Connecticut law license and congressional oath demand, or he does not want to. In either case, we are all at risk of losing our most sacred American birthright, our Constitution, to the most criminal administration in US history, and to congressmen who can, but will not for their own reasons, save our Constitution for "We, The People..." The current unprecedented level of threat to our Constitution was not unforeseen by our forefathers, who as most school children know wisely formulated a system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative and judicial government branches to prevent any one of them from having the power to destroy the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands. Our Founders knew despots would attempt to seize excessive governmental power, so the Constitution provides the House of Representatives - the people's' house - the remedy of initiating impeachment for any official overreaching their constitutional powers. Congressman Murphy agreed with me that the Bush administration has overreached. But, because he thinks new laws can "repair" the Constitution, he will not impeach the administration for destroying it. Indeed, save for 20 co-sponsors of Congressman Dennis Kucinich's House Resolution 333 to impeach Vice President Richard Cheney, the entire House, and its Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, refuse to consider impeachment, arguing that they have a "plan" for the Constitution's safekeeping superior in wisdom to that of our Founding Fathers - arguably the wisest men ever assembled for free government. The Pelosi "plan" is pure self-interested arrogance to get a Democrat elected to the 2008 presidency. For this she will gladly risk our Republic by granting a free pass to administrative evil - no investigation, disclosure and prosecution of our constitutional crisis - in return for the veneer of constitutional normalcy. Bush's and Pelosi's Tammany Hall era attitude of "What is the Constitution among friends?", is in plain view. What are patriotic Americans to do when faced with government so corrupt that it will not defend the Constitution by impeachment? As our revolutionary Founders did, Connecticut citizens must stand up to bullies and cowards who would enslave them, their country and their planet for the profit, greed and power. They must organize their friends and neighbors. They must petition and protest, and they must find new candidates for public office, especially the US House, who will protect them, as the Founders intended under our Constitution. As one speaker, a lawyer, eloquently put it in New Britain, the Constitution is being destroyed before our eyes by private US and others interests who prefer American empire, in Iraq and worldwide, to American constitutional democracy. This empire is destroying our Republic, and only our Congress can save it without, perhaps, a second American Revolution. The constitutional mechanism to thwart greed and imperial war by a president is impeachment. It is the only legal, civilized power we have to check the madness before us, and it depends on our US House of Representatives for its initiation.It is clear that Congressman Murphy does want to risk taking on the Bush administration to save the Constitution. He is satisfied with, and expects you and me to accept, an unrecognizable Constitution and Republic. Mr. Murphy said it was more important to work with a dysfunctional Congress than to pursue constitutional democracy. His answers avoided the central questions of harm to the Constitution itself. You do not have a constitutional democracy if you must revive its founding fundamental law. You have government with no foundation at all. Those like me who cherish the Constitution consider such thinking treasonous. Mr. Murphy and the Congress have no right to ignore damage to the Constitution, nor to deny us its fundamental protections against an imperial presidency. I implore all readers to search their minds and hearts on these matters. Constitutional democracy is not a partisan issue. Your children and their children may soon realize that unless we get Congress to impeach, we will have failed to protect and defend our free society. Congressman Murphy has admitted that he will not protect and defend the Constitution from tyrants and criminals, foreign and domestic. Accordingly, beginning now, I will run a campaign against him for his 5th congressional seat in the 2008 election, and I ask 5th district voters to please consider supporting my (independent) candidacy today, based on a commitment to seek impeachment of executives who fail to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and pledge no war in Iran, Syria, and regional states. I will consider withdrawing my candidacy if Congressman Murphy immediately files bills of impeachment against GW Bush, Richard Cheney and Condoleeza Rice, but I do not expect him to do so. I asked him about it publicly, and he declined. All impeachment supporters should try to find candidates in their congressional districts who will run for Congress, starting now, against any incumbents who will not file or support articles of impeachment immediately to end the wars. I would welcome challenges from other candidates in the 5th District who would run pro-impeachment campaigns (Libertarians, others), and may the best candidate win. We have only our Constitution and democratic republic to lose if we do not put ourselves to these time-proven tests of American liberty. END PRESS RELEASE: Independent Harold H. Burbank, II of Canton, Connecticut has announced that he will challenge incumbent Democratic Congressman Chris Murphy for his 5th District US House Seat in the 2008 election beginning immediately and run primarily on the issue of impeaching the Bush administration for lying America into its current wars. Burbank, a Canton attorney with an international law background, began his campaign in reponse to a challenge from his colleague Dr. Francis A. Boyle, a renowned international human rights scholar, teacher and lawyer at the University of Illinois School of Law, who has lectured throughout the world that unless the damage done to our Constitution by the Bush administration is fully restored by the impeachment process, the country will devolve into World War III. "It is time to stop kidding ourselves about the necessity of impeaching this administration so we can end these illegal wars of aggression, get our troops home safely, save our treasury, avoid new wars, and defend our Constitution," Burbank said. "Chris Murphy refuses to do this. He will not support Dennis Kucinich's House Resolution 333 to impeach Richard Cheney and he will not introduce his own articles. I promise that upon election I will introduce impeachment articles against any executive officer who refuses to end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars begun under President Bush, refuses to end all US military involvement there, and refuses to end funding for any vestige of these illegal and immoral occupations. The arguments for continuing them are false, do not serve the interests of average Americans, and threaten our children's futures with unending war." Burbank's campaign has been endorsed by Dr. Francis Boyle in a national radio interview, and by Dr. Robert Bowman, director of the Star Wars Program during the Reagan administration. Burbank may be contacted about his campaign at hburbankii at att.net ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ 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/ ------ End of Forwarded Message ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tim McKee cell (860) 778-1304 or (860) 643-2282 National Committee Member of the Green Party(Connecticut) _____ 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 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 efficacy at msn.com Sat Sep 22 09:13:24 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 09:13:24 -0400 Subject: {news} Material and help for drug war and the environment website Message-ID: Can someone direct me to a person who has this type of expertise? Friends, The U.S. coca eradication program in Colombia has contributed to one-quarter of the deforestation of the Amazon rain forest, according to the U.S. Department of State, which contributes to global warming, and drought in the U.S. due to the connections between global environmental and climate patterns. Of course, ARO and SSDP members know that the war on drugs is bad for the environment. (I've written this http://www.cjpf.org/drug/environmentoped.html and this http://www.cjpf.org/drug/drugtrade_environmentalcrisis.pdf). I am looking for assistance in putting up material on this topic on the website www.resistglobalwarming.org which is now under construction. Any assistance in expertise or material would be very welcome. Please contact me. Eric ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Join me at the 2007 International Drug Policy Reform Conference: Reason, Compassion, and Justice December 5 - 8, 2007, New Orleans, Louisiana Click http://www.drugpolicy.org/events/dpa2007/ for more information and to register! Co-sponsored by The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eric E. Sterling, President The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation 8730 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel. 301-589-6020 esterling at cjpf.org www.cjpf.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment: http://drugsense.org/temp/55OY0UklPWNdA.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amyvasnunes at hotmail.com Sat Sep 22 17:05:20 2007 From: amyvasnunes at hotmail.com (Amy Vas Nunes) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:05:20 -0400 Subject: {news} A candidate??*** US House candidate inConn.'s 5th Districtargues for impeachment In-Reply-To: <870314.47643.qm@web82807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: These are my exact questions and more, Where did hre come from is he an I or R and just a Libertarian?What does he do, who is funding him. 80% are against the war we need FAR more then this because the CTGP name is at stake here, Why didn't he come top us or know about us? Amy >From: Colin Bennett >To: Robert Vogel ,HarfordGreens >, ctgp-news at ml.greens.org,Green Party-CT > >Subject: Re: {news} A candidate??*** US House candidate inConn.'s 5th >Districtargues for impeachment >Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:36:10 -0700 (PDT) > >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 >Am I missing something? Is there a reason that we would want this person to >run as a Green Party candidate? Does anybody know anything about him other >than he opposes the war? > >-Colin > >Robert Vogel 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 > Sounds to me like an excellent candidate. Go for it. > > Robert L. Vogel > > www.seconnecticut.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Green Party-CT > To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org ; ElectionsCTGP ; HarfordGreens > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 4:40 PM > Subject: {news} A possible recuirted candidate??*** US House >candidate inConn.'s 5th District argues for impeachment > > >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 > >--------------------------------- > > > >Tim McKee wrote: Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 >13:37:52 -0700 (PDT) >From: Tim McKee >Subject: Fwd: FW: [usgp-dx] US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District >argues for impeachment >To: greenpartyct at yahoo.com > > > >Greg Gerritt wrote: Date: >Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:46:25 -0400 >Subject: FW: [usgp-dx] US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District >argues >for impeachment >From: Greg Gerritt >To: Tim McKee > >How hard are y'all working to recruit him? Anything I can do in my >role as >chair of CCC? greg >------ Forwarded Message >From: Scott McLarty >Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:31:57 -0700 (PDT) >To: >Subject: [usgp-dx] US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District argues >for >impeachment (fwd) > >The author of the essay below, Harold Burbank >, is currently running as an >independent for the US House in Connecticut's 5th >district in the 2008 election. He's seeking >Green Party support, and there's some chance he >might decide to run as a Green, perhaps if he >gets encouragement to do so from Green Party >members. -- Scott > > >Why Won't Chris Murphy Defend and Save Our >Constitution By Impeaching George W. Bush? > >I attended Congressman Murphy's September 13, >2007 town hall meeting in New Britain to ask him >why, given his attorney and congressional oaths >to uphold and defend the US Constitution against >all enemies, foreign and domestic, he would not >do so by moving to impeach an admittedly criminal >administration which savages our Founding Fathers >constitutional design every day; the most obvious >examples of which are the lies and half truths >spewed to maintain the Iraq and Afghanistan wars >of occupation.Congressman Murphy not only failed >to answer my question - he never once used the >word "oath" - but his attempt to obscure his >plain refusal to uphold his oath, with a >meandering pitch about rebuilding and fixing the >Constitution with legislation, was insulting. >Responsible congressmen cannot avoid the Bush >administration's obscene assault on our >fundamental law, our Constitution, on which all >other US law depends, by considering it like a >junk car. The Constitution was not intended to be >"rebuilt", but as the unshakeable foundation of a >democratic and free Republic. It was clear to me >that Congressman Murphy either does not think he >can protect and defend the Constitution, which >his Connecticut law license and congressional >oath demand, or he does not want to. In either >case, we are all at risk of losing our most >sacred American birthright, our Constitution, to >the most criminal administration in US history, >and to congressmen who can, but will not for >their own reasons, save our Constitution for "We, >The People..." > >The current unprecedented level of threat to our >Constitution was not unforeseen by our >forefathers, who as most school children know >wisely formulated a system of checks and balances >between the executive, legislative and judicial >government branches to prevent any one of them >from having the power to destroy the Constitution >and the Republic for which it stands. Our >Founders knew despots would attempt to seize >excessive governmental power, so the Constitution >provides the House of Representatives - the >people's' house - the remedy of initiating >impeachment for any official overreaching their >constitutional powers. > >Congressman Murphy agreed with me that the Bush >administration has overreached. But, because he >thinks new laws can "repair" the Constitution, he >will not impeach the administration for >destroying it. Indeed, save for 20 co-sponsors of >Congressman Dennis Kucinich's House Resolution >333 to impeach Vice President Richard Cheney, the >entire House, and its Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, >refuse to consider impeachment, arguing that they >have a "plan" for the Constitution's safekeeping >superior in wisdom to that of our Founding >Fathers - arguably the wisest men ever assembled >for free government. The Pelosi "plan" is pure >self-interested arrogance to get a Democrat >elected to the 2008 presidency. For this she will >gladly risk our Republic by granting a free pass >to administrative evil - no investigation, >disclosure and prosecution of our constitutional >crisis - in return for the veneer of >constitutional normalcy. Bush's and Pelosi's >Tammany Hall era attitude of "What is the >Constitution among friends?", is in plain view. >What are patriotic Americans to do when faced >with government so corrupt that it will not >defend the Constitution by impeachment? > >As our revolutionary Founders did, Connecticut >citizens must stand up to bullies and cowards who >would enslave them, their country and their >planet for the profit, greed and power. They must >organize their friends and neighbors. They must >petition and protest, and they must find new >candidates for public office, especially the US >House, who will protect them, as the Founders >intended under our Constitution. > >As one speaker, a lawyer, eloquently put it in >New Britain, the Constitution is being destroyed >before our eyes by private US and others >interests who prefer American empire, in Iraq and >worldwide, to American constitutional democracy. >This empire is destroying our Republic, and only >our Congress can save it without, perhaps, a >second American Revolution. The constitutional >mechanism to thwart greed and imperial war by a >president is impeachment. It is the only legal, >civilized power we have to check the madness >before us, and it depends on our US House of >Representatives for its initiation.It is clear >that Congressman Murphy does want to risk taking >on the Bush administration to save the >Constitution. He is satisfied with, and expects >you and me to accept, an unrecognizable >Constitution and Republic. Mr. Murphy said it was >more important to work with a dysfunctional >Congress than to pursue constitutional democracy. >His answers avoided the central questions of harm >to the Constitution itself. You do not have a >constitutional democracy if you must revive its >founding fundamental law. You have government >with no foundation at all. Those like me who >cherish the Constitution consider such thinking >treasonous. Mr. Murphy and the Congress have no >right to ignore damage to the Constitution, nor >to deny us its fundamental protections against an >imperial presidency. > >I implore all readers to search their minds and >hearts on these matters. Constitutional democracy >is not a partisan issue. Your children and their >children may soon realize that unless we get >Congress to impeach, we will have failed to >protect and defend our free society. Congressman >Murphy has admitted that he will not protect and >defend the Constitution from tyrants and >criminals, foreign and domestic. Accordingly, >beginning now, I will run a campaign against him >for his 5th congressional seat in the 2008 >election, and I ask 5th district voters to please >consider supporting my (independent) candidacy >today, based on a commitment to seek impeachment >of executives who fail to end the wars in Iraq >and Afghanistan, and pledge no war in Iran, >Syria, and regional states. I will consider >withdrawing my candidacy if Congressman Murphy >immediately files bills of impeachment against GW >Bush, Richard Cheney and Condoleeza Rice, but I >do not expect him to do so. I asked him about it >publicly, and he declined. > >All impeachment supporters should try to find >candidates in their congressional districts who >will run for Congress, starting now, against any >incumbents who will not file or support articles >of impeachment immediately to end the wars. I >would welcome challenges from other candidates in >the 5th District who would run pro-impeachment >campaigns (Libertarians, others), and may the >best candidate win. We have only our Constitution >and democratic republic to lose if we do not put >ourselves to these time-proven tests of American >liberty. END > > >PRESS RELEASE: > >Independent Harold H. Burbank, II of Canton, >Connecticut has announced that he will challenge >incumbent Democratic Congressman Chris Murphy for >his 5th District US House Seat in the 2008 >election beginning immediately and run primarily >on the issue of impeaching the Bush >administration for lying America into its current >wars. Burbank, a Canton attorney with an >international law background, began his campaign >in reponse to a challenge from his colleague Dr. >Francis A. Boyle, a renowned international human >rights scholar, teacher and lawyer at the >University of Illinois School of Law, who has >lectured throughout the world that unless the >damage done to our Constitution by the Bush >administration is fully restored by the >impeachment process, the country will devolve >into World War III. > >"It is time to stop kidding ourselves about the >necessity of impeaching this administration so we >can end these illegal wars of aggression, get our >troops home safely, save our treasury, avoid new >wars, and defend our Constitution," Burbank said. >"Chris Murphy refuses to do this. He will not >support Dennis Kucinich's House Resolution 333 to >impeach Richard Cheney and he will not introduce >his own articles. I promise that upon election I >will introduce impeachment articles against any >executive officer who refuses to end the Iraq and >Afghanistan wars begun under President Bush, >refuses to end all US military involvement there, >and refuses to end funding for any vestige of >these illegal and immoral occupations. The >arguments for continuing them are false, do not >serve the interests of average Americans, and >threaten our children's futures with unending >war." > >Burbank's campaign has been endorsed by Dr. >Francis Boyle in a national radio interview, and >by Dr. Robert Bowman, director of the Star Wars >Program during the Reagan administration. Burbank >may be contacted about his campaign at >hburbankii at att.net > > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________ >________ >Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. >http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ >_______________________________________________ >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/ > >------ End of Forwarded Message > > > > > > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tim McKee cell (860) 778-1304 or (860) 643-2282 > National Committee Member of the Green Party(Connecticut) > > > > > > > >--------------------------------- > >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.orgTo 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 >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 From smderosa at cox.net Sun Sep 23 01:03:43 2007 From: smderosa at cox.net (Mike DeRosa) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 01:03:43 -0400 Subject: {news} A candidate??*** US House candidate inConn.'s 5thDistrictargues for impeachment In-Reply-To: References: <870314.47643.qm@web82807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Amy: He just contacted us. I will encourage him to come to one of our SCC meetings to express his opinions and take questions. No one has made any commitments to him. This nomination is his to win or lose. He may or not be the person we want to represent us. He called Ralph Nader, Me, and ran into Richard Duffee because both of them are doing great work around impeachment. I don't know everything about his politics. We have Lots of time to ask lots of questions. 80% of the country may be against the war but they all have different reasons for opposing the war. Some want to get out because we are losing and some of us are opposed to the empire and wars. I think we have to set up a procedure by which we can objectively evaluate candidates. Perhaps you should come up with some of these criteria so that we can fairly and accurately support the best candidates. I think it is a good sign that all these folks are coming forward and we have to make sure that we have ballot access for the candidates that we end up supporting. I hope this will help. If you have any other questions please contact me or Richard Duffee. This is a long process but I think it will get easier as we develop a process that everyone feels comfortable with. Sincerely, Mike DeRosa -----Original Message----- From: ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org [mailto:ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org] On Behalf Of Amy Vas Nunes Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 5:05 PM To: great_land_trust at sbcglobal.net; vogel at ct.metrocast.net; hartfordgreens at yahoogroups.com; ctgp-news at ml.greens.org; greenpartyct at yahoo.com Subject: Re: {news} A candidate??*** US House candidate inConn.'s 5thDistrictargues for impeachment 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 These are my exact questions and more, Where did hre come from is he an I or R and just a Libertarian?What does he do, who is funding him. 80% are against the war we need FAR more then this because the CTGP name is at stake here, Why didn't he come top us or know about us? Amy >From: Colin Bennett >To: Robert Vogel ,HarfordGreens >, ctgp-news at ml.greens.org,Green Party-CT > >Subject: Re: {news} A candidate??*** US House candidate inConn.'s 5th >Districtargues for impeachment >Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:36:10 -0700 (PDT) > >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 >Am I missing something? Is there a reason that we would want this person to >run as a Green Party candidate? Does anybody know anything about him other >than he opposes the war? > >-Colin > >Robert Vogel 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 > Sounds to me like an excellent candidate. Go for it. > > Robert L. Vogel > > www.seconnecticut.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Green Party-CT > To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org ; ElectionsCTGP ; HarfordGreens > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 4:40 PM > Subject: {news} A possible recuirted candidate??*** US House >candidate inConn.'s 5th District argues for impeachment > > >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 > >--------------------------------- > > > >Tim McKee wrote: Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 >13:37:52 -0700 (PDT) >From: Tim McKee >Subject: Fwd: FW: [usgp-dx] US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District >argues for impeachment >To: greenpartyct at yahoo.com > > > >Greg Gerritt wrote: Date: >Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:46:25 -0400 >Subject: FW: [usgp-dx] US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District >argues >for impeachment >From: Greg Gerritt >To: Tim McKee > >How hard are y'all working to recruit him? Anything I can do in my >role as >chair of CCC? greg >------ Forwarded Message >From: Scott McLarty >Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:31:57 -0700 (PDT) >To: >Subject: [usgp-dx] US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District argues >for >impeachment (fwd) > >The author of the essay below, Harold Burbank >, is currently running as an >independent for the US House in Connecticut's 5th >district in the 2008 election. He's seeking >Green Party support, and there's some chance he >might decide to run as a Green, perhaps if he >gets encouragement to do so from Green Party >members. -- Scott > > >Why Won't Chris Murphy Defend and Save Our >Constitution By Impeaching George W. Bush? > >I attended Congressman Murphy's September 13, >2007 town hall meeting in New Britain to ask him >why, given his attorney and congressional oaths >to uphold and defend the US Constitution against >all enemies, foreign and domestic, he would not >do so by moving to impeach an admittedly criminal >administration which savages our Founding Fathers >constitutional design every day; the most obvious >examples of which are the lies and half truths >spewed to maintain the Iraq and Afghanistan wars >of occupation.Congressman Murphy not only failed >to answer my question - he never once used the >word "oath" - but his attempt to obscure his >plain refusal to uphold his oath, with a >meandering pitch about rebuilding and fixing the >Constitution with legislation, was insulting. >Responsible congressmen cannot avoid the Bush >administration's obscene assault on our >fundamental law, our Constitution, on which all >other US law depends, by considering it like a >junk car. The Constitution was not intended to be >"rebuilt", but as the unshakeable foundation of a >democratic and free Republic. It was clear to me >that Congressman Murphy either does not think he >can protect and defend the Constitution, which >his Connecticut law license and congressional >oath demand, or he does not want to. In either >case, we are all at risk of losing our most >sacred American birthright, our Constitution, to >the most criminal administration in US history, >and to congressmen who can, but will not for >their own reasons, save our Constitution for "We, >The People..." > >The current unprecedented level of threat to our >Constitution was not unforeseen by our >forefathers, who as most school children know >wisely formulated a system of checks and balances >between the executive, legislative and judicial >government branches to prevent any one of them >from having the power to destroy the Constitution >and the Republic for which it stands. Our >Founders knew despots would attempt to seize >excessive governmental power, so the Constitution >provides the House of Representatives - the >people's' house - the remedy of initiating >impeachment for any official overreaching their >constitutional powers. > >Congressman Murphy agreed with me that the Bush >administration has overreached. But, because he >thinks new laws can "repair" the Constitution, he >will not impeach the administration for >destroying it. Indeed, save for 20 co-sponsors of >Congressman Dennis Kucinich's House Resolution >333 to impeach Vice President Richard Cheney, the >entire House, and its Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, >refuse to consider impeachment, arguing that they >have a "plan" for the Constitution's safekeeping >superior in wisdom to that of our Founding >Fathers - arguably the wisest men ever assembled >for free government. The Pelosi "plan" is pure >self-interested arrogance to get a Democrat >elected to the 2008 presidency. For this she will >gladly risk our Republic by granting a free pass >to administrative evil - no investigation, >disclosure and prosecution of our constitutional >crisis - in return for the veneer of >constitutional normalcy. Bush's and Pelosi's >Tammany Hall era attitude of "What is the >Constitution among friends?", is in plain view. >What are patriotic Americans to do when faced >with government so corrupt that it will not >defend the Constitution by impeachment? > >As our revolutionary Founders did, Connecticut >citizens must stand up to bullies and cowards who >would enslave them, their country and their >planet for the profit, greed and power. They must >organize their friends and neighbors. They must >petition and protest, and they must find new >candidates for public office, especially the US >House, who will protect them, as the Founders >intended under our Constitution. > >As one speaker, a lawyer, eloquently put it in >New Britain, the Constitution is being destroyed >before our eyes by private US and others >interests who prefer American empire, in Iraq and >worldwide, to American constitutional democracy. >This empire is destroying our Republic, and only >our Congress can save it without, perhaps, a >second American Revolution. The constitutional >mechanism to thwart greed and imperial war by a >president is impeachment. It is the only legal, >civilized power we have to check the madness >before us, and it depends on our US House of >Representatives for its initiation.It is clear >that Congressman Murphy does want to risk taking >on the Bush administration to save the >Constitution. He is satisfied with, and expects >you and me to accept, an unrecognizable >Constitution and Republic. Mr. Murphy said it was >more important to work with a dysfunctional >Congress than to pursue constitutional democracy. >His answers avoided the central questions of harm >to the Constitution itself. You do not have a >constitutional democracy if you must revive its >founding fundamental law. You have government >with no foundation at all. Those like me who >cherish the Constitution consider such thinking >treasonous. Mr. Murphy and the Congress have no >right to ignore damage to the Constitution, nor >to deny us its fundamental protections against an >imperial presidency. > >I implore all readers to search their minds and >hearts on these matters. Constitutional democracy >is not a partisan issue. Your children and their >children may soon realize that unless we get >Congress to impeach, we will have failed to >protect and defend our free society. Congressman >Murphy has admitted that he will not protect and >defend the Constitution from tyrants and >criminals, foreign and domestic. Accordingly, >beginning now, I will run a campaign against him >for his 5th congressional seat in the 2008 >election, and I ask 5th district voters to please >consider supporting my (independent) candidacy >today, based on a commitment to seek impeachment >of executives who fail to end the wars in Iraq >and Afghanistan, and pledge no war in Iran, >Syria, and regional states. I will consider >withdrawing my candidacy if Congressman Murphy >immediately files bills of impeachment against GW >Bush, Richard Cheney and Condoleeza Rice, but I >do not expect him to do so. I asked him about it >publicly, and he declined. > >All impeachment supporters should try to find >candidates in their congressional districts who >will run for Congress, starting now, against any >incumbents who will not file or support articles >of impeachment immediately to end the wars. I >would welcome challenges from other candidates in >the 5th District who would run pro-impeachment >campaigns (Libertarians, others), and may the >best candidate win. We have only our Constitution >and democratic republic to lose if we do not put >ourselves to these time-proven tests of American >liberty. END > > >PRESS RELEASE: > >Independent Harold H. Burbank, II of Canton, >Connecticut has announced that he will challenge >incumbent Democratic Congressman Chris Murphy for >his 5th District US House Seat in the 2008 >election beginning immediately and run primarily >on the issue of impeaching the Bush >administration for lying America into its current >wars. Burbank, a Canton attorney with an >international law background, began his campaign >in reponse to a challenge from his colleague Dr. >Francis A. Boyle, a renowned international human >rights scholar, teacher and lawyer at the >University of Illinois School of Law, who has >lectured throughout the world that unless the >damage done to our Constitution by the Bush >administration is fully restored by the >impeachment process, the country will devolve >into World War III. > >"It is time to stop kidding ourselves about the >necessity of impeaching this administration so we >can end these illegal wars of aggression, get our >troops home safely, save our treasury, avoid new >wars, and defend our Constitution," Burbank said. >"Chris Murphy refuses to do this. He will not >support Dennis Kucinich's House Resolution 333 to >impeach Richard Cheney and he will not introduce >his own articles. I promise that upon election I >will introduce impeachment articles against any >executive officer who refuses to end the Iraq and >Afghanistan wars begun under President Bush, >refuses to end all US military involvement there, >and refuses to end funding for any vestige of >these illegal and immoral occupations. The >arguments for continuing them are false, do not >serve the interests of average Americans, and >threaten our children's futures with unending >war." > >Burbank's campaign has been endorsed by Dr. >Francis Boyle in a national radio interview, and >by Dr. Robert Bowman, director of the Star Wars >Program during the Reagan administration. Burbank >may be contacted about his campaign at >hburbankii at att.net > > > > > > > > >___________________________________________________________________________ _ >________ >Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. >http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ >_______________________________________________ >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/ > >------ End of Forwarded Message > > > > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tim McKee cell (860) 778-1304 or (860) 643-2282 > National Committee Member of the Green Party(Connecticut) > > > > > > > >--------------------------------- > >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.orgTo 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 >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 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 From efficacy at msn.com Sun Sep 23 05:12:56 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 05:12:56 -0400 Subject: {news} Blocking Relief Is Its Own Crime Message-ID: Lets get those letters to the editor going US CT: Column: Blocking Relief Is Its Own Crime URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n1087/a07.html Newshawk: Educators For Sensible Drug Policy: http://www.efsdp.org Votes: 0 Pubdate: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 Source: Hartford Courant (CT) Copyright: 2007 The Hartford Courant Contact: letters at courant.com Website: http://www.courant.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/183 Author: Rick Green Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Marijuana) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?232 (Chronic Pain) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/oxycontin.htm (Oxycontin/Oxycodone) BLOCKING RELIEF IS ITS OWN CRIME Beth is a middle-aged mother and wife, a talented cook and a very private marijuana smoker. It provides some relief from the chronic pain she's suffered for decades due to a variety of illnesses. Beth, who is wafer thin, is often overcome by bouts of nausea that are relieved only by smoking a little grass. For all you know, she might be your neighbor. The hundreds of others in Connecticut who have turned to reefer to relieve chronic pain also include Todd, who lights up a joint every night. He hopes to deaden some of the pain that still grips him 20 years after he wrapped a '69 Camaro around a utility pole and a traumatic brain injury changed his life. As with Beth, pot is the only thing that deadens his searing discomfort. Todd says his foot pain - think of a ball-peen hammer smashing your toes - never leaves. I sought out Beth and Todd because I still don't know what to make of Gov. M. Jodi Rell's confusing statement last June that she understood the "pain and heartbreak" but couldn't support a bill approved by the legislature for the limited, regulated use of marijuana for medical purposes. Allowing dying and chronically ill people a little relief would send "the wrong message" to "our youth," Rell and other opponents said. I thought of this when I sat with Beth, who wouldn't let me use her real name, and she told me how staying alive means calming the nausea so she can eat, so she can be a mother to her children. "If I go into my bedroom right now and smoke my pot so I can then have a sandwich," Beth explained, "I'm doing what I have to do to try to gain weight so I can stay alive." What kind of message will it send to Beth's children if she dies or can't do her job as a mother? Yes, she could take OxyContin, a legal, much-abused narcotic. It leaves her doubled over with nausea and unable to function. Rell said she was "troubled" that the bill would have forced "law-abiding citizens to seek out drug dealers to make their marijuana purchases." The reality is that Todd and Beth and dozens of others are already risking everything to buy their pot now. The bill Rell vetoed would have allowed these people to legally grow their own. That's all. "It makes me feel like I'm a criminal. It worries me that I have to be watching my back - or have the federal government knocking on my door," said Todd, who is unemployed because of the pain from his injuries. The federal Drug Enforcement Administration is still arresting people trying to provide the sick with marijuana, but 12 states have had more courage than Connecticut, enacting laws that allow the sick to smoke. "The federal government is flat-out wrong," said state Rep. Penny Bacchiochi, a Republican from Somers. "Talk to AIDS patients, people who go into chemotherapy. If it is somebody you love, you would say there is a need for it." "The states need to take things in their own hands," said Bacchiochi, whose husband used marijuana before he died of cancer. "We have the right to decide who we put in jail." Meanwhile, the governor has moved on. Legislators couldn't muster the courage to challenge her veto. But those in debilitating, puke-your-guts-out pain, they haven't stopped smoking. They're still terrified they'll be arrested, lose their jobs, homes and privacy. "I have to live the rest of my life," said Todd, who is 41. "I'm going to be in severe pain. Why shouldn't I be afforded the opportunity so I don't have to experience the pain?" Sorry Todd, sorry Beth. Our political leaders don't feel your pain. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake 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 justinemccabe at earthlink.net Sun Sep 23 11:26:25 2007 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:26:25 -0400 Subject: {news} GP RELEASE Greens rip Clinton's 'cynical' corporate-subsidy health plan Message-ID: <0eca01c7fdf6$60166110$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES http://www.gp.org For Immediate Release: Monday, September 24, 2007 Contacts: Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, mclarty at greens.org Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene at gp.org Greens call Sen. Clinton's health care mandate proposal a 'fraudulent, cynical, cruel' affront to Americans who need coverage . Dem plans are really billion-dollar subsidies for HMO-insurance campaign contributors, say Greens . Greens appeal to Dems who support Single-Payer/Medicare For All: America will not get real universal health care until some Greens get into Congress WASHINGTON, DC -- Green Party leaders strongly criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton's health care reform plan, calling it a capitulation to private HMO and insurance corporations and an affront to Americans who lack adequate access to health care. "Senator Clinton's $110-billion-per-year 'mandatory coverage' plan amounts to a gigantic subsidy for the HMO-insurance industry, while shifting the burden -- and the blame for lack of coverage -- onto people who desperately need health care," said John Battista, MD, former Green candidate for state representative in Connecticut and co-author of his state's single-payer legislation in 1999 (the Connecticut Health Care Security Act). "As Michael Moore's documentary 'Sicko' showed, predatory insurance companies are the reason for America's health crisis, with 47 million uninsured and millions more whose coverage doesn't give them adequate treatment," added Dr. Battista. "Ms. Clinton's solution is to reward these companies for their greed, giving them more money. Ms. Clinton has been Congress's top recipient of money from the insurance industry [source: Center for Responsive Politics, ], which explains her dedication to corporate insurance and HMO profits." The Green Party supports a Single-Payer national health plan, also called 'Medicare For All,' similar to the Canadian system, which would guarantee every American health care regardless of age, income, employment, or prior medical condition; allow choice of health care provider; provide low-cost or no-cost treatment and prescriptions (including certain forms of alternative medicine); and cost low- and middle-income Americans far less than they now pay for private or employer-based coverage by eliminating insurance and HMO company overhead. Greens called Sen. Clinton's and other Democratic plans expensive and inefficient because of the duplication of administrative costs of multiple plans and because they offer fewer services in deference to profits. The US currently spends more that twice what other industrialized nations spend on health care: $7,129 per capita -- which would change only minimally under the Democratic plans. For more on Green health care positions, visit . For health care leaders in the Green Party Speakers Bureau, visit . "America doesn't need 'mandatory' coverage, America needs guaranteed health care," said Linda Manning Myatt, Michigan Green and spokesperson for the National Women's Caucus. "Unfortunately, all of the Democratic presidential candidates, except for Dennis Kucinich, are pandering for their insurance lobby friends. They care more about profits for their campaign contributors than about health care for the American people. Sen. Barack Obama has even admitted that his plan would sustain HMOs and insurance firms. Calling the Democrats' proposals 'universal health care' is fraudulent, cynical, and cruel." Green leaders claim that Ms. Clinton promoted a disastrous reform plan in 1993, under her husband's administration, and has introduced an even worse plan in 2007. Greens have insisted that fair and accurate discussion of Single-Payer/Medicare For All be included in the media debate over health care. "The only political party that supports Single-Payer Medicare For All is the Green Party," said Connecticut Green Justine McCabe, PhD, a psychologist and co-chair of the Green Party's International Committee. "We demand that the Green Party and Green candidates and other Single-Payer supporters be allowed to participate in the health care debate. Just as urgently, we need to get a few Greens elected to Congress. A few Green wins in congressional races in 2008 will jolt more Dems and even some Republicans into backing Single-Payer." "Progressive Democrats and others who say they favor Single-Payer need to understand this point. American will not get Single-Payer until a non-corporate third party -- the Green Party -- gains a presence in Congress. If progressive, pro-Single-Payer Democrats insist on supporting Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or other corporate Democrats in the 2008 race, then they will be complicit in keeping Single-Payer off the table for years to come," said Dr. McCabe. 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/ "Seeking Coverage For All" By John R. Battista and Justine McCabe (Green Party members), The Hartford Courant, October 31, 2006 http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/november/seeking_coverage_for.php "Health Reform Failure" By Steffie Woolhandler and David U. Himmelstein, The Boston Globe, September 17, 2007 http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/17/health_reform_failure/ http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/17/3905/ Physicians for a National Health Program http://www.pnhp.org ~ END ~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apbrison at hotmail.com Sun Sep 23 12:16:45 2007 From: apbrison at hotmail.com (allan brison) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:16:45 -0400 Subject: {news} news} A candidate??*** US House candidate inConn.'s5thDistrictargues for impeachment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efficacy at msn.com Sun Sep 23 12:29:35 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:29:35 -0400 Subject: {news} news} A candidate??*** US House candidate inConn.'s5thDistrictargues for impeachment References: Message-ID: I myself agree with Allen's approach. ----- Original Message ----- From: allan brison To: smderosa at cox.net ; amyvasnunes at hotmail.com ; great_land_trust at sbcglobal.net ; vogel at ct.metrocast.net ; hartfordgreens at yahoogroups.com ; ctgp-news at ml.greens.org ; greenpartyct at yahoo.com Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 12:16 PM Subject: {news} news} A candidate??*** US House candidate inConn.'s5thDistrictargues for impeachment 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 Mike, I think your comments are right on. The question of who to endorse cuts right to the core of some of the difficulties of Green Party politics. I see two issues here. First, should our candidates first have to prove their mettle by paying their dues as Green Party activists, or should we welcome those who have proven themselves as activists outside the party in their chosen issue area? I feel that we should encourage and welcome issue activists into the party as members and, if they are interested in running, as candidates. Once having established the legitimacy, in principle, of outside activists joining our party to run for electoral office, we then come to the second question. Are their views close enough to Green Party key values? In my opinion this is where the discussion properly belongs. It can also be a difficult question. We are not, and don't want to be, a totally autocratic party with a strict party line. We want to have room for a wide range of diversity. Each of us, however, has our own benchmark for what kind of diversity is acceptible. I would not be able, for example, to endorse a candidate who approved of US premptive wars of conquest. There are other issues where I might look the other way if the candidate was solid on most of our (my) issues. But we all have our own priorities of what may or may not be acceptible. This is where the discussion should take place. I would be very disappointed if, instead, we accept or reject a potential candidate purely on the basis of whether he came from inside or outside the party. Allan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Mike DeRosa" To: "'Amy Vas Nunes'" ,, ,, , Subject: RE: {news} A candidate??*** US House candidate inConn.'s5thDistrictargues for impeachment Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 01:03:43 -0400 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 Amy: He just contacted us. I will encourage him to come to one of our SCC meetings to express his opinions and take questions. No one has made any commitments to him. This nomination is his to win or lose. He may or not be the person we want to represent us. He called Ralph Nader, Me, and ran into Richard Duffee because both of them are doing great work around impeachment. I don't know everything about his politics. We have Lots of time to ask lots of questions. 80% of the country may be against the war but they all have different reasons for opposing the war. Some want to get out because we are losing and some of us are opposed to the empire and wars. I think we have to set up a procedure by which we can objectively evaluate candidates. Perhaps you should come up with some of these criteria so that we can fairly and accurately support the best candidates. I think it is a good sign that all these folks are coming forward and we have to make sure that we have ballot access for the candidates that we end up supporting. I hope this will help. If you have any other questions please contact me or Richard Duffee. This is a long process but I think it will get easier as we develop a process that everyone feels comfortable with. Sincerely, Mike DeRosa -----Original Message----- From: ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org [mailto:ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org] On Behalf Of Amy Vas Nunes Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 5:05 PM To: great_land_trust at sbcglobal.net; vogel at ct.metrocast.net; hartfordgreens at yahoogroups.com; ctgp-news at ml.greens.org; greenpartyct at yahoo.com Subject: Re: {news} A candidate??*** US House candidate inConn.'s 5thDistrictargues for impeachment 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 These are my exact questions and more, Where did hre come from is he an I or R and just a Libertarian?What does he do, who is funding him. 80% are against the war we need FAR more then this because the CTGP name is at stake here, Why didn't he come top us or know about us? Amy >From: Colin Bennett >To: Robert Vogel ,HarfordGreens >, ctgp-news at ml.greens.org,Green Party-CT > >Subject: Re: {news} A candidate??*** US House candidate inConn.'s 5th >Districtargues for impeachment >Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:36:10 -0700 (PDT) > >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 >Am I missing something? Is there a reason that we would want this person to >run as a Green Party candidate? Does anybody know anything about him other >than he opposes the war? > >-Colin > >Robert Vogel 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 > Sounds to me like an excellent candidate. Go for it. > > Robert L. Vogel > > www.seconnecticut.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Green Party-CT > To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org ; ElectionsCTGP ; HarfordGreens > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 4:40 PM > Subject: {news} A possible recuirted candidate??*** US House >candidate inConn.'s 5th District argues for impeachment > > >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 > >--------------------------------- > > > >Tim McKee wrote: Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 >13:37:52 -0700 (PDT) >From: Tim McKee >Subject: Fwd: FW: [usgp-dx] US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District >argues for impeachment >To: greenpartyct at yahoo.com > > > >Greg Gerritt wrote: Date: >Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:46:25 -0400 >Subject: FW: [usgp-dx] US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District >argues >for impeachment >From: Greg Gerritt >To: Tim McKee > >How hard are y'all working to recruit him? Anything I can do in my >role as >chair of CCC? greg >------ Forwarded Message >From: Scott McLarty >Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:31:57 -0700 (PDT) >To: >Subject: [usgp-dx] US House candidate in Conn.'s 5th District argues >for >impeachment (fwd) > >The author of the essay below, Harold Burbank >, is currently running as an >independent for the US House in Connecticut's 5th >district in the 2008 election. He's seeking >Green Party support, and there's some chance he >might decide to run as a Green, perhaps if he >gets encouragement to do so from Green Party >members. -- Scott > > >Why Won't Chris Murphy Defend and Save Our >Constitution By Impeaching George W. Bush? > >I attended Congressman Murphy's September 13, >2007 town hall meeting in New Britain to ask him >why, given his attorney and congressional oaths >to uphold and defend the US Constitution against >all enemies, foreign and domestic, he would not >do so by moving to impeach an admittedly criminal >administration which savages our Founding Fathers >constitutional design every day; the most obvious >examples of which are the lies and half truths >spewed to maintain the Iraq and Afghanistan wars >of occupation.Congressman Murphy not only failed >to answer my question - he never once used the >word "oath" - but his attempt to obscure his >plain refusal to uphold his oath, with a >meandering pitch about rebuilding and fixing the >Constitution with legislation, was insulting. >Responsible congressmen cannot avoid the Bush >administration's obscene assault on our >fundamental law, our Constitution, on which all >other US law depends, by considering it like a >junk car. The Constitution was not intended to be >"rebuilt", but as the unshakeable foundation of a >democratic and free Republic. It was clear to me >that Congressman Murphy either does not think he >can protect and defend the Constitution, which >his Connecticut law license and congressional >oath demand, or he does not want to. In either >case, we are all at risk of losing our most >sacred American birthright, our Constitution, to >the most criminal administration in US history, >and to congressmen who can, but will not for >their own reasons, save our Constitution for "We, >The People..." > >The current unprecedented level of threat to our >Constitution was not unforeseen by our >forefathers, who as most school children know >wisely formulated a system of checks and balances >between the executive, legislative and judicial >government branches to prevent any one of them >from having the power to destroy the Constitution >and the Republic for which it stands. Our >Founders knew despots would attempt to seize >excessive governmental power, so the Constitution >provides the House of Representatives - the >people's' house - the remedy of initiating >impeachment for any official overreaching their >constitutional powers. > >Congressman Murphy agreed with me that the Bush >administration has overreached. But, because he >thinks new laws can "repair" the Constitution, he >will not impeach the administration for >destroying it. Indeed, save for 20 co-sponsors of >Congressman Dennis Kucinich's House Resolution >333 to impeach Vice President Richard Cheney, the >entire House, and its Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, >refuse to consider impeachment, arguing that they >have a "plan" for the Constitution's safekeeping >superior in wisdom to that of our Founding >Fathers - arguably the wisest men ever assembled >for free government. The Pelosi "plan" is pure >self-interested arrogance to get a Democrat >elected to the 2008 presidency. For this she will >gladly risk our Republic by granting a free pass >to administrative evil - no investigation, >disclosure and prosecution of our constitutional >crisis - in return for the veneer of >constitutional normalcy. Bush's and Pelosi's >Tammany Hall era attitude of "What is the >Constitution among friends?", is in plain view. >What are patriotic Americans to do when faced >with government so corrupt that it will not >defend the Constitution by impeachment? > >As our revolutionary Founders did, Connecticut >citizens must stand up to bullies and cowards who >would enslave them, their country and their >planet for the profit, greed and power. They must >organize their friends and neighbors. They must >petition and protest, and they must find new >candidates for public office, especially the US >House, who will protect them, as the Founders >intended under our Constitution. > >As one speaker, a lawyer, eloquently put it in >New Britain, the Constitution is being destroyed >before our eyes by private US and others >interests who prefer American empire, in Iraq and >worldwide, to American constitutional democracy. >This empire is destroying our Republic, and only >our Congress can save it without, perhaps, a >second American Revolution. The constitutional >mechanism to thwart greed and imperial war by a >president is impeachment. It is the only legal, >civilized power we have to check the madness >before us, and it depends on our US House of >Representatives for its initiation.It is clear >that Congressman Murphy does want to risk taking >on the Bush administration to save the >Constitution. He is satisfied with, and expects >you and me to accept, an unrecognizable >Constitution and Republic. Mr. Murphy said it was >more important to work with a dysfunctional >Congress than to pursue constitutional democracy. >His answers avoided the central questions of harm >to the Constitution itself. You do not have a >constitutional democracy if you must revive its >founding fundamental law. You have government >with no foundation at all. Those like me who >cherish the Constitution consider such thinking >treasonous. Mr. Murphy and the Congress have no >right to ignore damage to the Constitution, nor >to deny us its fundamental protections against an >imperial presidency. > >I implore all readers to search their minds and >hearts on these matters. Constitutional democracy >is not a partisan issue. Your children and their >children may soon realize that unless we get >Congress to impeach, we will have failed to >protect and defend our free society. Congressman >Murphy has admitted that he will not protect and >defend the Constitution from tyrants and >criminals, foreign and domestic. Accordingly, >beginning now, I will run a campaign against him >for his 5th congressional seat in the 2008 >election, and I ask 5th district voters to please >consider supporting my (independent) candidacy >today, based on a commitment to seek impeachment >of executives who fail to end the wars in Iraq >and Afghanistan, and pledge no war in Iran, >Syria, and regional states. I will consider >withdrawing my candidacy if Congressman Murphy >immediately files bills of impeachment against GW >Bush, Richard Cheney and Condoleeza Rice, but I >do not expect him to do so. I asked him about it >publicly, and he declined. > >All impeachment supporters should try to find >candidates in their congressional districts who >will run for Congress, starting now, against any >incumbents who will not file or support articles >of impeachment immediately to end the wars. I >would welcome challenges from other candidates in >the 5th District who would run pro-impeachment >campaigns (Libertarians, others), and may the >best candidate win. We have only our Constitution >and democratic republic to lose if we do not put >ourselves to these time-proven tests of American >liberty. END > > >PRESS RELEASE: > >Independent Harold H. Burbank, II of Canton, >Connecticut has announced that he will challenge >incumbent Democratic Congressman Chris Murphy for >his 5th District US House Seat in the 2008 >election beginning immediately and run primarily >on the issue of impeaching the Bush >administration for lying America into its current >wars. Burbank, a Canton attorney with an >international law background, began his campaign >in reponse to a challenge from his colleague Dr. >Francis A. Boyle, a renowned international human >rights scholar, teacher and lawyer at the >University of Illinois School of Law, who has >lectured throughout the world that unless the >damage done to our Constitution by the Bush >administration is fully restored by the >impeachment process, the country will devolve >into World War III. > >"It is time to stop kidding ourselves about the >necessity of impeaching this administration so we >can end these illegal wars of aggression, get our >troops home safely, save our treasury, avoid new >wars, and defend our Constitution," Burbank said. >"Chris Murphy refuses to do this. He will not >support Dennis Kucinich's House Resolution 333 to >impeach Richard Cheney and he will not introduce >his own articles. I promise that upon election I >will introduce impeachment articles against any >executive officer who refuses to end the Iraq and >Afghanistan wars begun under President Bush, >refuses to end all US military involvement there, >and refuses to end funding for any vestige of >these illegal and immoral occupations. The >arguments for continuing them are false, do not >serve the interests of average Americans, and >threaten our children's futures with unending >war." > >Burbank's campaign has been endorsed by Dr. >Francis Boyle in a national radio interview, and >by Dr. Robert Bowman, director of the Star Wars >Program during the Reagan administration. Burbank >may be contacted about his campaign at >hburbankii at att.net > > > > > > > > >___________________________________________________________________________ _ >________ >Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. >http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ >_______________________________________________ >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/ > >------ End of Forwarded Message > > > > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tim McKee cell (860) 778-1304 or (860) 643-2282 > National Committee Member of the Green Party(Connecticut) > > > > > > > >--------------------------------- > >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.orgTo 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 >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 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 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Share your special parenting moments! 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 Sun Sep 23 21:14:49 2007 From: chapillsbury at gmail.com (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:14:49 -0400 Subject: {news} Fwd: [usgp-nc] GPUS NC Draft Proposal to Commemorate the 6th Year Anniversary of the US Congress Authorized US Invasion, Bombing, and Occupation of Afghanistan In-Reply-To: <20070923191247.A408E2D3BA@six.pairlist.net> References: <20070923191247.A408E2D3BA@six.pairlist.net> Message-ID: <10859a090709231814u3ea9b19w289e8aa93ce0d2ce@mail.gmail.com> fyi, c. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: henry duke Date: Sep 23, 2007 3:12 PM Subject: [usgp-nc] GPUS NC Draft Proposal to Commemorate the 6th Year Anniversary of the US Congress Authorized US Invasion, Bombing, and Occupation of Afghanistan To: NC Draft Proposal to Commemorate the 6th Year Anniversary of the US Congress Authorized US Invasion, Bombing,and Occupation of Afghanistan [there follows an addenda of a recently documented civilian massacre there by US precision bombs and air support] ****************************** Whereas the Geneva Conventions on War Article 48 states: "The Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants." Whereas the Geneva Conventions on War Article 50 adds: "The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilian does not deprive the population of its civilian character." Whereas the official CRS Congressional Report released two months ago on July 16th, 2007 demonstrated that Congressional budget authority for the War in Afghanistan between 2006 and 2007 went up from FY2006 18.9 billion US dollars to FY2007 36.9 billion US dollars -- a 95 percent increase while the Iraq surge, overlapping the same time period went from 101.7 to 135.2 billion dollars, represented a 3 fold less increase of 33 percent; And, Whereas the United States and NATO aerial bombing in Afghanistan is clearly violating Articles 48 and 50 of the Geneva Conventions on War and hence the parties are guilty of war crimes; with civilian casualties conservatively in the tens to hundreds of thousands and US Military Ally Deaths in the thousands; Be it resolved that a consensus of the GPUS National Committee calls upon as many organs and individuals of our sister and fraternal friends in the Peace, Justice, Green, and, anti-terrorist movements to organize actions, teach-ins, and media events on or around October 7th, the 6th year anniversary of the US Congressional Authorized War against Afghanistan. And be it further resolved, that a consensus of the GPUS National Committee endorses the call for: 1) A complete withdrawal of US and NATO armed forces out of Afghanistan, 2) Investigation into war crimes for the planners of the war, and 3) Reparations to be determined by a US and NATO ? independent international body, to be distributed by local states so that Afghanistan can begin to rebuild and heal from the foreign-imported violence which has driven local forces away from democracy, human rights, and back towards the US-armed Taliban. ********** 'Bomber McNeill' reveals the 'Cheapness' of Afghan lives: the massacre in Haydarabad, Helmand by Marc W. Herold Departments of Economics Whittemore School of Business & Economics University of New Hampshire POSTED AUGUST 7, 2007 -- On the evening of June 29, 2007, besieged U.S. and Afghan troops called-in close air support (CAS). The results were devastating, tantamount to a massacre.1 Between 50 ? 130 innocent Afghan civilians reportedly perished and countless others were injured in the night-time aerial assault upon the little village of Haydarabad located next to the Helmand River, about 15 kilometers northeast of the town of Gereshk. Taliban resistance fighters attacked a joint U.S-Afghan military convoy. Two U.S. military vehicles were blown up by mines after which resistance fighters opened up with gunfire and rockets. The U.S. occupation forces then called in close air support (CAS) which bombed the village of Haydarabad for at least two full hours (10 ? 12 PM, or 17:30 ? 19:30 GMT), killing many people including women, men, children, Taliban fighters, etc. Five to six houses were completely obliterated. The U.S. corporate mainstream press refuses to publish photos of U.S. "precision" bombs' civilian victims. The following photos, however, put a "face" to the collateral damage which gets glibly excused away by U.S. military spokespersons uttering the usual platitude of "sincere regrets." Mohammad Khan, a resident of Haydarabad, lost seven family members. Scores were injured. The above photos show injured civilians at a hospital in Lashkar Gah. The photo below, taken by Reuters' photographer, Abdul Qodos, shows an Afghan girl (injured by U.S. "precision" bombs) in the Bost hospital in Lashkar Gah. The increasingly used excuse by the U.S and NATO militaries and their all too numerous civilian acolytes, is that the Taliban are responsible for these civilian deaths because they hide in villages. Anyone vaguely familiar with the techniques of guerrilla warfare knows that resistance fighters mingle amongst the population. That population needs to be respected and served, as described in Mao's famous pamphlet Serve the People. The Algerian national liberation fighters fought the French in urban areas (as depicted in the movie The Battle of Algiers). And, the Brazilian guerrilla leader, Carlos Marighela, argued for similar tactics in his famous Mini-manual of Urban Guerrilla Warfare.2 Can anyone take seriously these claims by the U.S/NATO militaries? What are we to expect? That the Taliban will congregate out in the open of the Helmand desert and fire RPGs at Apache attack helicopters or A-10 Warthogs or Canadian tanks? Rather than fight it out on the ground, U.S./NATO forces call-in close air support thereby saving their lives at the expense of putting innocent Afghans in the village at much greater risk. Who is endangering whom? Initial on-the-ground reports underestimated the carnage. A resident and farmer, Nur Ali, told Agence France-Presse (AFP) that over 30 villagers including women and children were killed while trying to flee the village after the first strike, adding, "more high-flying planes came and they started bombing those escaping the village, bombing houses." Another man from the area, Feda Mohammad, told AFP more than 100 civilians were killed and wounded: "Six house have been bombed, three of them have been reduced to rubble. People are still busy bringing out the dead from under the rubble, there are funerals at various places." "Our initial investigations show that 30 civilians, including women, children and men, have been killed," said Dur Alisha, the mayor of Girishk district in the southern province of Helmand. "I cannot say anything about Taliban casualties. The number of civilians killed is 30, plus or minus one," the mayor told AFP by telephone. A day later, the civilian death toll caused by the intense CAS bombing was officially put at 45-65, or 50-80 dead villagers. On July 1st, Griff Witte (known for his independent reporting) cited in The Washington Post different local reports: "More than 100 people have been killed. But they weren't Taliban. The Taliban were far away from there," said Wali Khan, a member of parliament who represents the area. "The people are already unhappy with the government. But these kinds of killings of civilians will cause people to revolt against the government." Another parliament member from Helmand, Mahmood Anwar, said that the death toll was close to 100 and that the dead included women and children. "Very few Taliban were killed," he said.3 The independent Pajhwok Afghan News (06/30/07) put the civilian death toll at 130, citing residents and local officials.4 The Canadian journalist Graeme Smith wrote, Villagers say they heard the fighting and fled toward a makeshift camp in a barren area. They had hoped to get away from the trees and vineyards where Taliban might hide, they said, because they didn't want to get caught in the crossfire. "This is what usually happens during the fighting: The people run to the desert," said Khudai Dad, 50, a wealthy landowner from Hyderabad (sic). Two tractors were pulling carts loaded with families trying to escape when they were hit with bombs, villagers said. Some accounts said a sedan was also caught in the blasts. "I saw many women and children with their heads, legs, arms, separated from their bodies," Mr. Dad said. "I saw tractors burned, and women and children were burned in their seats ... some of them, we couldn't tell if they were men or women."5 Accounts by two members of parliament from Helmand painted a grisly picture, putting the civilian toll at 100 or more. "People tried to escape from the area with their cars, trucks and tractors, and the coalition airplanes bombed them because they thought they were the enemy fleeing," said Hajji Zahir, a tribal elder. "They told me that they had buried 170 bodies so far." Hajji Assadullah, another elder, told of 35 villagers, fleeing in a tractor-trailer, who were hit by an air strike. "There were only two survivors, an old man and his son, and the son was seriously injured, and I saw them with my own eyes," he said. Dr. Ainaytullah Ghafari, head of Gereshk Hospital, said he treated three children from one family. "They had lost seven relatives," Ghafari said. "The bombs hit houses and people ran in order to survive. Most of the victims were women and children. About 60 to 65 civilians have been killed in Kakaran village." Haji Dur Alishah, mayor of the Gereshk district, said to the Deutsche Press Agentur (DPA) that "local villagers were so angry that they did not let our investigating team really find out the number of civilian casualties." The U.S. propaganda office initially said that more than two dozen Taliban were killed in two separate engagements in the area Friday, hoping the whole story would go away. NATO announced the dead civilians amounted to a dozen at most. The Associated Press (as expected) came to the rescue of the U.S. military on July 1st, proclaiming that "62 Taliban, 45 civilians" were killed. Is the U.S. military more credible than locals, the AFP, Reuters, Pajhwok News, and the DPA? On the night of June 20th, a similar U.S/NATO bombing attack which killed 25-36 civilians was carried out upon the village of De Adam Khan, some 14 kms north of Lashkar Gah.6 Three days later, the puppet mayor of Kabul, Hamid Karzai, had whined to the world press about civilians killed by "careless" U.S./NATO actions as in De Adam Khan, "Afghan life is not cheap and it should not be treated as such." Less than a week later in Haydarabad, U.S./NATO actions proved him wrong (and underlined Karzai's complete irrelevance): possibly 100 civilians were killed in the aerial assault of Haydarabad, Helmand Province. Afghan lives were once again revealed as being expendable and cheap, a fact I have documented elsewhere.7 No amount of "sincere regrets" can change that reality. The American general commanding NATO in Afghanistan, Dan McNeill, is increasingly being dubbed "Bomber McNeill." But as Simon Jenkins (02/07/2007) famously wrote, "a relative killed or a village destroyed only fertilizes the desire for revenge. 'One dead Pashtun recruits 10 Taliban,' is not an idle threat."8 "All the people in this area will start jihad against the foreign troops," said Haji Nazar Mohammed, 50, a small-time farmer in Haydarabad who claimed to have lost dozens of relatives. By declaring jihad, or holy war, against the foreign soldiers, the villagers would commit themselves to helping the Taliban.9 -- 30 -- Footnotes 1. I have borrowed the term "Bomber McNeill" which refers to the American General Dan McNeill, current leader of NATO occupation forces in Afghanistan, from The Economist (see here). The designation alludes to the (in)famous British commander of the Royal Air Force Bomber Command during World War II, Sir Arthur 'Bomber' Harris (1892-1984). 2. See the website devoted to Carlos Marighela who "died for Brazil," here. 3. Griff Witte and Javed Hamdard, "Civilians Die in U.S.-NATO Air Assault in Afghanistan," Washington Post Foreign Service (July 1, 2007): A16. 4. In "More Than 130 Afghan Civilians Dead in Coalition Airstrike," Pajhwok Afghan News (June 30, 2007). 5. Graeme Smith, "How Taliban Exploit Civilian Casualties," The Globe & Mail (July 2, 2007). 6. Details on incidents in which Afghan civilians have died at the hands of U.S./NATO actions may be found at my Afghan Victim Memorial Project. 7. In my "The Value of a Dead Afghan. Revealed and Relative," Cursor.org (July 21, 2002). 8. Simon Jenkins, "'This Aerial Onslaught is War at Its Most Stupid'," The Guardian (February 7, 2007). 9. Graeme Smith, op. cit. _______________________________________________ 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/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roseberry3 at cox.net Tue Sep 25 01:00:03 2007 From: roseberry3 at cox.net (B Barry) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:00:03 -0400 Subject: {news} Minutes of the 7-31-07 SCC meeting of the Green Party of CT Message-ID: <20070925045909.IRAV17355.eastrmmtao104.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> Minutes of the 7-31-07 SCC meeting of the Green Party of CT. Time: 7PM to 9PM Place: Portland Senior Center. 7 Waverly Avenue, Portland, CT 06480 Phone: 860-342-6760 Voting Attendees by chapter: Central: Vic Lancia and Beth Adams; Fairfield: Paul Bassler, David Bedell; Greater Hartford: Barbara Barry, Secretary of GP of CT, Michael DeRosa, a Co-chairperson of GP of CT, Steve Fournier, Martha Kelly, Christopher Reilly, Treasure of GP of CT; New London: Kenric Hanson, Ronna Stuller, Northeast: Jean deSmet, a Co-chairperson of GP of CT, Amy Vas Nunes; Tim McKee. Facilitator: Jean deSmet A. Preliminaries: 1. Introductions of voting attendees; chapters; quorum; timekeeper=Vic Lancia; ground rules. 2. Approval of tonight?s proposed agenda without deletions. Additions: Hope Out Loud tabling 9-9-07. 3. Approval of minutes of 6-26-07 SCC meeting. 4. Acceptance of minutes from the 7-23-07 EC meeting. 5. Treasurer?s report by Christopher Reilly: $425.00 was paid to Global Payments, as per contract, to exit from their on-line donation contract. Reason for exiting the contract: typical monthly cost was more to have this contract than were received in donations. The original contract entered in by the prior GP of CT Treasurer, Judy Hekimer, was not forwarded to me so I did not have the contract to reaffirm what the company indicated. B. Any proposals/referendums by chapters, committee or members. EC Proposal for fundraiser position: The Green party of Connecticut is seeking an energetic, self-motivated person to raise funds from its member?s state wide. This independent contractor will be asked to work a minimum of 8 hours a week contacting potential contributors by phone, email and/or in person. The position requires good verbal communication skills and knowledge of Green Party political sensibilities. This person must be well-versed about state and federal fundraising regulations and requirements and will discuss all potential financial transactions with the Treasurer of the Green Party of CT and transfer all funds within 48hours of receipt. The person hired will be asked to phone potential donors from provided lists. He/She will be asked to develop, with the assistance of the Project Coordinator, a script that will draw basic information from the potential contributor and lead into a request for monetary support. The completion of a brief form after each call will be required. The person will act and collaborate about fundraisers with any local chapter of the GP of CT. Periodic progress reviews with the Project Coordinator will be scheduled to modify the script and make other improvements to the program. Compensation will be based on experience, ability, and effective fund raising efforts. Please send resume to: Green Party of CT, P.O. Box 231214, Hartford, CT 06123 Consensus: a) Suggested places for advertising for this position: websites: GP of CT; CT Job Bank, Idealist.org, monster.com, CT Dept. of Labor, Craigs list and school websites. Mike DeRosa and Martha Kelly will work to advertise the position. b)They are allotted up to $100 for the cost of ads e.g. Advocate. C) The EC will vet the candidates and select finalists to the SCC. C. Reports: 1. 7-12-07 GPUS Meeting in Reading, PA; CTGP representatives: Tim McKee: some GPUS co-chairpersons and the secretary were elected. Former Congressional Representative from Georgia, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader were among the speakers. Both are considering running as a presidential or vice-presidential candidate for the GP in 2009. Ms. McKinney has visited and spoken to some GP state groups and is planning to come to New England soon. The Libertarians are interested in having a joint candidate for president. Perception is that the Green Parties are looking forward, would like a nationally recognized presidential candidate; run full out in all 50 states and not fold; have a candidate who can get 5% so GPUS will be eligible for federal campaign funds. International Greens were represented but not limited to: Canada ,Europe, New Zealand and Nepal. Ralph Nader urged every state to have a GP office and paid staff. MD: Richard Duffy and myself participated in a group of 25 people re: resolutions to impeach Bush/ Cheney.which the GPUS is actively promoting. Goal is to have at least one state legislature pass a Resolution for Impeachment. Then a Senator from that state can enter it into the Senate for the Senatorial process for impeachment can begin. Note: VT state legislature was one vote short of passing an impeachment resolution. Ballot access issues are still hurdles. Example: Ralph Nader is still trying to pay individuals in Pennsylvania from his last run for president because a PA judge required him to do so even though it is not PA law. Cliff Thornton spoke at meetings. AVN: Greens lost ballot access in 5 states when David Cobb was the Presidential Candidate in 2006. Discussed the following candidates for CT delegates to the various GPUS Standing Committees (total of 3 CT Greens can be a voting member of each Standing Committee): Tim McKee for Green Pages newspaper; Colin Bennett for Diversity; Michael Westerfield for Ecoaction; Richard Duffee was reaffirmed for the International Committee and GPAX Committee; Amy Vas Nunes for the International Committee and the Platform Committee. David Bedell for the Campaign Coordinating Committee; S. Michael DeRosa for GPAX Committee. Vote: Approval of all candidates in one vote: 9 were for the candidates; 2 against; 2 abstentions. 2. Feedback from the Process and Policy Proposals presented at the 6-26-07 SCC meeting. BB: Jerry Martin is not here so we do not know what has been presented for changes. Consensus: Defer discussion. 3. Political issues the GP of CT has addressed during the 2008 Legislative Session: Fight the Hike is still meeting and plans to present their concerns to the 2008 Legislature. 4. Distribution of the CT Green Times newspaper was done. MD: articles are needed for future publications. Consensus: reimburse Eric DeVos $100.00 for the ink to print the newspaper. 5. Possible loss of one of our website: ctgreens.com. CR: tried to register it for the GP of CT but that domain name has gone to an unknown individual. That individual has 30 days (until 8-20-07) to decide: a) reject the domain or b) make a payment to redeem it for individual usage. SF: I have a virtual dedicated server so that may be another way to host it. 6. Impeachment of Bush/Cheney: DB for Richard Duffee: the CT Democrats will have a meeting on *9-25-07 regarding how to get towns to propose and endorse town resolutions for impeachment of Bush/Cheney. A New England Summit meeting of interested people from New York and New England states, are serious about this resolution. 7. ACLU lawsuit. MD: no new information. 8. Feedback from the Internal Elections Committee of the Green Party of CT about our 4-21-07 Convention. SF: there was no consensus among the committee members that mail-in ballots were undemocratic. That was the opinion of Caleb Kleppner. SF: also found the IVR process and the ?weighing? of candidates to be hard to follow/understand. It was not transparent. RS: it only allows registered Greens to vote. Try to have convention not on Earth Day; TM: need tighter list of list also in order to elect delegates to go to the 2008 GPUS Convention; MD: mailing ballots with candidates resumes and reasons for running is the most fair and democratic process. . 9. Chapter reports. Greater Hartford: MD: Hope Out Loud on 9-9-07: consensus: allow $25 for tabling fee; 8-25-07 Convention to nominate local GP of CT candidates. New London: RS: to have nominating convention; had tag sale. Fairfield: DB: to have nominating convention. Central: VL: Meeting is for 8-7-07; Vic Lancia to speak on 4pm radio show of WESU on 8-6-07. Northeast: JdS: Jean DeSmet is a petitioning candidate for Willimantic 1st Selectperson (mayor) along with a slate with Republicans. Slate does not have a name, yet. Jean is not running as a Green for this position. 10.Date, place and time for next SCC meeting 8-28-07 and date, place and time of next EC meeting in 8-07. 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. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.25/1018 - Release Date: 9/19/2007 3:59 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From creilly1952 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 25 14:17:34 2007 From: creilly1952 at hotmail.com (Christopher Reilly) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:17:34 -0400 Subject: {news} Proposed agenda for 9-25-07 SCC meeting at 6:30PM of CTGP at Middletown's Russell Public In-Reply-To: <20070920013550.VNEP27100.eastrmmtao101.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> References: <20070920013550.VNEP27100.eastrmmtao101.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> Message-ID: All, I won't be able to make tonight's SCC meeting. I'll email out a treasurer's report tomorrow. --Chris Reilly From: roseberry3 at cox.net To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:36:38 -0400 CC: ralphferrucci at sbcglobal.net Subject: {news} Proposed agenda for 9-25-07 SCC meeting at 6:30PM of CTGP at Middletown's Russell Public Library in Middletown, CT Proposed agenda for 9-25-07 SCC meeting of CTGP at Middletown?s Russell Public Library, Reading Room 3 123 Broad Street, Middletown, CT 06457 Phone: 860-347-2528 Time: summer hours: 6:30PM to 8:30PM 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 SCC meeting. 4. (2-4 minutes): Review and acceptance of minutes from the 9-17-07 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 from the candidates. 3. (5-10 minutes): GPUS reports from CTGP representatives: Tim McKee and Charlie Pillsbury; GPAX report; reports from other members of GPUS committees; vetting of other possible candidates for other committee positions. 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 10-30-07 and date, place and time of next EC meeting in 10-07. 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: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.25/1018 - Release Date: 9/19/2007 3:59 PM _________________________________________________________________ Kick back and relax with hot games and cool activities at the Messenger Caf?. http://www.cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_SeptWLtagline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From creilly1952 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 25 20:06:13 2007 From: creilly1952 at hotmail.com (Christopher Reilly) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:06:13 -0400 Subject: {news} Treasurer's Report - September 2007 Message-ID: All, Attached is an abbreviated CT/GP treasurer's report for September. --Chris Reilly _________________________________________________________________ Can you find the hidden words?? Take a break and play Seekadoo! http://club.live.com/seekadoo.aspx?icid=seek_wlmailtextlink -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 200709 - GP Monthly Report.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 14336 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chapillsbury at gmail.com Tue Sep 25 22:25:38 2007 From: chapillsbury at gmail.com (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:25:38 -0400 Subject: {news} questions re: 2008 national nominating process Message-ID: <10859a090709251925k5646a90rf09412b0843feff5@mail.gmail.com> Greg: Both Tim and I raised this very issue earlier this evening at our monthly SCC meeting, as part of our GPUS report. The answer to all your questions is currently no, but I am confident that will have procedures in place before the end of this calendar year. One question at the SCC meeting tonight, for which neither Tim nor I had an answer, is: how many delegates will CT have to the national nominating convention in July 2008? Knowing this will help us in our planning process. Thanks for your help.. We will keep you posted. Charlie, CTGP On 9/25/07, Greg Gerritt wrote: > > Tim, Charles, as part of the ongoing work of the pcsc the PCSC is trying > to get a handle on how well prepared each state party is for the 2008 > nominating and convention process. > > The PCSC is trying to find the following information for each state party. > Can you provide it for CT? > > 1. do you have your rules in place for choosing and instructing delegates > for the national nominating convention? > > If yes, can you please email me a copy? > > If not, is work underway on this process, and is there a meeting scheduled > for voting on these rules? > > Does your party need any asistance in this process? > > 2. Have you chosen the date on which the state party will be choosing and > instructing delegates to the nominating convention? > > The GPUS recommends that delegates be chosen and instructed prior to April > 1, 2008. > > If you have a date, please let me know. If you do not have a date, when > will you be choosing one. > > Thank you for providing this information. > > Greg Gerritt for the pcsc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chapillsbury at gmail.com Tue Sep 25 22:28:31 2007 From: chapillsbury at gmail.com (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:28:31 -0400 Subject: {news} Fwd: [usgp-nc] Regarding Transparency and Consistency of Process for Green Presidential Nomination Message-ID: <10859a090709251928l6a05d862y29f05c73d254197e@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: hhart at blue.weeg.uiowa.edu Date: Sep 25, 2007 1:23 PM Subject: [usgp-nc] Regarding Transparency and Consistency of Process for teh Green Presidential Nomination To: natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org Cc: steeringcom at green.gpus.org GNC Delegates/Alternates: Recent events, including the withdrawal of a potential candidate for the Green Party's presidential nomination, have led to concerns being raised about professionalism and transparency in Green Party proceedings. In particular, there have been concerns that the lack of established rules at the state and national levels have left potential candidates uncertain as to whether and how they might pursue such a candidacy for our party's nomination. The Steering Committee urges that all state Green Parties make a serious effort to adopt clear rules for their internal components of the overall presidential nominating process. These rules include but are not necessarily limited to rules pertaining to the method by which candidates might be included on state party ballots and the method by which delegates to the Presidential Nominating Conventon will be selected and instructed. To ensure maximum transparency and fairness, the Steering Committee especially urges that these rules be adopted prior to 2008 state party conventions so that the rules might be disseminated and widely known to candidates and others in advance. In so urging, the Steering Committee is restating similar calls from the GPUS Presidential Campaign Support Committee (PCSC). PCSC has been compiling information and is prepared to assist state parties by helping to provide model processes and other advice as requested by those state parties. The Steering Committee strongly recommends utilizing the resources that PCSC can provide, and strongly urges that state parties be in regular contact with the PCSC as the point committee for the 2008 presidential nomination process. Steering Committee of the Green Party of the U.S. **** Lia Arnone Jim Coplen Budd Dickinson Phil Huckelberry Jason Nabewaniec Kristen Olson Echo Steiner Holly Hart, Secretary Jody Grage, Treasurer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efficacy at msn.com Wed Sep 26 15:11:11 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:11:11 -0400 Subject: {news} Call To Action References: <33448028.1190737622679.JavaMail.SYSTEM@SOFTEDGEMAIL2> Message-ID: ABW Action Alert GOVERNOR RELL ISSUES PAROLE BAN On Friday, September 21, Governor M. Jodi Rell announced her decision to ban parole for all individuals convicted of violent offenses, pending a review of the probation and parole process. Like all other CT residents, members of A Better Way Foundation's Clean Slate Committee were outraged by the home invasion murders that occurred in Cheshire. CSC shares Governor Rell's concern about the public safety of CT residents. The position of CSC is that the rehabilitation of inmates through education, vocational training and mandatory counseling, in addition to fair employment and housing opportunities for formerly incarcerated individuals, is a piece of the public safety solution currently being ignored by Governor Rell and the Judiciary Committee. CSC believes that punishing all eligible parolees because of the actions of a few is compounding an already serious problem. If you disagree with Governor Rell's parole ban, CSC requests that you contact her office and politely express your view. The Governor's office can be reached at (860) 566-4840, toll free:1-800-406-1527, TDD (860) 524-7397 or Governor.Rell at po.state.ct.us . Please let CSC know that you have contacted Governor Rell. Call (860) 673-1597 or email amyharrisct at yahoo.com after you have contacted the Governor's office. For more information on the Clean Slate Committee, contact David Samuels at (860) 570-0782 or samuelssloflo at aol.com. Check out A Better Way Foundation's website, www.abwf-ct.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To learn more about A Better Way please visit our website at http://www.abwf-ct.org. If you would like to be removed from our email list please send a message from the address you received this message at to Unsubscribe. To no longer receive email from us click here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From greenpartyct at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 20:31:02 2007 From: greenpartyct at yahoo.com (Green Party-CT) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:31:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Fox news website says Democrats trying to draft Nader? Message-ID: <733534.40894.qm@web81406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> WASHINGTON ? Ralph Nader for President? There may be a new effort to woo the man who has been called both a "political spoiler" and "maverick" into running for president one more time. A job advertisement on the Des Moines Iowa Craigslist.com ? the popular marketplace Web site ? is calling for eight experienced organizers and 12 field interns living in Iowa and "committed to progressive change," for the Ralph Nader Democratic Caucus Draft Committee. The ad offers $1,000 a week for the full time field organizers for 50 hours a week on the road. Field interns would get $15 an hour for 15 to 30 hours a week. A similar ad by the draft movement in New Hampshire was "flagged for removal" by midday Wednesday. Nader, who ran unsuccessfully in the Democratic primary for president in 1992, also ran for the White House three more times ? as an independent in 2004 and on the Green Party ticket in 2000 and 1996. A left-leaning activist who made his name fighting government corruption and pursuing consumer-friendly federal regulation in the 1960s and 1970s, Nader was shunned in each election by the Democratic establishment, which called him a "spoiler," for supposedly siphoning off votes from the Democratic nominee ? particularly in the extremely close contest between Democrat Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000. Nader has not publicly shown an interest in running for president again, though he has been consistently visible, speaking to audiences on a wide range of subjects, including his anti-Iraq war stance, corporate globalization and even Sen. Larry Craig's arrest in a Minnesota bathroom scandal. He is the subject of the 2007 documentary, "An Unreasonable Man." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From greenpartyct at yahoo.com Thu Sep 27 13:32:46 2007 From: greenpartyct at yahoo.com (Green Party-CT) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:32:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} GREAT NEWS!!-Arkansas Greens submitt 17, 000 signatures for Ballot acess!! Message-ID: <903453.97111.qm@web81406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> This just in from our Arkansas State Co-ordinator: At 8:30 this morning the Green Party submitted 17,197 signatures to the Secretary of State. I wish you all could've seen the "shock and awe" on their faces, but more than that, I wish I could thank every one of you in person. And as long as I'm getting mushy, I'd like to send an enormous "Thank You" to the Green Party of the U.S. and to all the individual Greens around the country who contributed to our effort. Mark Jenkins We exceeded our goal of 16,000 signatures - accomplished largely with a last minute surge of volunteer help. I attribute that both to better weather and, more importantly, the inspiration derived from knowing that we're not in this alone. Thanks to all. Anita Wessling Secretary, Green Party of Arkansas 870-426-2284 w2fruit at ozarkmountains.com This just in from our Arkansas State Co-ordinator: At 8:30 this morning the Green Party submitted 17,197 signatures to the Secretary of State. I wish you all could've seen the "shock and awe" on their faces, but more than that, I wish I could thank every one of you in person. And as long as I'm getting mushy, I'd like to send an enormous "Thank You" to the Green Party of the U.S. and to all the individual Greens around the country who contributed to our effort. Mark Jenkins We exceeded our goal of 16,000 signatures - accomplished largely with a last minute surge of volunteer help. I attribute that both to better weather and, more importantly, the inspiration derived from knowing that we're not in this alone. Thanks to all. Anita Wessling Secretary, Green Party of Arkansas 870-426-2284 w2fruit at ozarkmountains.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Thu Sep 27 20:06:30 2007 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:06:30 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT Iranian university chancellors ask Columbia president 10questions (Fars News Agency) Message-ID: <062301c80163$6c607530$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> > Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 > Questions > > Fars News Agency, September 25, 2007 > http://www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=8606300370 > http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6888 > > > Seven chancellors and presidents of Iranian > universities and research centers, in a letter > addressed to their counterpart in the US, > Colombia University, denounced Lee Bollinger's > insulting words against the Iranian nation and > president and invited him to provide responses to > 10 questions by Iranian academics and > intellectuals. > > The following is the full text of the letter: > > > Mr. Lee Bollinger > Columbia University President > > We, the professors and heads of universities and > research institutions in Tehran, hereby announce > our displeasure and protest at your impolite > remarks prior to Iranian President Mahmoud > Ahmadinejad's recent speech at Columbia > University. > > We would like to inform you that President > Ahmadinejad was elected directly by the Iranian > people through an enthusiastic two-round poll in > which almost all of the country's political > parties and groups participated. To assess the > quality and nature of these elections you may > refer to US news reports on the poll dated June > 2005. > > Your insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the > president of a country with a population of 72 > million and a recorded history of 7,000 years of > civilization and culture is deeply shameful. > > Your comments, filled with hate and disgust, may > well have been influenced by extreme pressure > from the media, but it is regrettable that media > policy-makers can determine the stance a > university president adopts in his speech. > > Your remarks about our country included > unsubstantiated accusations that were the product > of guesswork as well as media propaganda. Some of > your claims result from misunderstandings that > can be clarified through dialogue and further > research. > > During his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad answered a > number of your questions and those of students. > We are prepared to answer any remaining questions > in a scientific, open and direct debate. > > You asked the president approximately ten > questions. Allow us to ask you ten of our own > questions in the hope that your response will > help clear the atmosphere of misunderstanding and > distrust between our two countries and reveal the > truth. > > 1- Why did the US media put you under so much > pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad from > delivering his speech at Columbia University? And > why have American TV networks been broadcasting > hours of news reports insulting our president > while refusing to allow him the opportunity to > respond? Is this not against the principle of > freedom of speech? > > 2- Why, in 1953, did the US administration > overthrow Iran's national government under Dr > Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the > Shah's dictatorship? > > 3- Why did the US support the blood-thirsty > dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 > Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his > reckless use of chemical weapons against Iranian > soldiers defending their land and even against > his own people? > > 4- Why is the US putting pressure on the > government elected by the majority of > Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially > recognizing it? And why does it oppose Iran's > proposal to resolve the 60-year-old Palestinian > issue through a general referendum? > > 5- Why has the US military failed to find > Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even with all its > advanced equipment? How do you justify the old > friendship between the Bush and Bin Laden > families and their cooperation on oil deals? How > can you justify the Bush administration's efforts > to disrupt investigations concerning the > September 11 attacks? > > 6- Why does the US administration support the > Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) despite the > fact that the group has officially and openly > accepted the responsibility for numerous deadly > bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why does > the US refuse to allow Iran's current government > to act against the MKO's main base in Iraq? > > 7- Was the US invasion of Iraq based on > international consensus and did international > institutions support it? What was the real > purpose behind the invasion which has claimed > hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are > the weapons of mass destruction that the US > claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq? > > 8- Why do America's closest allies in the Middle > East come from extremely undemocratic governments > with absolutist monarchical regimes? > > 9- Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle > East free of unconventional weapons in the recent > session of the International Atomic Energy Agency > Board of Governors despite the fact the move won > the support of all members other than Israel? > > 10- Why is the US displeased with Iran's > agreement with the IAEA and why does it openly > oppose any progress in talks between Iran and the > agency to resolve the nuclear issue under > international law? > > Finally, we would like to express our readiness > to invite you and other scientific delegations to > our country. A trip to Iran would allow you and > your colleagues to speak directly with Iranians > from all walks of life including intellectuals > and university scholars. You could then assess > the realities of Iranian society without media > censorship before making judgments about the > Iranian nation and government. > > You can be assured that Iranians are very polite > and hospitable toward their guests. > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search > that gives answers, not web links. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC > _______________________________________________ > 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: 269.13.32/1032 - Release Date: > 9/26/2007 8:20 PM > From greenpartyct at yahoo.com Thu Sep 27 21:46:40 2007 From: greenpartyct at yahoo.com (Green Party-CT) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Nader book signing in Waterbury Oct. 6 Message-ID: <234735.31122.qm@web81413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 09/27/2007 'The Seventeen Traditions' book signing planned WATERBURY - There will be a lecture and book signing by Ralph Nader at 2 p.m. Saturday, October 6 at the Silas Bronson Library, Waterbury. turn_ad_publisher = 1356122; turn_ad_publisher_ad_code = 1356140; turn_ad_layout = "300x250"; turn_ad_color_schema = "DEFAULT"; turn_ad_publisher_channel = 1356129; '); } //--> Consumer activist, presidential candidate, Connecticut native Ralph Nader looks back on his earliest days growing up in Winsted, and revisits the seventeen traditions he absorbed from his immigrant Lebanese parents, his siblings, and the community as a whole - drawing from them inspiring lessons for today's society. He dedicates his latest book, not only to his family, but also to young parents with the hope that they will pass their own family traditions to future generations. Mr. Nader will be lecturing on The Seventeen Traditions and will be signing copies of the book in the Main Reading Room of the Silas Bronson Library. "Our parents always stressed that the best from the old should be merged with the best from the new," said Mr. Nader. Mr. Nader recently pointed out that "The Seventeen Traditions" is not just a book, but a movement and he has set up a web-site seventeentraditions.com for people to share their family traditions, which he feels are being lost. Recently named by Atlantic as one of the 100 most influential figures in American history (one of only four living individuals so honored), Mr. Nader has founded or launched more than one hundred civic organizations. His groups have made an impact on tax reform, atomic power regulation, the tobacco industry, clean air and water, food safety, access to health care, civic rights, congressional ethics and much more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dbedellgreen at hotmail.com Fri Sep 28 02:10:38 2007 From: dbedellgreen at hotmail.com (David Bedell) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:10:38 +0000 Subject: {news} Nader declines Winsted nomination Message-ID: The Waterbury and Torrington papers have been following this story in Winsted. Here's the final word: Waterbury Republican-American Sept 11, 2007 Nader declines, but notes the importance Consumer advocate and three-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader finally responded Thursday to a reporter's calls seeking comment on his nomination by the Winsted Independent Party for selectman. "It's very kind and thoughtful of them to do that," Nader said. "I am otherwise occupied." He did say that he commends all candidates seeking local offices, since there are 2.5 million elected seats on local boards and commissions across the country, many of which go uncontested at election time. _________________________________________________________________ Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger? http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline From greenpartyct at yahoo.com Fri Sep 28 11:00:27 2007 From: greenpartyct at yahoo.com (Green Party-CT) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} Green actvist trying to live with just on bin of rubbish for a whole year Message-ID: <669114.62435.qm@web81401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> A GREEN Party campaigner has set himself the challenge of producing just one grey wheelie bin of rubbish ? in a whole year. Environmental activist Rob White and girlfriend Sam Wade will attempt to limit their household waste from October 2007 to October 2008 to just one bin. The couple will continue to use their red recycling wheelie bins as usual. Mr White, 28, of Mandela Court in East Reading, will start his challenge on Monday ? a year on from the introduction of fortnightly collections. Over the next 12 months the Evening Post will follow his attempts to reduce his waste and see how he gets along. He will write a monthly column called ?White?s Trash? detailing his trials and tribulations. We will monitor the level of his success on the Evening Post binometer. With the row over bin collections still rumbling on Mr White said media attention always seemed to be on recycling, rather than reducing the amount of waste generated in the first place. He said: ?There just isn?t enough focus on waste reduction. To this end I?d like to set myself a target of producing just one bin of waste over the entire year ? one year, one bin. ?There is always a lot of coverage given to the topic of waste in the newspapers, but the coverage is mainly focused on recycling, the two weekly collections and the associated problems. "You can reduce waste to a minimum by eliminating excess packaging and plastic bags for example. ?Reuse items or pass them on to someone else to reuse rather than throwing them away. Recycle items which aren?t reusable into new items.? He believes a lot of electricity and energy is wasted by recycling waste which need not have been created. Mr White has come up with a number of ways in which he and Miss Wade will reduce waste. He is an avid user of the Freecycle website that allows users to share unwanted items. Mr White is also considering unwrapping goods in the supermarket before he buys them. ?This way the waste packaging is the supermarket?s problem,? he said. He has an allotment and grows a lot of his fruit and veg there, which will also reduce the amount of waste he generates. But he admitted using one bin a year was not going to be easy. He added: ?I?m looking forward to the challenge.? First printed in: Reading Evening Post Email to a friend / Submit your comments / View comments (6 comments. Last comment 27/09/2007 at 17:55) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amyvasnunes at hotmail.com Fri Sep 28 20:08:44 2007 From: amyvasnunes at hotmail.com (Amy Vas Nunes) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:08:44 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT Iranian university chancellors ask Columbiapresident 10questions (Fars News Agency) In-Reply-To: <062301c80163$6c607530$0402a8c0@JUSTINE> Message-ID: Do International criminals have freedom of speech? How many have been killed, disappeared or jailed in Iran? This dictator says the Holocost did not happen and has held conferences on this idea : if so who killed over 200 members of my family in Holland during WW II? He also belives Israel should not exist: if so where do Jews fleeing antisemitism from all over the world go, to Iran,thats where they fled from! This opinion is being forwarded by a CTGP International vice chair who needs to go... after over 2yrs with no contact,and some one who has personally greatly changed the USGP Platform to pro Palestinian so now USGP and CTGP are on ADL watch list mainly due to her activities. Amy >From: "Justine McCabe" >To: "CTGP Women's Caucus" ,"CTGP-NEWS" > >Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT Iranian university chancellors ask >Columbiapresident 10questions (Fars News Agency) >Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:06:30 -0400 > >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 > >>Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 >>Questions >> >>Fars News Agency, September 25, 2007 >>http://www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=8606300370 >>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6888 >> >> >>Seven chancellors and presidents of Iranian >>universities and research centers, in a letter >>addressed to their counterpart in the US, >>Colombia University, denounced Lee Bollinger's >>insulting words against the Iranian nation and >>president and invited him to provide responses to >>10 questions by Iranian academics and >>intellectuals. >> >>The following is the full text of the letter: >> >> >>Mr. Lee Bollinger >>Columbia University President >> >>We, the professors and heads of universities and >>research institutions in Tehran, hereby announce >>our displeasure and protest at your impolite >>remarks prior to Iranian President Mahmoud >>Ahmadinejad's recent speech at Columbia >>University. >> >>We would like to inform you that President >>Ahmadinejad was elected directly by the Iranian >>people through an enthusiastic two-round poll in >>which almost all of the country's political >>parties and groups participated. To assess the >>quality and nature of these elections you may >>refer to US news reports on the poll dated June >>2005. >> >>Your insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the >>president of a country with a population of 72 >>million and a recorded history of 7,000 years of >>civilization and culture is deeply shameful. >> >>Your comments, filled with hate and disgust, may >>well have been influenced by extreme pressure >>from the media, but it is regrettable that media >>policy-makers can determine the stance a >>university president adopts in his speech. >> >>Your remarks about our country included >>unsubstantiated accusations that were the product >>of guesswork as well as media propaganda. Some of >>your claims result from misunderstandings that >>can be clarified through dialogue and further >>research. >> >>During his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad answered a >>number of your questions and those of students. >>We are prepared to answer any remaining questions >>in a scientific, open and direct debate. >> >>You asked the president approximately ten >>questions. Allow us to ask you ten of our own >>questions in the hope that your response will >>help clear the atmosphere of misunderstanding and >>distrust between our two countries and reveal the >>truth. >> >>1- Why did the US media put you under so much >>pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad from >>delivering his speech at Columbia University? And >>why have American TV networks been broadcasting >>hours of news reports insulting our president >>while refusing to allow him the opportunity to >>respond? Is this not against the principle of >>freedom of speech? >> >>2- Why, in 1953, did the US administration >>overthrow Iran's national government under Dr >>Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the >>Shah's dictatorship? >> >>3- Why did the US support the blood-thirsty >>dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 >>Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his >>reckless use of chemical weapons against Iranian >>soldiers defending their land and even against >>his own people? >> >>4- Why is the US putting pressure on the >>government elected by the majority of >>Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially >>recognizing it? And why does it oppose Iran's >>proposal to resolve the 60-year-old Palestinian >>issue through a general referendum? >> >>5- Why has the US military failed to find >>Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even with all its >>advanced equipment? How do you justify the old >>friendship between the Bush and Bin Laden >>families and their cooperation on oil deals? How >>can you justify the Bush administration's efforts >>to disrupt investigations concerning the >>September 11 attacks? >> >>6- Why does the US administration support the >>Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) despite the >>fact that the group has officially and openly >>accepted the responsibility for numerous deadly >>bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why does >>the US refuse to allow Iran's current government >>to act against the MKO's main base in Iraq? >> >>7- Was the US invasion of Iraq based on >>international consensus and did international >>institutions support it? What was the real >>purpose behind the invasion which has claimed >>hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are >>the weapons of mass destruction that the US >>claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq? >> >>8- Why do America's closest allies in the Middle >>East come from extremely undemocratic governments >>with absolutist monarchical regimes? >> >>9- Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle >>East free of unconventional weapons in the recent >>session of the International Atomic Energy Agency >>Board of Governors despite the fact the move won >>the support of all members other than Israel? >> >>10- Why is the US displeased with Iran's >>agreement with the IAEA and why does it openly >>oppose any progress in talks between Iran and the >>agency to resolve the nuclear issue under >>international law? >> >>Finally, we would like to express our readiness >>to invite you and other scientific delegations to >>our country. A trip to Iran would allow you and >>your colleagues to speak directly with Iranians >>from all walks of life including intellectuals >>and university scholars. You could then assess >>the realities of Iranian society without media >>censorship before making judgments about the >>Iranian nation and government. >> >>You can be assured that Iranians are very polite >>and hospitable toward their guests. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>____________________________________________________________________________________ >>Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search >>that gives answers, not web links. >>http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC >>_______________________________________________ >>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: 269.13.32/1032 - Release Date: >>9/26/2007 8:20 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 From vogel at ct.metrocast.net Fri Sep 28 23:36:22 2007 From: vogel at ct.metrocast.net (Robert Vogel) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:36:22 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT Iranian university chancellors askColumbiapresident 10questions (Fars News Agency) References: <13333839.1191024548171.JavaMail.root@m48> Message-ID: <000701c80249$fdaa1730$0300a8c0@your55e5f9e3d2> I don't know if I can post to this list. I have been thinking of unsubscribing for that reason. Anyway, here's a few comments: - - - - - In the run up to the war on Iraq, US media were cheerleaders for war. Although a large percentage of people opposed it, a small group of Neocons managed to 'sell' the war. It was a disaster. It appears that the same techniques are again being used to make a case for war with Iran. The GP should oppose that. Justine is right. See some of the press and commentaries at http://www.seconnecticut.com/iran.htm. How would you answer the Iranian academics ? Bob The events at Columbia raise a lot of questions: Has US higher education been politicized ? Are US media acting in complicity with the Bush administration to make a case for war with Iran ? Is the US building an empire ? Wouldn't it be better for the UN to be the world's policeman instead of the US ? Will military expense bankrupt us ? Will there be resources for anything else...such as healthcare, infrastructure, eldercare, education....? and about Israel: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Amy Vas Nunes" To: Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 8:08 PM Subject: RE: {news} Fw: USGP-INT Iranian university chancellors askColumbiapresident 10questions (Fars News Agency) > 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 > Do International criminals have freedom of speech? How many have been > killed, disappeared or jailed in Iran? This dictator says the Holocost did > not happen and has held conferences on this idea : if so who killed over > 200 members of my family in Holland during WW II? He also belives Israel > should not exist: if so where do Jews fleeing antisemitism from all over > the world go, to Iran,thats where they fled from! This opinion is being > forwarded by a CTGP International vice chair who needs to go... after over > 2yrs with no contact,and some one who has personally greatly changed the > USGP Platform to pro Palestinian so now USGP and CTGP are on ADL watch > list mainly due to her activities. Amy > > >>From: "Justine McCabe" >>To: "CTGP Women's Caucus" ,"CTGP-NEWS" >> >>Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT Iranian university chancellors ask >>Columbiapresident 10questions (Fars News Agency) >>Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:06:30 -0400 >> >>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 >> >>>Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 >>>Questions >>> >>>Fars News Agency, September 25, 2007 >>>http://www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=8606300370 >>>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6888 >>> >>> >>>Seven chancellors and presidents of Iranian >>>universities and research centers, in a letter >>>addressed to their counterpart in the US, >>>Colombia University, denounced Lee Bollinger's >>>insulting words against the Iranian nation and >>>president and invited him to provide responses to >>>10 questions by Iranian academics and >>>intellectuals. >>> >>>The following is the full text of the letter: >>> >>> >>>Mr. Lee Bollinger >>>Columbia University President >>> >>>We, the professors and heads of universities and >>>research institutions in Tehran, hereby announce >>>our displeasure and protest at your impolite >>>remarks prior to Iranian President Mahmoud >>>Ahmadinejad's recent speech at Columbia >>>University. >>> >>>We would like to inform you that President >>>Ahmadinejad was elected directly by the Iranian >>>people through an enthusiastic two-round poll in >>>which almost all of the country's political >>>parties and groups participated. To assess the >>>quality and nature of these elections you may >>>refer to US news reports on the poll dated June >>>2005. >>> >>>Your insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the >>>president of a country with a population of 72 >>>million and a recorded history of 7,000 years of >>>civilization and culture is deeply shameful. >>> >>>Your comments, filled with hate and disgust, may >>>well have been influenced by extreme pressure >>>from the media, but it is regrettable that media >>>policy-makers can determine the stance a >>>university president adopts in his speech. >>> >>>Your remarks about our country included >>>unsubstantiated accusations that were the product >>>of guesswork as well as media propaganda. Some of >>>your claims result from misunderstandings that >>>can be clarified through dialogue and further >>>research. >>> >>>During his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad answered a >>>number of your questions and those of students. >>>We are prepared to answer any remaining questions >>>in a scientific, open and direct debate. >>> >>>You asked the president approximately ten >>>questions. Allow us to ask you ten of our own >>>questions in the hope that your response will >>>help clear the atmosphere of misunderstanding and >>>distrust between our two countries and reveal the >>>truth. >>> >>>1- Why did the US media put you under so much >>>pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad from >>>delivering his speech at Columbia University? And >>>why have American TV networks been broadcasting >>>hours of news reports insulting our president >>>while refusing to allow him the opportunity to >>>respond? Is this not against the principle of >>>freedom of speech? >>> >>>2- Why, in 1953, did the US administration >>>overthrow Iran's national government under Dr >>>Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the >>>Shah's dictatorship? >>> >>>3- Why did the US support the blood-thirsty >>>dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 >>>Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his >>>reckless use of chemical weapons against Iranian >>>soldiers defending their land and even against >>>his own people? >>> >>>4- Why is the US putting pressure on the >>>government elected by the majority of >>>Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially >>>recognizing it? And why does it oppose Iran's >>>proposal to resolve the 60-year-old Palestinian >>>issue through a general referendum? >>> >>>5- Why has the US military failed to find >>>Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even with all its >>>advanced equipment? How do you justify the old >>>friendship between the Bush and Bin Laden >>>families and their cooperation on oil deals? How >>>can you justify the Bush administration's efforts >>>to disrupt investigations concerning the >>>September 11 attacks? >>> >>>6- Why does the US administration support the >>>Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) despite the >>>fact that the group has officially and openly >>>accepted the responsibility for numerous deadly >>>bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why does >>>the US refuse to allow Iran's current government >>>to act against the MKO's main base in Iraq? >>> >>>7- Was the US invasion of Iraq based on >>>international consensus and did international >>>institutions support it? What was the real >>>purpose behind the invasion which has claimed >>>hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are >>>the weapons of mass destruction that the US >>>claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq? >>> >>>8- Why do America's closest allies in the Middle >>>East come from extremely undemocratic governments >>>with absolutist monarchical regimes? >>> >>>9- Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle >>>East free of unconventional weapons in the recent >>>session of the International Atomic Energy Agency >>>Board of Governors despite the fact the move won >>>the support of all members other than Israel? >>> >>>10- Why is the US displeased with Iran's >>>agreement with the IAEA and why does it openly >>>oppose any progress in talks between Iran and the >>>agency to resolve the nuclear issue under >>>international law? >>> >>>Finally, we would like to express our readiness >>>to invite you and other scientific delegations to >>>our country. A trip to Iran would allow you and >>>your colleagues to speak directly with Iranians >>>from all walks of life including intellectuals >>>and university scholars. You could then assess >>>the realities of Iranian society without media >>>censorship before making judgments about the >>>Iranian nation and government. >>> >>>You can be assured that Iranians are very polite >>>and hospitable toward their guests. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>____________________________________________________________________________________ >>>Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search >>>that gives answers, not web links. >>>http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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: 269.13.32/1032 - Release Date: >>>9/26/2007 8:20 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 > > > 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 > > From smderosa at cox.net Fri Sep 28 23:46:25 2007 From: smderosa at cox.net (Mike DeRosa) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:46:25 -0400 Subject: {news} Lost U.S. Nukes and WWIII? Message-ID: <8D514DD826CC4D128FC83CEEA745EEA5@OwnerPC> I don't know what to make of this story. It could be just another disinformation campaign by the Bush/Cheney regime. But I think the details , if true, make it imperative to move impeachment along. If people within the military are willing to expose the details of this kind of activity then we need to give them legal cover to stop the Bush/Cheney regime from really starting WW III. Wayne Madsen is very controversial. He used to be an analyst for the NSA (that does not mean No Such Agency). He has a track record as a reporter and seems to have a lot of inside sources (see code names below). He has been wrong before. But I think the official story that all of this activity was an oversight is impossible. The system controlling the transport and control of U.S. Nukes is one of the most sophisticated control and command systems in our government or any government. We know the basic facts of this story are true because the government has admitted it happened. Now they are saying it was mistake or an oversight. Numerous sources on and off the internet (i.e. alternative radio) who have military or intelligence backgrounds say this had to be a black bag job. A really incredible and scary story if true. The question is: Who ordered it and what was the mission? Don't expect any real answers from the corporate mass media anytime soon. We need to get the congress to hold hearings on this. Sincerely, Mike DeRosa In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. George Orwell Pressgate Tuesday, September 25, 2007 BY WAYNE MADSEN . SPECIAL REPORT -- "Lost" B-52 nuke cruise missiles were on way to Middle East for attack on Iran; Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theater. This is the embargoed report posted by worldcontent.twoday.net. A must-read. WMR has learned from U.S. and foreign intelligence sources that the B-52 transporting six stealth AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles, each armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead, on August 30, were destined for the Middle East via Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. However, elements of the Air Force, supported by U.S. intelligence agency personnel, successfully revealed the ultimate destination of the nuclear weapons and the mission was aborted due to internal opposition within the Air Force and U.S. Intelligence Community. Yesterday, the Washington Post attempted to explain away the fact that America's nuclear command and control system broke down in an unprecedented manner by reporting that it was the result of "security failures at multiple levels." It is now apparent that the command and control breakdown, reported as a BENT SPEAR incident to the Secretary of Defense and White House, was not the result of a command and control chain-of-command "failures" but the result of a revolt and push back by various echelons within the Air Force and intelligence agencies against a planned U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons. The Washington Post story on BENT SPEAR may have actually been an effort in damage control by the Bush administration. WMR has been informed by a knowledgeable source that one of the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles was, and may still be, unaccounted for. In that case, the nuclear reporting incident would have gone far beyond BENT SPEAR to a National Command Authority alert known as EMPTY QUIVER, with the special classification of PINNACLE. Just as this report was being prepared, Newsweek reported that Vice President Dick Cheney's recently-departed Middle East adviser, David Wurmser, told a small group of advisers some months ago that Cheney had considered asking Israel to launch a missile attack on the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz. Cheney reasoned that after an Iranian retaliatory strike, the United States would have ample reasons to launch its own massive attack on Iran. However, plans for Israel to attack Iran directly were altered to an Israeli attack on a supposed Syrian-Iranian-North Korean nuclear installation in northern Syria. WMR has learned that a U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons was scheduled to coincide with Israel's September 6 air attack on a reputed Syrian nuclear facility in Dayr az-Zwar, near the village of Tal Abyad, in northern Syria, near the Turkish border. Israel's attack, code named OPERATION ORCHARD, was to provide a reason for the U.S. to strike Iran. The neo-conservative propaganda onslaught was to cite the cooperation of the George Bush's three remaining "Axis of Evil" states -- Syria, Iran, and North Korea -- to justify a sustained Israeli attack on Syria and a massive U.S. military attack on Iran. WMR has learned from military sources on both sides of the Atlantic that there was a definite connection between Israel's OPERATION ORCHARD and BENT SPEAR involving the B-52 that flew the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale. There is also a connection between these two events as the Pentagon's highly-classified PROJECT CHECKMATE, a compartmented U.S. Air Force program that has been working on an attack plan for Iran since June 2007, around the same time that Cheney was working on the joint Israeli-U.S. attack scenario on Iran. PROJECT CHECKMATE was leaked in an article by military analyst Eric Margolis in the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper, the Times of London, is a program that involves over two dozen Air Force officers and is headed by Brig. Gen. Lawrence Stutzriem and his chief civilian adviser, Dr. Lani Kass, a former Israeli military intelligence officer who, astoundingly, is now involved in planning a joint U.S.-Israeli massive military attack on Iran that involves a "decapitating" blow on Iran by hitting between three to four thousand targets in the country. Stutzriem and Kass report directly to the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Michael Moseley, who has also been charged with preparing a report on the B-52/nuclear weapons incident. Kass' area of speciality is cyber-warfare, which includes ensuring "information blockades," such as that imposed by the Israeli government on the Israeli media regarding the Syrian air attack on the alleged Syrian "nuclear installation." British intelligence sources have reported that the Israeli attack on Syria was a "true flag" attack originally designed to foreshadow a U.S. attack on Iran. After the U.S. Air Force push back against transporting the six cruise nuclear-armed AGM-129s to the Middle East, Israel went ahead with its attack on Syria in order to help ratchet up tensions between Washington on one side and Damascus, Tehran, and Pyongyang on the other. The other part of CHECKMATE's brief is to ensure that a media "perception management" is waged against Syria, Iran, and North Korea. This involves articles such as that which appeared with Joby Warrick's and Walter Pincus' bylines in yesterdays Washington Post. The article, titled "The Saga of a Bent Spear," quotes a number of seasoned Air Force nuclear weapons experts as saying that such an incident is unprecedented in the history of the Air Force. For example, Retired Air Force General Eugene Habiger, the former chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, said he has been in the "nuclear business" since 1966 and has never been aware of an incident "more disturbing." Command and control breakdowns involving U.S. nuclear weapons are unprecedented, except for that fact that the U.S. military is now waging an internal war against neo-cons who are embedded in the U.S. government and military chain of command who are intent on using nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive war with Iran. CHECKMATE and OPERATION ORCHARD would have provided the cover for a pre-emptive U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran had it not been for BENT SPEAR involving the B-52. In on the plan to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran involving nuclear weapons were, according to our sources, Cheney, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley; members of the CHECKMATE team at the Pentagon, who have close connections to Israeli intelligence and pro-Israeli think tanks in Washington, including the Hudson Institute; British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, a political adviser to Tony Blair prior to becoming a Member of Parliament; Israeli political leaders like Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu; and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who did his part last week to ratchet up tensions with Iran by suggesting that war with Iran was a probability. Kouchner retracted his statement after the U.S. plans for Iran were delayed. Although the Air Force tried to keep the B-52 nuclear incident from the media, anonymous Air Force personnel leaked the story to Military Times on September 5, the day before the Israelis attacked the alleged nuclear installation in Syria and the day planned for the simultaneous U.S. attack on Iran. The leaking of classified information on U.S. nuclear weapons disposition or movement to the media, is, itself, unprecedented. Air Force regulations require the sending of classified BEELINE reports to higher Air Force authorities on the disclosure of classified Air Force information to the media. In another highly unusual move, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has asked an outside inquiry board to look into BENT SPEAR, even before the Air Force has completed its own investigation, a virtual vote of no confidence in the official investigation being conducted by Major General Douglas Raaberg, chief of air and space operations at the Air Combat Command. br>ates asked former Air Force Chief of Staff, retired General Larry Welch, to lead a Defense Science Board task force that will also look into the BENT SPEAR incident. The official Air Force investigation has reportedly been delayed for unknown reasons. Welch is President and CEO of the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA), a federally-funded research contractor that operates three research centers, including one for Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President and another for the National Security Agency. One of the board members of IDA is Dr. Suzanne H. Woolsey of the Paladin Capital Group and wife of former CIA director and arch-neocon James Woolsey. WMR has learned that neither the upper echelons of the State Department nor the British Foreign Office were privy to OPERATION ORCHARD, although Hadley briefed President Bush on Israeli spy satellite intelligence that showed the Syrian installation was a joint nuclear facility built with North Korean and Iranian assistance. However, it is puzzling why Hadley would rely on Israeli imagery intelligence (IMINT) from its OFEK (Horizon) 7 satellite when considering that U.S. IMINT satellites have greater capabilities. The Air Force's "information warfare" campaign against media reports on CHECKMATE and OPERATION ORCHARD also affected international reporting of the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution asking Israel to place its nuclear weapons program under IAEA controls, similar to those that the United States wants imposed on Iran and North Korea. The resolution also called for a nuclear-free zone throughout the Middle East. The IAEA's resolution, titled "Application of IAEA Safeguards in the Middle East," was passed by the 144-member IAEA General Meeting on September 20 by a vote of 53 to 2, with 47 abstentions. The only two countries to vote against were Israel and the United States. However, the story carried from the IAEA meeting in Vienna by Reuters, the Associated Press, and Agence France Press, was that it was Arab and Islamic nations that voted for the resolution. This was yet more perception management carried out by CHECKMATE, the White House, and their allies in Europe and Israel with the connivance of the media. In fact, among the 53 nations that voted for the resolution were China, Russia, India, Ireland, and Japan. The 47 abstentions were described as votes "against" the resolution even though an abstention is neither a vote for nor against a measure. America's close allies, including Britain, France, Australia, Canada, and Georgia, all abstained. Suspiciously, the IAEA carried only a brief item on the resolution concerning Israel's nuclear program and a roll call vote was not available either at the IAEA's web site -- www.iaea.org -- or in the media. The perception management campaign by the neocon operational cells in the Bush administration, Israel and Europe was designed to keep a focus on Iran's nuclear program, not on Israel's. Any international examination of Israel's nuclear weapons program would likely bring up Israeli nuclear scientist Mordechai Vanunu, a covert from Judaism to Christianity, who was kidnapped in Rome by a Mossad "honey trap" named Cheryl Bentov (aka, Cindy) and a Mossad team in 1986 and held against his will in Israel ever since. Vanunu's knowledge of the Israeli nuclear weapons program would focus on the country's own role in nuclear proliferation, including its program to share nuclear weapons technology with apartheid South Africa and Taiwan in the late 1970s and 1980s. The role of Ronald Reagan's Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Ken Adelman in Israeli's nuclear proliferation during the time frame 1983-1987 would also come under scrutiny. Adelman, a member of the Reagan-Bush transition State Department team from November 1980 to January 1981, voiced his understanding for the nuclear weapons programs of Israel, South Africa, and Taiwan in a June 28, 1981 New York Times article titled, "3 Nations Widening Nuclear Contacts." The journalist who wrote the article was Judith Miller. Adelman felt that the three countries wanted nuclear weapons because of their ostracism from the West, the third world, and the hostility from the Communist countries. Of course, today, the same argument can be used by Iran, North Korea, and other "Axis of Evil" nations so designated by the neocons in the Bush administration and other governments. There are also news reports that suggest an intelligence relationship between Israel and North Korea. On July 21, 2004, New Zealand's Dominion Post reported that three Mossad agents were involved in espionage in New Zealand. Two of the Mossad agents, Uriel Kelman and Elisha Cara (aka Kra), were arrested and imprisoned by New Zealand police (an Israeli diplomat in Canberra, Amir Lati, was expelled by Australia and New Zealand intelligence identified a fourth Mossad agent involved in the New Zealand espionage operation in Singapore). The third Mossad agent in New Zealand, Zev William Barkan (aka Lev Bruckenstein), fled New Zealand -- for North Korea. New Zealand Foreign Minister Phil Goff revealed that Barkan, a former Israeli Navy diver, had previously worked at the Israeli embassy in Vienna, which is also the headquarters of the IAEA. He was cited by the Sydney Morning Herald as trafficking in passports stolen from foreign tourists in Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia. New Zealand's One News reported that Barkan was in North Korea to help the nation build a wall to keep its citizens from leaving. The nuclear brinkmanship involving the United States and Israel and the breakdown in America's command and control systems have every major capital around the world wondering about the Bush administration's true intentions. publication date: Sep 23, 2007 Wayne Madsen is a Washington, D.C.-based investigative journalist, author, and syndicated columnist. His articles have appeared in The Village Voice and Wired. Wayne Madsen Report Related News: Simple Error My Ass - Loose Nukes (atlanticfreepress.com, 24.09.2007) Air Force Personnel Involved With Nuke Mishap In Minot Being Murdered? (kxmc.com, 20.09.2007) Israeli air strike did not hit nuclear facility, intelligence officials say (rawstory.com, 24.09.2007) USAF budget document: Committee Staff Procurement Backup Book FY 2008/2009 (PDF, p. 119 ff) _____ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: counter.php_sc_project=2668784&java=0&security=8f3a7abe&invisible=0 Type: application/octet-stream Size: 49 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16791 bytes Desc: not available URL: From smderosa at cox.net Sat Sep 29 00:27:54 2007 From: smderosa at cox.net (Mike DeRosa) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 00:27:54 -0400 Subject: {news} FW: Lost U.S. Nukes and WWIII? Message-ID: <246646A85C094BD9875967F62A94BD4E@OwnerPC> I don't know what to make of this story. It could be just another disinformation campaign by the Bush/Cheney regime. But I think the details , if true, make it imperative to move impeachment along. If people within the military are willing to expose the details of this kind of activity then we need to give them legal cover to stop the Bush/Cheney regime from really starting WW III. Wayne Madsen is very controversial. He used to be an analyst for the NSA (that does not mean No Such Agency). He has a track record as a reporter and seems to have a lot of inside sources (see code names below). He has been wrong before. But I think the official story that all of this activity was an oversight is impossible. The system controlling the transport and control of U.S. Nukes is one of the most sophisticated control and command systems in our government or any government. We know the basic facts of this story are true because the government has admitted it happened. Now they are saying it was mistake or an oversight. Numerous sources on and off the internet (i.e. alternative radio) who have military or intelligence backgrounds say this had to be a black bag job. A really incredible and scary story if true. The question is: Who ordered it and what was the mission? Don't expect any real answers from the corporate mass media anytime soon. We need to get the congress to hold hearings on this. Sincerely, Mike DeRosa In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. George Orwell Pressgate Tuesday, September 25, 2007 BY WAYNE MADSEN . SPECIAL REPORT -- "Lost" B-52 nuke cruise missiles were on way to Middle East for attack on Iran; Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theater. This is the embargoed report posted by worldcontent.twoday.net. A must-read. WMR has learned from U.S. and foreign intelligence sources that the B-52 transporting six stealth AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles, each armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead, on August 30, were destined for the Middle East via Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. However, elements of the Air Force, supported by U.S. intelligence agency personnel, successfully revealed the ultimate destination of the nuclear weapons and the mission was aborted due to internal opposition within the Air Force and U.S. Intelligence Community. Yesterday, the Washington Post attempted to explain away the fact that America's nuclear command and control system broke down in an unprecedented manner by reporting that it was the result of "security failures at multiple levels." It is now apparent that the command and control breakdown, reported as a BENT SPEAR incident to the Secretary of Defense and White House, was not the result of a command and control chain-of-command "failures" but the result of a revolt and push back by various echelons within the Air Force and intelligence agencies against a planned U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons. The Washington Post story on BENT SPEAR may have actually been an effort in damage control by the Bush administration. WMR has been informed by a knowledgeable source that one of the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles was, and may still be, unaccounted for. In that case, the nuclear reporting incident would have gone far beyond BENT SPEAR to a National Command Authority alert known as EMPTY QUIVER, with the special classification of PINNACLE. Just as this report was being prepared, Newsweek reported that Vice President Dick Cheney's recently-departed Middle East adviser, David Wurmser, told a small group of advisers some months ago that Cheney had considered asking Israel to launch a missile attack on the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz. Cheney reasoned that after an Iranian retaliatory strike, the United States would have ample reasons to launch its own massive attack on Iran. However, plans for Israel to attack Iran directly were altered to an Israeli attack on a supposed Syrian-Iranian-North Korean nuclear installation in northern Syria. WMR has learned that a U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons was scheduled to coincide with Israel's September 6 air attack on a reputed Syrian nuclear facility in Dayr az-Zwar, near the village of Tal Abyad, in northern Syria, near the Turkish border. Israel's attack, code named OPERATION ORCHARD, was to provide a reason for the U.S. to strike Iran. The neo-conservative propaganda onslaught was to cite the cooperation of the George Bush's three remaining "Axis of Evil" states -- Syria, Iran, and North Korea -- to justify a sustained Israeli attack on Syria and a massive U.S. military attack on Iran. WMR has learned from military sources on both sides of the Atlantic that there was a definite connection between Israel's OPERATION ORCHARD and BENT SPEAR involving the B-52 that flew the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale. There is also a connection between these two events as the Pentagon's highly-classified PROJECT CHECKMATE, a compartmented U.S. Air Force program that has been working on an attack plan for Iran since June 2007, around the same time that Cheney was working on the joint Israeli-U.S. attack scenario on Iran. PROJECT CHECKMATE was leaked in an article by military analyst Eric Margolis in the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper, the Times of London, is a program that involves over two dozen Air Force officers and is headed by Brig. Gen. Lawrence Stutzriem and his chief civilian adviser, Dr. Lani Kass, a former Israeli military intelligence officer who, astoundingly, is now involved in planning a joint U.S.-Israeli massive military attack on Iran that involves a "decapitating" blow on Iran by hitting between three to four thousand targets in the country. Stutzriem and Kass report directly to the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Michael Moseley, who has also been charged with preparing a report on the B-52/nuclear weapons incident. Kass' area of speciality is cyber-warfare, which includes ensuring "information blockades," such as that imposed by the Israeli government on the Israeli media regarding the Syrian air attack on the alleged Syrian "nuclear installation." British intelligence sources have reported that the Israeli attack on Syria was a "true flag" attack originally designed to foreshadow a U.S. attack on Iran. After the U.S. Air Force push back against transporting the six cruise nuclear-armed AGM-129s to the Middle East, Israel went ahead with its attack on Syria in order to help ratchet up tensions between Washington on one side and Damascus, Tehran, and Pyongyang on the other. The other part of CHECKMATE's brief is to ensure that a media "perception management" is waged against Syria, Iran, and North Korea. This involves articles such as that which appeared with Joby Warrick's and Walter Pincus' bylines in yesterdays Washington Post. The article, titled "The Saga of a Bent Spear," quotes a number of seasoned Air Force nuclear weapons experts as saying that such an incident is unprecedented in the history of the Air Force. For example, Retired Air Force General Eugene Habiger, the former chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, said he has been in the "nuclear business" since 1966 and has never been aware of an incident "more disturbing." Command and control breakdowns involving U.S. nuclear weapons are unprecedented, except for that fact that the U.S. military is now waging an internal war against neo-cons who are embedded in the U.S. government and military chain of command who are intent on using nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive war with Iran. CHECKMATE and OPERATION ORCHARD would have provided the cover for a pre-emptive U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran had it not been for BENT SPEAR involving the B-52. In on the plan to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran involving nuclear weapons were, according to our sources, Cheney, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley; members of the CHECKMATE team at the Pentagon, who have close connections to Israeli intelligence and pro-Israeli think tanks in Washington, including the Hudson Institute; British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, a political adviser to Tony Blair prior to becoming a Member of Parliament; Israeli political leaders like Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu; and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who did his part last week to ratchet up tensions with Iran by suggesting that war with Iran was a probability. Kouchner retracted his statement after the U.S. plans for Iran were delayed. Although the Air Force tried to keep the B-52 nuclear incident from the media, anonymous Air Force personnel leaked the story to Military Times on September 5, the day before the Israelis attacked the alleged nuclear installation in Syria and the day planned for the simultaneous U.S. attack on Iran. The leaking of classified information on U.S. nuclear weapons disposition or movement to the media, is, itself, unprecedented. Air Force regulations require the sending of classified BEELINE reports to higher Air Force authorities on the disclosure of classified Air Force information to the media. In another highly unusual move, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has asked an outside inquiry board to look into BENT SPEAR, even before the Air Force has completed its own investigation, a virtual vote of no confidence in the official investigation being conducted by Major General Douglas Raaberg, chief of air and space operations at the Air Combat Command. br>ates asked former Air Force Chief of Staff, retired General Larry Welch, to lead a Defense Science Board task force that will also look into the BENT SPEAR incident. The official Air Force investigation has reportedly been delayed for unknown reasons. Welch is President and CEO of the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA), a federally-funded research contractor that operates three research centers, including one for Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President and another for the National Security Agency. One of the board members of IDA is Dr. Suzanne H. Woolsey of the Paladin Capital Group and wife of former CIA director and arch-neocon James Woolsey. WMR has learned that neither the upper echelons of the State Department nor the British Foreign Office were privy to OPERATION ORCHARD, although Hadley briefed President Bush on Israeli spy satellite intelligence that showed the Syrian installation was a joint nuclear facility built with North Korean and Iranian assistance. However, it is puzzling why Hadley would rely on Israeli imagery intelligence (IMINT) from its OFEK (Horizon) 7 satellite when considering that U.S. IMINT satellites have greater capabilities. The Air Force's "information warfare" campaign against media reports on CHECKMATE and OPERATION ORCHARD also affected international reporting of the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution asking Israel to place its nuclear weapons program under IAEA controls, similar to those that the United States wants imposed on Iran and North Korea. The resolution also called for a nuclear-free zone throughout the Middle East. The IAEA's resolution, titled "Application of IAEA Safeguards in the Middle East," was passed by the 144-member IAEA General Meeting on September 20 by a vote of 53 to 2, with 47 abstentions. The only two countries to vote against were Israel and the United States. However, the story carried from the IAEA meeting in Vienna by Reuters, the Associated Press, and Agence France Press, was that it was Arab and Islamic nations that voted for the resolution. This was yet more perception management carried out by CHECKMATE, the White House, and their allies in Europe and Israel with the connivance of the media. In fact, among the 53 nations that voted for the resolution were China, Russia, India, Ireland, and Japan. The 47 abstentions were described as votes "against" the resolution even though an abstention is neither a vote for nor against a measure. America's close allies, including Britain, France, Australia, Canada, and Georgia, all abstained. Suspiciously, the IAEA carried only a brief item on the resolution concerning Israel's nuclear program and a roll call vote was not available either at the IAEA's web site -- www.iaea.org -- or in the media. The perception management campaign by the neocon operational cells in the Bush administration, Israel and Europe was designed to keep a focus on Iran's nuclear program, not on Israel's. Any international examination of Israel's nuclear weapons program would likely bring up Israeli nuclear scientist Mordechai Vanunu, a covert from Judaism to Christianity, who was kidnapped in Rome by a Mossad "honey trap" named Cheryl Bentov (aka, Cindy) and a Mossad team in 1986 and held against his will in Israel ever since. Vanunu's knowledge of the Israeli nuclear weapons program would focus on the country's own role in nuclear proliferation, including its program to share nuclear weapons technology with apartheid South Africa and Taiwan in the late 1970s and 1980s. The role of Ronald Reagan's Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Ken Adelman in Israeli's nuclear proliferation during the time frame 1983-1987 would also come under scrutiny. Adelman, a member of the Reagan-Bush transition State Department team from November 1980 to January 1981, voiced his understanding for the nuclear weapons programs of Israel, South Africa, and Taiwan in a June 28, 1981 New York Times article titled, "3 Nations Widening Nuclear Contacts." The journalist who wrote the article was Judith Miller. Adelman felt that the three countries wanted nuclear weapons because of their ostracism from the West, the third world, and the hostility from the Communist countries. Of course, today, the same argument can be used by Iran, North Korea, and other "Axis of Evil" nations so designated by the neocons in the Bush administration and other governments. There are also news reports that suggest an intelligence relationship between Israel and North Korea. On July 21, 2004, New Zealand's Dominion Post reported that three Mossad agents were involved in espionage in New Zealand. Two of the Mossad agents, Uriel Kelman and Elisha Cara (aka Kra), were arrested and imprisoned by New Zealand police (an Israeli diplomat in Canberra, Amir Lati, was expelled by Australia and New Zealand intelligence identified a fourth Mossad agent involved in the New Zealand espionage operation in Singapore). The third Mossad agent in New Zealand, Zev William Barkan (aka Lev Bruckenstein), fled New Zealand -- for North Korea. New Zealand Foreign Minister Phil Goff revealed that Barkan, a former Israeli Navy diver, had previously worked at the Israeli embassy in Vienna, which is also the headquarters of the IAEA. He was cited by the Sydney Morning Herald as trafficking in passports stolen from foreign tourists in Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia. New Zealand's One News reported that Barkan was in North Korea to help the nation build a wall to keep its citizens from leaving. The nuclear brinkmanship involving the United States and Israel and the breakdown in America's command and control systems have every major capital around the world wondering about the Bush administration's true intentions. publication date: Sep 23, 2007 Wayne Madsen is a Washington, D.C.-based investigative journalist, author, and syndicated columnist. His articles have appeared in The Village Voice and Wired. Wayne Madsen Report Related News: Simple Error My Ass - Loose Nukes (atlanticfreepress.com, 24.09.2007) Air Force Personnel Involved With Nuke Mishap In Minot Being Murdered? (kxmc.com, 20.09.2007) Israeli air strike did not hit nuclear facility, intelligence officials say (rawstory.com, 24.09.2007) USAF budget document: Committee Staff Procurement Backup Book FY 2008/2009 (PDF, p. 119 ff) _____ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16791 bytes Desc: not available URL: From smderosa at cox.net Sat Sep 29 01:29:33 2007 From: smderosa at cox.net (Mike DeRosa) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:29:33 -0400 Subject: {news} The Raw Story: Israeli air strike did not hit nuclear facility, intelligence officials say Message-ID: D HTML Menu, (c) 2004 Apycom Software THIS ARTICLE COULD LEAD ONE TO BELIEVE THAT THE RECENT AIR ATTACKS ON SYRIA ARE ANOTHER POSSIBLE DISINFORMATION PROJECT OF THE BUSH/CHENEY GANG. CLAIM THE ISRAELI AIR STRIKE HIT A NUCLEAR SITE IN SYRIA WHEN IT WAS SOMETHING ELSE. BOLAND/CHENEY ETC MAY BE TRYING TO FOOL PEOPLE INTO THINKING THAT A REAL NUCLEAR THREAT EXISTS USING THIS AIR STRIKE AS A COVER OR SMOKE SCREEN TO HIDE THE REAL NATURE OF THE ATTACK. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE BUSH/CHENEY GANG ARE TRYING TO STIR UP A WAR WITH IRAN AND SYRIA BY IMPLYING THROUGH THIS ATTACK THAT WMD LABS/WEAPONS EXIST AND THAT THEY ARE A THREAT. FOR THE RECORD, ONE OF THE SOURCES USED HERE (Cannistraro) IS A HARD RIGHT WINGER. HE WAS HIGH UP IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IN THE PAST AND HE IS PROBABLY GETTING HIS INFO FROM PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE AN AMERICAN PREVENTIVE (i.e. illegal) WAR FOR THEIR OWN REASONS. MAKE OF IT WHAT YOU WILL. I HAVE NO PROOF THAT THIS IS THE REAL STORY (i.e. from The Raw Story website) BUT IT CERTAINLY FITS THE PAST M.O. OF THE BUSH/CHENEY GANG AND THE NE0-CONS. THE REAL QUESTION IS: WILL YOU AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BUY THE IRAQ AND NOW IRAN WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION AND GUILT BY LOOSE ASSOCIATION ARGUMENTS AGAIN? WILL A OSAMA TAPE SUDDENLY APPEAR SOON SAYING THAT HE IS HAPPY THAT IRAN AND THE U.S. PEACE MOVEMENT ARE SUPPORTING HIM? SINCERELY, MIKE DE ROSA The atom bombs are piling up in the factories, the police are prowling through the cities, the lies are streaming from the loudspeakers, but the earth is still going round the sun. George Orwell Add to My Yahoo! Israeli air strike did not hit nuclear facility, intelligence officials say Larisa Alexandrovna Published: Monday September 24, 2007 Print This Email This Attack said spawned from chemical weapons disaster Israel did not strike a nuclear weapons facility in Syria on Sept. 6, instead striking a cache of North Korean missiles, current and former intelligence officials say. American intelligence sources familiar with key events leading up to the Israeli air raid tell RAW STORY that what the Syrians actually had were North Korean No-Dong missiles, possibly located at a site in either the city of Musalmiya in the northern part of Syria or further south around the city of Hama. While reports have alleged the US provided intelligence to Israel or that Israel shared their intelligence with the US, sources interviewed for this article believe that neither is accurate. By most accounts of intelligence officials, both former and current, Israel and the US both were well aware of the activities of North Korea and Syria and their attempts to chemically weaponize the No-Dong missile (above right). It therefore remains unclear why an intricate story involving evidence of a Syrian nuclear weapons program and/or enriched uranium was put out to press organizations. The North Korean missiles -- described as "legacy" by one source and "older generation" by another -- were not nuclear arms. Vincent Cannistraro, Director of Intelligence Programs for the National Security Council under President Ronald Reagan and Chief of Operations at the Central Intelligence Agency's Counterterrorism Center under President George H. W. Bush, said Sunday that what the Israelis hit was "absolutely not a nuclear weapons facility." "Syria has a small nuclear research facility and has had it for several years," Cannistraro said. "It is not capable of enriching uranium to weapons capability levels. Some Israelis speculated that the Syrians had succeeded in doing just that, but according to the US intelligence experts that is simply not true." But "Syria has a chemical weapons capability and has been trying to chemically weaponize war heads on their existing stocks of North Korean originated missiles," Cannistraro added. Israeli government and embassy officials are not commenting on the incident. According to intelligence sources familiar with the events leading up to the raid, an explosion on July 20 at a Syrian facility near the city of Halab, in the Northern part of Syria, caused Israel's retaliatory strike on Sept. 6. They could not say what caused the delayed reaction. Chemical warhead exploded at site North Korean scientists working with Syrian military and intelligence officials attempted to load a chemical warhead onto one of the North Korean missiles, likely the No-dong 1 model, according to intelligence current and former intelligence officers interviewed for this article. The result was an explosion that killed a few of those present and, according to some official reports of the blast, as many as 50 civilians. The SANA news agency described the blast at the time as "not the result of sabotage," but an explosion resulting from "the combustion of sensitive, highly explosive material caused by extremely high temperatures." The No-Dong 1 missile is a redesigned SCUD-C, which the Syrians are alleged to have acquired in the mid-1990s according to some estimations, while others say perhaps as late as 2000. According to the Federation of American Scientists, the No-Dong has a potential range/payload capacity of 1,000-1,300 km/700-1,000 kg. Cannistraro believes that these missiles were No-Dong, but did not specify which class. Others, however, named the No-Dong 1 model or described the missile in such a way as to indicate what could only be the No-Dong 1 model. The chemical explosion is believed to have included a Sarin nerve agent and made the area around the blast dangerous even after the fire from the explosion had been extinguished. This would make reconnaissance of the area difficult for foreign intelligence officers attempting to collect samples and data after the blast. The United Nations Chemical Weapons Convention treaty of 1993 outlawed the stockpiling of Sarin, but neither Syria nor North Korea are signatories to the treaty. Some believe that the Office of the Vice President is continuing to battle any attempts at diplomacy made by the US State Department in an effort to ensure no alternative but a military solution to destabilize and strike Iran, using Syria's alleged nuclear weapons program and close relations with Iran as a possible pretext. A Sept. 16 piece in the London Sunday Times alleged the attack proved Israel could penetrate Iran's air defenses. "By its actions, Israel showed it is not interested in waiting for diplomacy to work where nuclear weapons are at stake," reporter Uzi Mahnaimi wrote. "The Israelis proved they could penetrate the Syrian air defence [sic] system, which is stronger than the one protecting Iranian nuclear sites." _____ Site Meter Site Meter ARCHIVES EXCLUSIVES ADVERTISE FORUMS CONTACT GO AD FREE DONATE RSS +MY YAHOO TIPS _____ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: up70dark.gif Type: image/gif Size: 48 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rawsmall.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3190 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: linerednobord.gif Type: image/gif Size: 461 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: addtomyyahoo4.gif Type: image/gif Size: 719 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: advertise_liberally.gif Type: image/gif Size: 4174 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: sg25_19.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 21508 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rsilogo.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14222 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: a.aspx?ZoneID=9&Task=Get&Mode=HTML&SiteID=1&PageID=70172 Type: application/octet-stream Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: a.aspx?ZoneID=4&Task=Get&Mode=HTML&SiteID=1&PageID=72849 Type: application/octet-stream Size: 226 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: get.media?sid=15473&m=3&tp=7&d=s&c=1 Type: application/octet-stream Size: 19891 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: meter.asp?site=s15bluelemur Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1117 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: meter.asp?site=s35rawstory Type: application/octet-stream Size: 669 bytes Desc: not available URL: From smderosa at cox.net Sat Sep 29 01:31:38 2007 From: smderosa at cox.net (Mike DeRosa) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:31:38 -0400 Subject: {news} The Raw Story: Israeli air strike did not hit nuclear facility, intelligence officials say Message-ID: <173EBD06BA8A49DFB4911FF9F9354BD4@OwnerPC> HTML Menu, (c) 2004 Apycom Software THIS ARTICLE COULD LEAD ONE TO BELIEVE THAT THE RECENT AIR ATTACKS ON SYRIA ARE ANOTHER POSSIBLE DISINFORMATION PROJECT OF THE BUSH/CHENEY GANG. CLAIM THE ISRAELI AIR STRIKE HIT A NUCLEAR SITE IN SYRIA WHEN IT WAS SOMETHING ELSE. BOLAND/CHENEY ETC MAY BE TRYING TO FOOL PEOPLE INTO THINKING THAT A REAL NUCLEAR THREAT EXISTS USING THIS AIR STRIKE AS A COVER OR SMOKE SCREEN TO HIDE THE REAL NATURE OF THE ATTACK. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE BUSH/CHENEY GANG ARE TRYING TO STIR UP A WAR WITH IRAN AND SYRIA BY IMPLYING THROUGH THIS ATTACK THAT WMD LABS/WEAPONS EXIST AND THAT THEY ARE A THREAT. FOR THE RECORD, ONE OF THE SOURCES USED HERE (Cannistraro) IS A HARD RIGHT WINGER. HE WAS HIGH UP IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IN THE PAST AND HE IS PROBABLY GETTING HIS INFO FROM PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE AN AMERICAN PREVENTIVE (i.e. illegal) WAR FOR THEIR OWN REASONS. MAKE OF IT WHAT YOU WILL. I HAVE NO PROOF THAT THIS IS THE REAL STORY (i.e. from The Raw Story website) BUT IT CERTAINLY FITS THE PAST M.O. OF THE BUSH/CHENEY GANG AND THE NE0-CONS. THE REAL QUESTION IS: WILL YOU AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BUY THE IRAQ AND NOW IRAN WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION AND GUILT BY LOOSE ASSOCIATION ARGUMENTS AGAIN? WILL A OSAMA TAPE SUDDENLY APPEAR SOON SAYING THAT HE IS HAPPY THAT IRAN AND THE U.S. PEACE MOVEMENT ARE SUPPORTING HIM? SINCERELY, MIKE DE ROSA The atom bombs are piling up in the factories, the police are prowling through the cities, the lies are streaming from the loudspeakers, but the earth is still going round the sun. George Orwell Add to My Yahoo! Israeli air strike did not hit nuclear facility, intelligence officials say Larisa Alexandrovna Published: Monday September 24, 2007 Print This Email This Attack said spawned from chemical weapons disaster Israel did not strike a nuclear weapons facility in Syria on Sept. 6, instead striking a cache of North Korean missiles, current and former intelligence officials say. American intelligence sources familiar with key events leading up to the Israeli air raid tell RAW STORY that what the Syrians actually had were North Korean No-Dong missiles, possibly located at a site in either the city of Musalmiya in the northern part of Syria or further south around the city of Hama. While reports have alleged the US provided intelligence to Israel or that Israel shared their intelligence with the US, sources interviewed for this article believe that neither is accurate. By most accounts of intelligence officials, both former and current, Israel and the US both were well aware of the activities of North Korea and Syria and their attempts to chemically weaponize the No-Dong missile (above right). It therefore remains unclear why an intricate story involving evidence of a Syrian nuclear weapons program and/or enriched uranium was put out to press organizations. The North Korean missiles -- described as "legacy" by one source and "older generation" by another -- were not nuclear arms. Vincent Cannistraro, Director of Intelligence Programs for the National Security Council under President Ronald Reagan and Chief of Operations at the Central Intelligence Agency's Counterterrorism Center under President George H. W. Bush, said Sunday that what the Israelis hit was "absolutely not a nuclear weapons facility." "Syria has a small nuclear research facility and has had it for several years," Cannistraro said. "It is not capable of enriching uranium to weapons capability levels. Some Israelis speculated that the Syrians had succeeded in doing just that, but according to the US intelligence experts that is simply not true." But "Syria has a chemical weapons capability and has been trying to chemically weaponize war heads on their existing stocks of North Korean originated missiles," Cannistraro added. Israeli government and embassy officials are not commenting on the incident. According to intelligence sources familiar with the events leading up to the raid, an explosion on July 20 at a Syrian facility near the city of Halab, in the Northern part of Syria, caused Israel's retaliatory strike on Sept. 6. They could not say what caused the delayed reaction. Chemical warhead exploded at site North Korean scientists working with Syrian military and intelligence officials attempted to load a chemical warhead onto one of the North Korean missiles, likely the No-dong 1 model, according to intelligence current and former intelligence officers interviewed for this article. The result was an explosion that killed a few of those present and, according to some official reports of the blast, as many as 50 civilians. The SANA news agency described the blast at the time as "not the result of sabotage," but an explosion resulting from "the combustion of sensitive, highly explosive material caused by extremely high temperatures." The No-Dong 1 missile is a redesigned SCUD-C, which the Syrians are alleged to have acquired in the mid-1990s according to some estimations, while others say perhaps as late as 2000. According to the Federation of American Scientists, the No-Dong has a potential range/payload capacity of 1,000-1,300 km/700-1,000 kg. Cannistraro believes that these missiles were No-Dong, but did not specify which class. Others, however, named the No-Dong 1 model or described the missile in such a way as to indicate what could only be the No-Dong 1 model. The chemical explosion is believed to have included a Sarin nerve agent and made the area around the blast dangerous even after the fire from the explosion had been extinguished. This would make reconnaissance of the area difficult for foreign intelligence officers attempting to collect samples and data after the blast. The United Nations Chemical Weapons Convention treaty of 1993 outlawed the stockpiling of Sarin, but neither Syria nor North Korea are signatories to the treaty. Some believe that the Office of the Vice President is continuing to battle any attempts at diplomacy made by the US State Department in an effort to ensure no alternative but a military solution to destabilize and strike Iran, using Syria's alleged nuclear weapons program and close relations with Iran as a possible pretext. A Sept. 16 piece in the London Sunday Times alleged the attack proved Israel could penetrate Iran's air defenses. "By its actions, Israel showed it is not interested in waiting for diplomacy to work where nuclear weapons are at stake," reporter Uzi Mahnaimi wrote. "The Israelis proved they could penetrate the Syrian air defence [sic] system, which is stronger than the one protecting Iranian nuclear sites." _____ ARCHIVES EXCLUSIVES ADVERTISE FORUMS CONTACT GO AD FREE DONATE RSS +MY YAHOO TIPS _____ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: a.aspx_ZoneID=9&Task=Get&Mode=HTML&SiteID=1&PageID=70172 Type: application/octet-stream Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: a.aspx_ZoneID=4&Task=Get&Mode=HTML&SiteID=1&PageID=72849 Type: application/octet-stream Size: 226 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: get.media_sid=15473&m=3&tp=7&d=s&c=1 Type: application/octet-stream Size: 19891 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: meter.asp_site=s15bluelemur Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1117 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: meter.asp_site=s35rawstory Type: application/octet-stream Size: 669 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 48 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3190 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.gif Type: image/gif Size: 461 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.gif Type: image/gif Size: 719 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.gif Type: image/gif Size: 4174 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 21508 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14222 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kumfry at yahoo.com Sat Sep 29 11:27:35 2007 From: kumfry at yahoo.com (Kenneth Humphrey) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 08:27:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {news} The Palestinian speaker matter Message-ID: <394480.37172.qm@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > > > > > > > Since Amy has dragged her animosity toward > > Justine McCabe into this Iranian leader talk > issue, > > I > > can't sit back and not respond. I have avoided the > > issue of the Israeli abuse of the illegitimate > > occupation of Palestinians and the settlements and > > wall that have grabbed much more of what's left of > > the > > Palestinian land. (One of my greatest concerns is > > that > > Ct. has neither recall nor impeachment provisions > to > > facilitate ridding ourselves of that Bush-clone > > Jingo > > Joe Lieberman. Lieberman has disgraced himself in > > every way in becoming a Bushite and now has been > > doing > > his darndest to foment war with Iran. Joe has kin > in > > Israel, and it appears he wants the U.S. to make > the > > world safe for Israel. The Greens need to > undertake > > a > > major campaign for impeachment provisions to rid > > ourselves of a disgrace like Lieberman0. > > > > The real victims of today are the > > Palestinians, > > not the Israelis. Israel IS endangered by the war > > crimes of its rightwing regime, notably the > killing > > of > > innocent Palestinian civilians last summer. The > > longstanding brutality toward Palestinians is the > > real > > issue, not 'poor Israel' of today, as Amy has it. > > The > > Palestinians had nothing to do with the holocaust, > > which was really aided and abetted by European > > Christians. Yet the Palestinians, who are decent > > people, have been reduced to ever-worsening > > impoverished and bantu-state status by the > rightwing > > Israeli regime. Israel has long hogged all the > water > > while Palestinians have barely enough to survive > on. > > The lot of the Palestinians has been one of > > miserable > > existence under the occupiers. > > > > As for the ADL watchlist Amy harps on, this > > outfit and the AIPAC Israeli lobby has so > stridently > > prevented Americans from speaking out and > > blacklisted > > any American politician or even public figure from > > criticizing Israel that Israel has gotten away > with > > apartheid-type policies in the occupied > territories. > > To illustrate the stranglehold on Americans even > > mildly criticizing Israel policies, note the nasty > > treatment the AIPAC lobby and its sidekick ADL > Jimmy > > Carter has received due to his honest and > > realistically speaking out against Israeli's > > apartheid > > policies and its lashing out against Lebanese, > > leaving > > hundreds of thousands of cluster bombs behind that > > continue to kill innocent children. > > > > I KNOW the holocaust occurred. BUT, it's > high > > time this justification used by Israel's rightwing > > government as excuse for becoming a world pariah, > > (alongside rogue state USA) be recognized for what > > it > > is. The holocaust is no excuse for an > out-of-control > > Israel over 60 years after the holocaust. The fact > > is > > that the majority of American Jews are NOT > > supportive > > of Israel's apartheid occupation policies and its > > bullying belligerent tactics in the Middle East. > And > > many otherwise progressive Jews have been cowed > into > > silence by the undemocratic blackmail of AIPAC/ADL > > in > > labeling honest critics as self-haters and even > > antisemitic. > > > > A good start for the CTGP is to strive for > > legislation enabling this state to be rid of Jingo > > Joe/warmonger Joe Lieberman. And being > > straightforwardly honest about the miserable > status > > of > > Palestinians thanks to the apartheid status > foisted > > on > > them by Israel, as was Jimmy Carter and the Jewish > > prof who got himself in trouble thanks to his > > standing > > up for Palestnians, as Justine McCaib has the > > gumption > > to do, should be the policy of CTGP. > > > > Much of Amy's hangup on Palestine comes > > about > > due to her personal animosity toward Justine > McCaib. > > Amy Vas Nunes has been an albatross on the Greens > > backs for many years, chasing more Greens out of > the > > party than we even know about. It's always about > > 'poor > > Amy' to her. Enough. > > > > 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 > > > Do International criminals have freedom of > speech? > > > How many have been > > > killed, disappeared or jailed in Iran? This > > dictator > > > says the Holocost did > > > not happen and has held conferences on this idea > : > > > if so who killed over 200 > > > members of my family in Holland during WW II? He > > > also belives Israel should > > > not exist: if so where do Jews fleeing > > antisemitism > > > from all over the world > > > go, to Iran,thats where they fled from! This > > > opinion is being forwarded by > > > a CTGP International vice chair who needs to > go... > > > after over 2yrs with no > > > contact,and some one who has personally greatly > > > changed the USGP Platform to > > > pro Palestinian so now USGP and CTGP are on ADL > > > watch list mainly due to her > > > activities. Amy > > > > > > > > > >From: "Justine McCabe" > > > > > > >To: "CTGP Women's Caucus" > > > ,"CTGP-NEWS" > > > > > > > >Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT Iranian university > > > chancellors ask > > > >Columbiapresident 10questions (Fars News > Agency) > > > >Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:06:30 -0400 > > > > > > > >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 > > > > > > > >>Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger > 10 > > > >>Questions > > > >> > > > >>Fars News Agency, September 25, 2007 > > > > > > >>http://www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=8606300370 > > > > > > >>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6888 > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>Seven chancellors and presidents of Iranian > > > >>universities and research centers, in a letter > > > >>addressed to their counterpart in the US, > > > >>Colombia University, denounced Lee Bollinger's > > > >>insulting words against the Iranian nation and > > > >>president and invited him to provide responses > > to > > > >>10 questions by Iranian academics and > > > >>intellectuals. > > > >> > > > >>The following is the full text of the letter: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>Mr. Lee Bollinger > > > >>Columbia University President > > > >> > > > >>We, the professors and heads of universities > and > > > >>research institutions in Tehran, hereby > announce > > > >>our displeasure and protest at your impolite > > > >>remarks prior to Iranian President Mahmoud > > > >>Ahmadinejad's recent speech at Columbia > > > >>University. > > > >> > > > >>We would like to inform you that President > > > >>Ahmadinejad was elected directly by the > Iranian > > > >>people through an enthusiastic two-round poll > in > > > >>which almost all of the country's political > > > >>parties and groups participated. To assess the > > > >>quality and nature of these elections you may > > > >>refer to US news reports on the poll dated > June > > > >>2005. > > > >> > > > >>Your insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the > > > >>president of a country with a population of 72 > > > >>million and a recorded history of 7,000 years > of > > > >>civilization and culture is deeply shameful. > > > >> > > > >>Your comments, filled with hate and disgust, > may > > > >>well have been influenced by extreme pressure > > > >>from the media, but it is regrettable that > media > > > >>policy-makers can determine the stance a > > > >>university president adopts in his speech. > > > >> > > > >>Your remarks about our country included > > > >>unsubstantiated accusations that were the > > product > > > >>of guesswork as well as media propaganda. Some > > of > > > >>your claims result from misunderstandings that > > > >>can be clarified through dialogue and further > > > >>research. > > > >> > > > >>During his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad answered a > > > >>number of your questions and those of > students. > > > >>We are prepared to answer any remaining > > questions > > > >>in a scientific, open and direct debate. > > > >> > > > >>You asked the president approximately ten > > > >>questions. Allow us to ask you ten of our own > > > >>questions in the hope that your response will > > > >>help clear the atmosphere of misunderstanding > > and > > > >>distrust between our two countries and reveal > > the > > > >>truth. > > > >> > > > >>1- Why did the US media put you under so much > > > >>pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad from > > > >>delivering his speech at Columbia University? > > And > > > >>why have American TV networks been > broadcasting > > > >>hours of news reports insulting our president > > > >>while refusing to allow him the opportunity to > > > >>respond? Is this not against the principle of > > > >>freedom of speech? > > > >> > > > >>2- Why, in 1953, did the US administration > > > >>overthrow Iran's national government under Dr > > > >>Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the > > > >>Shah's dictatorship? > > > >> > > > >>3- Why did the US support the blood-thirsty > > > >>dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 > > > >>Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his > > > >>reckless use of chemical weapons against > Iranian > > > >>soldiers defending their land and even against > > > >>his own people? > > > >> > > > >>4- Why is the US putting pressure on the > > > >>government elected by the majority of > > > >>Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially > > > >>recognizing it? And why does it oppose Iran's > > > >>proposal to resolve the 60-year-old > Palestinian > > > >>issue through a general referendum? > > > >> > > > >>5- Why has the US military failed to find > > > >>Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even with all > > its > > > >>advanced equipment? How do you justify the old > > > >>friendship between the Bush and Bin Laden > > > >>families and their cooperation on oil deals? > How > > > >>can you justify the Bush administration's > > efforts > > > >>to disrupt investigations concerning the > > > >>September 11 attacks? > > > >> > > > >>6- Why does the US administration support the > > > >>Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) despite the > > > >>fact that the group has officially and openly > > > >>accepted the responsibility for numerous > deadly > > > >>bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why > > does > > > >>the US refuse to allow Iran's current > government > > > >>to act against the MKO's main base in Iraq? > > > >> > > > >>7- Was the US invasion of Iraq based on > > > >>international consensus and did international > > > >>institutions support it? What was the real > > > >>purpose behind the invasion which has claimed > > > >>hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where > are > > > >>the weapons of mass destruction that the US > > > >>claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq? > > > >> > > > >>8- Why do America's closest allies in the > Middle > > > >>East come from extremely undemocratic > > governments > > > >>with absolutist monarchical regimes? > > > >> > > > >>9- Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle > > > >>East free of unconventional weapons in the > > recent > > > >>session of the International Atomic Energy > > Agency > > > >>Board of Governors despite the fact the move > won > > > >>the support of all members other than Israel? > > > >> > > > >>10- Why is the US displeased with Iran's > > > >>agreement with the IAEA and why does it openly > > > >>oppose any progress in talks between Iran and > > the > > > >>agency to resolve the nuclear issue under > > > >>international law? > > > >> > > > >>Finally, we would like to express our > readiness > > > >>to invite you and other scientific delegations > > to > > > >>our country. A trip to Iran would allow you > and > > > >>your colleagues to speak directly with > Iranians > > > >>from all walks of life including intellectuals > > > >>and university scholars. You could then assess > > > >>the realities of Iranian society without media > > > >>censorship before making judgments about the > > > >>Iranian nation and government. > > > >> > > > >>You can be assured that Iranians are very > polite > > > >>and hospitable toward their guests. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >>____________________________________________________________________________________ > > > > > === message truncated === > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. > > > Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. > > > http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a > reality with Yahoo! Autos. > http://autos.yahoo.com/index.html > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz From edubrule at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 30 00:07:14 2007 From: edubrule at sbcglobal.net (edubrule) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:07:14 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: Sierra Club Annual Dinner Message-ID: <00d201c8038f$4e5acf80$c4864c0c@edgn2b574u14bi> This was sent to the Connecticut Green Party website. Note the panel discussion/Q&A with invited Congressional Representatives Courtney, Shays, Larson, and Murphy. I have no further information about this event. --Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: [R. Jackson Stanley] [e-mail address deleted --Ed] To: Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:09 PM Subject: Sierra Club Annual Dinner > Help make our annual dinner a great success! We hope to see you at > this exciting event. > Thanks, > Rich Stanley > Vice-Chair > Greater Hartford Group > > You are cordially invited to > The First Connecticut Sierra Club Annual Dinner > Saturday, October 20, 2007 > 5:30 to 9:30 pm > Pequot Museum > Mashantucket, CT > > $40.00 per person includes: > > ?? Hors d'oeuvres, buffet dinner, coffee and dessert, plus cash bar > ?? Musical entertainment by the nationally acclaimed folk duo ??Magpie?? > (http://www.magpiemusic.com/) > ?? A guided tour of the Native American Village at the Pequot Museum > (5:30 ?C 6:15 pm) > ?? Keynote address by Gina McCarthy, Connecticut Department of > Environmental Protection Commissioner > ?? Global Warming Panel Discussion and Q&A with Representatives Joe > Courtney, John Larson, Christopher Shays*, Chris Murphy* (* Invited > at time of print) > ?? Chance to participate in the evening's raffle for an Energy Star > Maytag dishwasher > ?? Complimentary compact fluorescent light bulb to take home > > Contact Molly McKay at: 860-536-5480 or > mollymckay at nationalcorridors.org to reserve your seat on our > chartered bus from West Hartford!($10.00 p.p.) > > Event proceeds will benefit awareness campaigns of the Connecticut > Sierra Club: > > Sprawl Prevention, > an awareness campaign to teach Connecticut citizens to be responsible > stewards of the land, and to work collaboratively with local > government to establish policies and regulations preventing further > sprawl into green fields, forests, and open spaces. > > And > > ??Cool Cities,?? > a major grassroots effort of the Sierra Club to curb global warming. > Through the ??Cool Cities?? awareness campaign, local communities > commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 7% below 1990 levels > by 2012, by implementing ??smart energy?? solutions. > > Please send reservations and check by Monday, October 8th, 2007 to: > CT Sierra Club > 645 Farmington Ave. > Hartford. CT 06105 > > If you have any questions or need additional information, please > contact John Calandrelli , State Program Director, at 860-236-4405 or > email: connecticut.chapter at sierraclub.org From efficacy at msn.com Sun Sep 30 16:07:42 2007 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:07:42 -0400 Subject: {news} Counter-insurgency in the Green Party? Message-ID: COUNTERPUNCH September 27, 2007 Their Own Worst Enemies Pruning the Green Party By JOSHUA FRANK http://www.counterpunch.org/frank09272007.html It may seem as if I have been unduly harsh to the Green Party in recent columns. However, my criticism is not with the majority of Green Party members but with their leaders who are preventing the party from developing into a truly progressive alternative to the corporate duopoly. The Vilest of Enemies The Greens have kept in place the same wrecking cabal that was responsible for the party's self implosion in 2004. Instead of ditching folks like Phil Huckelberry, they have promoted them. A few Green delegates tell me that back in 2005 during their annual convention in Tulsa, Huckelberry screamed at his fellow delegates, "I didn't join the Green Party to fight the Democrats!" In a recent message that Huckelberry sent to the National Delegates he cautioned the Greens for spending too much of their time "fighting with self-identifying progressive Democrats, one of the groupings on the political spectrum which is closest to us." He went on to advise, "[W]e should drop the pretense that they are somehow our vilest enemies, or worse, that people within our party are our vilest enemies." With friends like Huckelberry the Greens don't need enemies. Huckelberry is not only on the Green's Steering Committee, their main governing body, he's also in charge of the party's ballot access committee. Here's what is so ridiculous about Huckelberry's call to unify with progressive Democrats: It is the Democratic Party that is removing Green Party candidates from the ballot, not the Republicans. It is the Democratic Party that wants to destroy the Green Party, not the Republican Party. How can Democrats be seen as anything other than Green Party foes? How can those within the Green Party who continue suggesting that the Greens and the Democrats are ideologically aligned, not also be seen as the "vilest enemies" of the Greens? Keep in mind that it was progressive Democrat Dennis Kucinich who helped sucker off 50,000 Greens supporters from their membership rolls in 2004. It is the Democratic Party, especially the progressives, who are the greatest threat to the Green Party. Since Huckelberry does not realize that the progressive Democrats are their "vilest enemies" it is not surprising that he also does not recognize that an even more deadly enemy is the enemy within. The Greens like Huckelberry who refuse to recognize the danger the Democratic Party presents and the peril of not fiercely opposing their candidacies and policies every single election. Perhaps this was why Huckelberry, while running for election in Illinois, made certain he ran against a lone Republican with no Democratic opponent. The Scourge of Mike Cavlan Not all of the Green officers are unaware of the incompetence of some of their leaders. Members should salute Mike Cavlan, a delegate from Minnesota, who just published a letter detailing the history of someone he suggests is one of the most inept officers in the Green Party, Greg Gerritt. It seems that Cavlan's letter was initiated as a result of Gerritt's losing a $25,000 donation for the Green's Coordinated Campaign Committee (CCC). As it turns out, according to Mike Cavlan, there really is no CCC. There are only two members of the committee; Gerritt and a delegate from Georgia named Nan Garrett. Gerritt counters Cavlan's claim that the CCC is useless, "Saying that the CCC is small is less of a slap at me than it is at all of the state Green Parties that did not offer up a candidate for the CCC in 2006." Huckelberry should have realized that on the one hand the Democrats are indeed their "vilest enemy" but the enemy within may be even more monstrous. Certainly it is just as destructive. As it turns out, according to Mike Cavlan, Gerritt, more than anyone else other than perhaps David Cobb, was responsible for the disaster of 2004 and that while serving as party secretary, personally disaffiliated the Utah Green Party which was recognized by the state of Utah. He had no power to do this, but his decision went unchallenged and consequently an artificial Green Party was set up -- a paper party which would give Huckelberry and Gerritt two more votes. Mind you Cavlin doesn't have an axe to grind over the Green folly 2004, for he himself is a recovering Cobb supporter. A Bad Moon Rising It turns out that Greg Gerritt not only has a history of incompetence within the United States Green Party but he has virtually destroyed the Rhode Island Greens which cannot even put together a gender balanced eight person coordinating committee. According to Mike Cavlan "one of the two co-chair seats is vacant. Nobody is running for anything in RI in 2007. Nobody ran in RI in 2005. Nobody ran in 2003. Nobody ran in 2001. For even numbered years, 6 people ran in 2002. 6 people ran in 2004. But only one in 2006, a guy who's run every two years for the same seat." Mike goes on to report, "There have been a total of 26 candidates in GPRI [Green Party of Rhode Island] history. Only one of those has run since 2004. The Rhode Island Green Party no longer exists. Greg Gerritt therefore should not hold any position in the GPUS." Gerritt has an incredible history with the Green Party of the United States as the head of its Coordinated Campaign Committee (CCC) as well as its Presidential Candidate Support Committee (PCSC). In 2003, before Gerritt took over, the Green Party ran 400 candidates nationwide. With Gerritt at the helm that number dropped off to 200 in 2005 and will be around 100 in 2007. At this rate by 2011 there will be virtually no Green candidates running anywhere. Cavlan concludes, "Here we see the starkest display of the squandering of political capital gained during the Nader 2000 effort ... We're just scraping at the 1999 level now, and still in steady decline." Here's how it adds up with Gerritt heading up the Green Party's CCC in the aftermath of the 2004 debacle they helped engineer and for which Greg Gerritt recently took personal responsibility: A 48% total decline in candidates being run during the odd number years and a 32% decline since 2004 in the even numbered years. Gerritt has never so much as offered a hint of accountability in any of this, or any of his many and even more spectacular failures. Gerritt seems to have a reputation, according to Mike Cavlan, for being "always handy with a list of other people and outside circumstances that get his blame, and the majority of the NC rallies in his support in every instance, and elevates him to positions of ever-increasing authority over the future of GPUS." Gerritt's co-conspirator in the Coordinated Campaign Committee (CCC), Nan Garrett, co-chair of the Green's women's caucus, is currently a delegate from Georgia. But it is more likely to snow in the land of peaches than for something related to the Green Party to happen. Their latest action was to run African-American activist Elaine Brown for office, but due to their ineptitude the Georgia Greens didn't bother to check whether she met residency requirements. She didn't and was consequently removed from the ballot. Look at the situation in which the Green Party finds itself: It has a person in charge of its PCSC (Presidential Campaign Support Committee) and its CCC (Coordinated Campaign Committee) -- which means everything electoral in the Green Party of the United States -- who has a four year history of complete failure. How long will it take for Green Party members, the grassroots not the leadership, to call for dramatic changes to their party's structure? How much failure will it take? How much more humiliation can they tolerate? How long before they hold people like Greg Gerritt, Nan Garrett and Phil Huckelberry responsible? Tragically as George Santayana reminds us, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Joshua Frank is the co-editor of DissidentVoice.org, and author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of the forthcoming Red State Rebels, to be published by AK Press in March 2008. He can be reached through his website, BrickBurner.org. 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 rstuller at snet.net Sun Sep 30 17:12:09 2007 From: rstuller at snet.net (Ronna Stuller) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:12:09 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: Sierra Club Annual Dinner In-Reply-To: <00d201c8038f$4e5acf80$c4864c0c@edgn2b574u14bi> References: <00d201c8038f$4e5acf80$c4864c0c@edgn2b574u14bi> Message-ID: <95B66155-D582-4395-8DBD-B4771BCB0AB0@snet.net> John Calandrelli was on Thinking Green this week talking about the event... it sounded really good (more 'friendraiser' than fundraiser). I wish I could go, but the NL campaign has a fundraiser that evening. I'm sure John would be happy to provide more info if you call him. Ronna On Sep 30, 2007, at 12:07 AM, edubrule wrote: > This was sent to the Connecticut Green Party website. Note the > panel discussion/Q&A with invited Congressional Representatives > Courtney, Shays, Larson, and Murphy. I have no further information > about this event. > --Ed > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:09 PM > Subject: Sierra Club Annual Dinner > > >> Help make our annual dinner a great success! We hope to see you at >> this exciting event. >> Thanks, >> Rich Stanley >> Vice-Chair >> Greater Hartford Group >> >> You are cordially invited to >> The First Connecticut Sierra Club Annual Dinner >> Saturday, October 20, 2007 >> 5:30 to 9:30 pm >> Pequot Museum >> Mashantucket, CT >> >> $40.00 per person includes: >> >> ?? Hors d'oeuvres, buffet dinner, coffee and dessert, plus cash bar >> ?? Musical entertainment by the nationally acclaimed folk duo ?? >> Magpie?? >> (http://www.magpiemusic.com/) >> ?? A guided tour of the Native American Village at the Pequot Museum >> (5:30 ?C 6:15 pm) >> ?? Keynote address by Gina McCarthy, Connecticut Department of >> Environmental Protection Commissioner >> ?? Global Warming Panel Discussion and Q&A with Representatives Joe >> Courtney, John Larson, Christopher Shays*, Chris Murphy* (* Invited >> at time of print) >> ?? Chance to participate in the evening's raffle for an Energy Star >> Maytag dishwasher >> ?? Complimentary compact fluorescent light bulb to take home >> >> Contact Molly McKay at: 860-536-5480 or >> mollymckay at nationalcorridors.org to reserve your seat on our >> chartered bus from West Hartford!($10.00 p.p.) >> >> Event proceeds will benefit awareness campaigns of the Connecticut >> Sierra Club: >> >> Sprawl Prevention, >> an awareness campaign to teach Connecticut citizens to be responsible >> stewards of the land, and to work collaboratively with local >> government to establish policies and regulations preventing further >> sprawl into green fields, forests, and open spaces. >> >> And >> >> ??Cool Cities,?? >> a major grassroots effort of the Sierra Club to curb global warming. >> Through the ??Cool Cities?? awareness campaign, local communities >> commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 7% below 1990 levels >> by 2012, by implementing ??smart energy?? solutions. >> >> Please send reservations and check by Monday, October 8th, 2007 to: >> CT Sierra Club >> 645 Farmington Ave. >> Hartford. CT 06105 >> >> If you have any questions or need additional information, please >> contact John Calandrelli , State Program Director, at 860-236-4405 or >> email: connecticut.chapter at sierraclub.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