From efficacy at msn.com Sun Feb 1 16:21:44 2009 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 16:21:44 -0500 Subject: {news} Re: [VoteThornton] Drug Legalization Forum 2/4 at CCSU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I just received information that high school students from various high schools that Scott Desherfy and myself have spoken at in the state. The conference is free and open to the public. The weather may be a factor. ----- Original Message ----- From: David Bedell To: votethornton at yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 4:14 PM Subject: [VoteThornton] Drug Legalization Forum 2/4 at CCSU Still time to register for this event Wednesday: http://www.ccsu3.net/drugpolicyreg.htm David Bedell ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: efficacy at msn.com To: aro at drugsense.org; ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Subject: Lamont Pledges Neutrality in Moderating Upcoming Drug Legalization Forum Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:18:39 -0500 This forum has created a ton of news articles and is well on its way on becoming a media gift for drug reformers. This also shows what it takes with time and commitment to get something like this off the ground. http://www.the40yearplan.com/article_012809_Lamont_Pledges_Neutrality.php January 28, 2009 Lamont Pledges Neutrality in Moderating Upcoming Drug Legalization Forum Story By Ken Krayeske ? 4:40 PM EST Ned Lamont at a campaign event in 2006. The war on drugs has claimed another politician: Ned Lamont will moderate a forum at the "Drug Policy for the 21st Century" conference at Central Connecticut State University, Wednesday, February 4, 2009. National legalization experts like keynote speaker Ethan Nadelmann from the Drug Policy Alliance, and panelist Jack Cole, from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition will lead the conference, co-sponsored by CCSU's Peace Studies Department and its Institute for the Study of Criminal Justice. Tickets are still available for the conference here. Give Lamont some credit for guiding the afternoon's premier panel, featuring Connecticut anti-prohibitionists like Cliff Thornton, whose 2006 Green Party campaign for governor I managed, former Hartford City Councilman Bob Painter and A Better Way's Lorenzo Jones. But surrounded by activists openly touting legalization, with no one on the panel to argue for the drug war, you think that Lamont, who enjoys a part-time professorship in the Peace Studies Department at CCSU, would be forthcoming about his opinions and history with illegal drugs. "No, I am not answering any of those questions," Lamont said when I asked him if he had ever done any illegal drugs. Nor would he go on the record to analyze prohibition. "It is a long overdue debate for the state of Connecticut," Lamont would only say. "As a moderator I am going to do everything I can to be neutral. I am going to be a provocateur." So Ned is playing his participation like a man who is running for office in 2010. And frankly, I tire of leadership - or those who purport to want to lead society via electoral office - equivocating on the most intense, important issues of our day. Lamont did not make the war on drugs an issue in his Senate campaign. So when did he have this epiphany that the war on drugs was bad? Or does he think by lending his world-famous, Lieberman-slaying name to a conference that endorses legalization, he can still straddle this fault line of an issue? "A leading indicator of a politician's character is their stance on the drug war, or lack thereof," Thornton said. While President Barack Obama has not touched the devastating side effects of the war on some drugs, has at least admitted to smoking marijuana and experimenting with cocaine. So what gives, Ned? When I called him for the interview, I told his secretary who I was, and indicated that I wanted to interview Ned. And I swore that at the beginning of the conversation with Ned, I told him this was for my website and myleftnutmeg.com. But I apparently didn't. Yet he knows I am a journalist. The first time I met him was to interview him at his office in Greenwich in January 2006. He impressed me enough that I eventually worked for his campaign for two months in spring 2006 before joining Thornton's efforts. And to complete disclosure, I remember introducing Thornton and Lamont at a Saturday night debate fanfare at CCSU during the 2006 election. This time, on the phone, we made small talk for a minute - I updated him on the civil rights lawsuit surrounding my false arrest, and I mentioned that I read the case for law school that his Uncle Corliss won against the U.S. Postal Service for reading his Communist-themed mail. Then I asked Lamont how he decided to participate in the CCSU conference. "Cliff had contacted me a year or so ago to do something on drug policy," Lamont said. "It took a year or so to get it together." When I moved to ask him about his history with illegal drugs, he suddenly inquired if was typing this, and if the conversation was on the record? I said yes, and he said no, he thought we were talking as friends, and it was off the record. Friends, I thought, as if Ned and I trade chocolate chip cookie recipes or swill beers at Kenney's Red Rock Tavern on Tuesday nights? And if we were talking as friends, why be so defensive? To respect the reporter's tool of off the record, we negotiated what parts of the conversation I could print, and what stayed off the record. Ned is no dummy, and I bet he wants to run for office in 2010, although he isn't jumping in the race now. So he seeks to protect himself from the vulnerability of taking a courageous stance. Harbor no doubt that past drug use for those who advocate change remains a political liability. Why else would the opposing lawyer who deposed me in my federal civil rights suit open by asking about my LSD use? I?ve never made a secret of my usage of psychoactive substances. People who want your vote, though, do want to hide things. But it is dishonest to hold a view privately which could free thousands of people from jail then vote on a budget that funds those jails. "That is the way of politicians," Thornton said. "He might try to go the back door, doing things like he is doing now and not give one way or the other where he stands. Politicians are scared to death of this issue." The economic and infrastructural implications of ending the war on drugs frightens politicians, Thornton said. It's not just what are we going to do with the thousands of people jailed in the criminal justice system, but what about the lawyers, prison guards, cops, and even drug test technicians who would lose their jobs if we declared a truce in the war on some drugs? "We have to use the infrastructure that is in place," Thornton said. "It is a shift in priorities." People will have to be re-trained to help ramp down and unbuild the infrastructure of the prison-industrial complex. But before we end the age of incarceration, we need a baseline honesty about who has participated in this failed set of laws, a kind of truth and reconciliation approach to it. Obviously, we need to know what drug-dealing black operations the CIA, the White House (like George H. W. Bush) and any other branch of government has been involved in. And for those who plan to help us change the policy, we also need to know where they stand and how long they have felt this way. Until everyone is frank about their position and past, drug use will remain a vulnerability for those of us who espouse changing the position, and it will remain an activity that jails people - particularly those of color - by the score. Obviously, Thornton agrees that Lamont and others who seek to make policy decisions regarding the war on drugs must come out of the closet. "Anyone that is for this policy has to be directly responsible for the result," Thornton said. "Anyone that is against it, no, they don't have to be accountable for their use. Those in the middle, going along to get along makes one complicit. Ned Lamont is complicit in this." Thornton has never been known to mince words. Lamont, on the other hand, refused to condemn Israel in July 2006 for using banned white phosphorous munitions on Lebanese civilians. If his campaign hadn't shown me the door before that, I would've walked away then. Why try to out-warmonger Lieberman? More recently, Lamont showed exactly what kind of a lightweight he is when in September 2008 he said the financial crisis was Greenwich's Katrina. Christopher Keating of the Hartford Courant reported Lamont's the quote, and even the Wall Street Journal found it so absurd as to highlight it. And there?s still time to check out the Feb. 4 conference at CCSU. Registration is open. Contact CCSU?s Lyndsay Ruffalo at 860-832-1872. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Windows Live?: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. Check it out. __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar MARKETPLACE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity Visit Your Group Yahoo! News Fashion News What's the word on fashion and style? Yahoo! Groups Join people over 40 who are finding ways to stay in shape. Yahoo! Groups Dog Lovers Group Connect and share with dog owners like you . __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dbedellgreen at hotmail.com Sun Feb 1 16:59:13 2009 From: dbedellgreen at hotmail.com (David Bedell) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 21:59:13 +0000 Subject: {news} Tobacco and the War on Drugs Message-ID: If CT were serious about a "War on Drugs," you'd think it would cover smoking cessation treatment for Medicaid recipients. It's one of six states that don't. And the Tobacco and Health Trust Fund is one of the programs Gov. Rell now plans to raid. I understand CT just passed a law that will fine teens for using tobacco in public.--let's see what effect it has. I suppose a consistent policy would be to fine public users of tobacco or marijuana, but not imprison them. David Bedell http://www.connpost.com/brooks/ci_11581932 Report: State fails in tobacco prevention, cessation coverageBy David HennesseyPosted: 01/29/2009 01:19:46 PM EST var requestedWidth = 0; if(requestedWidth> 0){ document.getElementById('articleViewerGroup').style.width = requestedWidth + "px"; document.getElementById('articleViewerGroup').style.margin = "0px 0px 10px 10px"; } The American Lung Association's (ALA) annual national "State of Tobacco Control Report Card," which was released last week, has once again pegged a disconcerting trend concerning the prevention and cessation of smoking in the state of Connecticut. Connecticut received failing grades in two categories ? tobacco prevention and control spending, as well as cessation coverage. "The American Lung Association has released a report card for the past six years basically rating tobacco control in the United States," explained Margaret LaCroix, spokesperson for the ALA. "If this was a report card your child brought home to you, you'd be very upset." Despite the state seemingly taking a giant step forward toward comprehensive tobacco control by originally proposing $12 million for the Tobacco and Health Trust Fund, Gov. M. Jodi Rell now plans to raid that fund and instead transfer the $12 million into the general fund, a move the ALA says is a step in the wrong direction. We're suggesting to the governor and the General Assembly not to raid that $12 million," LaCroix said. She explained that a state like Connecticut should be spending roughly $43.9 million on tobacco control every year, a figure recommended by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Over the past decade, the state has received more than $1 billion in funds from the landmark Master Settlement Agreement. Yet, virtually none has been spent for the purpose for which it was intended, namely tobacco treatment, according to the ALA. Connecticut is also one of just six states remaining that does not cover smoking cessation treatment for Medicaid recipients, despite 70 percent of current smokers wanting to quit. "If the state legislature has any notion that they are saving money by not providing comprehensive treatment for smokers who want to quit, their thinking is flawed," said David Hill, chair of the Connecticut Leadership Board, American Lung Association of New England, in a release. "We know that for ever $1 spent on tobacco prevention and treatment, $14 is saved on health care costs. In a state that has historically prided itself on implementing good public health policy, in the area of tobacco control, we fail. This failure translates into nearly 5,000 deaths in our state each year. Tobacco use is at the heart of a crisis plaguing America's health and economy and it must be a priority for our state leaders," Hill added. On a positive note Norwalk Hospital has offered a free, inclusive smoking cessation program since the 1970s. Program instructor Beverly Jacob said the initiative helps smokers to deal with the far-ranging effects of withdrawal. "We offer it twice a year, once in the spring and once in the fall, for seven weeks," Jacob said. "Because smoking is so addictive, we just want people to be able to prepare themselves. Some people can just put cigarettes down. Others take several quit attempts. But we all know it's just as serious a health problem as alcohol or drugs, and the health consequences are huge." Jacob said the program typically sees a 30 to 35 percent quit rate. It also provides "multiple techniques in assisting smokers interested in quitting," according to Maura Romaine, a spokesperson for Norwalk Hospital, including information provided on nicotine replacement therapy, controlling weight during the quitting process and the health benefits of quitting. Group support and expert counseling are also key aspects of the program, Romaine said. "As part of our mission to promote wellness for our community, Norwalk Hospital provides a vast assortment of public services ? educational programs, support groups, health fairs and screenings ? free of charge as a community service," Romaine said. "The smoking cessation program is one of those programs. We want to encourage the members of our community ? as much as possible ? to take advantage of these offerings that help promote healthy lifestyles. We also see it as part of our commitment to the communities we serve to give back. Without full funding of more programs like the one offered at Norwalk Hospital, LaCroix said it's difficult to provide the complete treatment necessary ? especially the important nicotine replacement therapy ? to help smokers quit once and for all. Even with community events like the Great American Smoke-Out hosted by the American Cancer Society, the state of Connecticut is lagging behind when it comes to helping people quit the unhealthy and addictive habit. "If the grades on the report card improve, general health will improve. That's how it works," LaCroix said. LaCroix pointed out that one of the reasons the state got a C' in [the report card's] Smoke-free Air category is because Connecticut still has a lot of restrictions on the books ? casinos, for example. "There is no safe level of second-hand smoke," she said. While the state received a decent grade B in the Cigarette Tax category, LaCroix said the ALA is suggesting the cigarette tax in Connecticut be increased by $1 per pack, a move which historically has corresponded with decreased smoking rates. "In proposing the tax to be increased by a dollar, we're also suggesting some of it be earmarked for cessation and prevention programs," she said, noting that the income generated from the increased tax would raise about $50 million per year for the state. LaCroix urges local residents to contact state legislators as well as the governor to encourage Connecticut to cover smoking cessation treatment and services to Medicaid recipients. "Increasing tobacco taxes and passing smoke-free workplace laws drive up demand for cessation treatments and services," she said. "It is imperative that our state has a policy in place to help these smokers quit ? especially among people on Medicaid, who smoke at a much higher rate than the general public," she said. For information, contact the ALA at http://www.lungne.org To learn more about Norwalk Hospital's cessation program, call 852-2484. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_howitworks_012009 From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Wed Feb 4 16:01:57 2009 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 16:01:57 -0500 Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT German green party on the right side on this isue Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Julia Willebrand To: usgp-int at gp-us.org Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:13 PM Subject: USGP-INT German green party on the right side on this isue Merkel Fails to Resolve Rift on Hypo Nationalization (Update2) Email | Print | A A A By Rainer Buergin and Tony Czuczka Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, her challenger in Sept. 27 elections, failed to resolve a coalition dispute over nationalization of Hypo Real Estate Holding AG. Talks at the chancellery in Berlin today broke up with Merkel?s Christian Democratic Union and Steinmeier?s Social Democratic Party unable to bridge a divide over how to save Hypo Real, the Munich-based property lender that?s already received 92 billion euros ($120 billion) in public funds. ?There was no agreement over changes to the bank-rescue package or on the state taking a stake in Hypo Real Estate,? Ulrich Wilhelm, the chief government spokesman, said in a statement. ?All options were thoroughly discussed but no decisions were taken.? He later told reporters that a draft law will be outlined ?in the next few weeks.? Merkel?s dilemma over nationalization of banks is echoed internationally. U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown suffered a setback late yesterday when the House of Lords voted to amend legislation allowing the U.K. government to nationalize banks. President Barack Obama?s administration ?appears to be tying itself in knots? to avoid nationalization, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times on Feb. 2. ?Alternative Ways? ?Those who push for nationalizations have to explain why there are no alternatives,? Steffen Kampeter, budget spokesman of Merkel?s Christian Democrats, said yesterday by phone. ?I want the government to set agreed goals next week on ways to deal with troubled banks and show parliament alternative ways of reaching these goals.? Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck, a Social Democrat, is paving the way for nationalization as the best means to rescue Hypo Real Estate, according to Kampeter. Torsten Albig, Steinbrueck?s spokesman, said Feb. 2 that the minister is exploring taking over lenders as ?one possible option? to ?bolster an institution so it doesn?t go into insolvency.? Steinbrueck is flirting with a ?very dangerous package? that ?isn?t helping to stabilize the financial market,? said Josef Schlarmann, a CDU member who heads a lobby representing 40,000 business owners and managers allied with the party. ?I have the impression that objective arguments are being mixed up with election campaign interests,? he said in an interview. Hypo Real Estate was forced to seek a bailout after Depfa Bank Plc, its Dublin-based unit, failed to get short-term funding in September when credit markets seized up. Hypo Real now requires another 10 billion euros, according to Handelsblatt newspaper. ?Nationalization Is Coming? ?There?s a significant need for capital, so full nationalization is coming -- this is the only fair solution for taxpayers,? Gerhard Schick, finance spokesman in parliament for the opposition Green Party, Steinmeier?s favored coalition partner, said in an interview. ?The Union,? comprising Merkel?s Christian Democratic Union and their Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union, ?is holding a very ideological debate about whether the government should own banks,? said Schick. ?There?s no time for ideological debates, only pragmatic suggestions that are good for banks and taxpayers.? The Christian Democrats and Social Democrats are both at historic lows in opinion polls. Merkel?s CDU dropped one percentage point to 34 percent, according to a weekly Forsa poll for Stern magazine released today. That?s below the 35.2 percent the CDU scored at the last election in 2005. If replicated in September, it would be the CDU?s worst result in a national election since 1949. Steinmeier?s SPD gained one point to 23 percent compared with 34.2 percent in 2005. To contact the reporters on this story: Rainer Buergin in Berlin at rbuergin1 at bloomberg.net; Tony Czuczka in Berlin at aczuczka at bloomberg.net Last Updated: February 4, 2009 09:58 EST Print Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Trademarks Julia Willebrand, Ed.D Corporate Accountability Task Force julia.willebrand at verizon.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ usgp-int mailing list usgp-int at gp-us.org http://forum.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-int -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.13 - Release Date: 1/23/2009 12:00 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From smderosa at cox.net Wed Feb 4 22:36:44 2009 From: smderosa at cox.net (Mike DeRosa) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 22:36:44 -0500 Subject: {news} GP ROAD SHOWS 2/17/09-EAST HARTFORD; 2/26/09-WILLIMANTIC THURS In-Reply-To: <002401c98742$614fc9a0$23ef5ce0$@net> References: <002401c98742$614fc9a0$23ef5ce0$@net> Message-ID: <004501c98742$f7e2b170$e7a81450$@net> From: Mike DeRosa [mailto:smderosa at cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 10:33 PM To: 'Mike DeRosa'; ctgp-news at mlgreens.org; newhavengreens at yahoogroups.com; 'Michael Burns'; '2a-CTgreensForum' Subject: CORRECTED: ROAD SHOWS 2/17/09-EAST HARTFORD; 2/26/09-WILLIMANTIC THURS MARK THE DATES BELOW & Participate in 2 Green Party 2009 Road Shows! http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:2OaLB4IiQbWRdM:http://www.thepulse.co.th /images/roadshow.jpg WHAT: 2 Green Party 2009 Road Shows - Green Local and State candidates and Green elected officials tell the unique story of the Green Party in CT. The true narrative of CT's fastest growing third Party (including literature and refreshments served)(More Road Shows Planned). When and Where: ROAD SHOW # 1: TUES 2/17/09 6PM to 9PM; Pasta Dinner And Road Show; FRENCH SOCIAL CIRCLE 373 MAIN ST. EAST HARTFORD, CT (860-919-4042 info/tickets)$15.(Special thanks to Steve Fornier and Albert Marceau) ROAD SHOW # 2: THURS 2/26/09 7PM to 9PM; The Wrench In The Works coffee house at 861 Main ST. WILLIMANTIC CT. (REFRESHMENTS WILL BE SERVED)(info 860-919-4042)FREE(Special thanks to Michael Westerfield). Image Why: To expose new people to the unique narrative of the CT Green Party and facilitate preferred solution based outcomes that promote social and environmental justice. http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/06/13/cmWIND_LARGE_wideweb__430x286,0.jp g E-mail Contacts: westerfield at sysmatrix.net hecate at crows.ner smderosa at cox.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3958 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7788 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6233 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6613 bytes Desc: not available URL: From smderosa at cox.net Wed Feb 4 22:40:03 2009 From: smderosa at cox.net (Mike DeRosa) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 22:40:03 -0500 Subject: {news} GP ROAD SHOWS 2/17/09-EAST HARTFORD; 2/26/09-WILLIMANTIC THURS In-Reply-To: <004501c98742$f7e2b170$e7a81450$@net> References: <002401c98742$614fc9a0$23ef5ce0$@net> <004501c98742$f7e2b170$e7a81450$@net> Message-ID: <005101c98743$6e155460$4a3ffd20$@net> MARK THE DATES BELOW & Participate in 2 Green Party 2009 Road Shows! http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:2OaLB4IiQbWRdM:http://www.thepulse.co.th /images/roadshow.jpg WHAT: 2 Green Party 2009 Road Shows - Green Local and State candidates and Green elected officials tell the unique story of the Green Party in CT. The true narrative of CT's fastest growing third Party (including literature and refreshments served)(More Road Shows Planned). When and Where: ROAD SHOW # 1: TUES 2/17/09 6PM to 9PM; Pasta Dinner And Road Show; FRENCH SOCIAL CIRCLE 373 MAIN ST. EAST HARTFORD, CT (860-919-4042 info/tickets)$15.(Special thanks to Steve Fornier and Albert Marceau) ROAD SHOW # 2: THURS 2/26/09 7PM to 9PM; The Wrench In The Works coffee house at 861 Main ST. WILLIMANTIC CT. (REFRESHMENTS WILL BE SERVED)(info 860-919-4042)FREE(Special thanks to Michael Westerfield). Image Why: To expose new people to the unique narrative of the CT Green Party and facilitate preferred solution based outcomes that promote social and environmental justice. http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/06/13/cmWIND_LARGE_wideweb__430x286,0.jp g E-mail Contacts: westerfield at sysmatrix.net hecate at crows.ner smderosa at cox.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3958 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7788 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6233 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6613 bytes Desc: not available URL: From timmckee at mail.com Thu Feb 5 20:28:38 2009 From: timmckee at mail.com (Tim McKee) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 20:28:38 -0500 Subject: {news} Nominations Due February 21 for Green House & Senate Campaign Committees Message-ID: <20090206012838.E0C70105CE@ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Huckelberry" To: "The natlcomvotes (aka National Committee Votes) listserv is for decision-making and management of GP-US affairs." Subject: [usgp-nc] Nominations Due February 21 for Green House & Senate Campaign Committees Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 21:52:47 -0600 *** DELEGATES: *** Please forward this message to your state parties and/or caucuses. Note that the dates have changed, so even if you forwarded the previous message, please forward this as well. Nominations are now being accepted for candidates for the Green Senatorial Campaign Committee and Green House Campaign Committee. Nominations will be accepted through Saturday, February 21, with an election proposal to go on the Voting Queue for two weeks of discussion starting on Monday, February 22, and a voting period scheduled from Monday, March 9 through Sunday, March 15. The timeline has been extended at the request of the GSCC and some National Committee delegates, and in light of the very low number of nominations made thus far. The Green National Committee is empowered to elect up to 7 members to the GSCC, and up to 9 members to the GHCC. Nominations may be made by any member of the Green National Committee. The elections will be conducted using Single Transferable Voting. The elections are all for two-year terms. Note that a person may not simultaneously serve on more than one of the Steering Committee, GSCC, and GHCC. Nominated candidates may submit 250-word statements for the consideration of the National Committee. Nominations should be directed to Phil Huckelberry, GPUS Co-Chair, at phil.huckelberry at gmail.com. When submitting nominations, please clearly state the position of the name and person making the nomination, and the name, email address, and state and/or caucus affiliation of the person being nominated. It is preferred, but not required, that candidates have previous experience in working on federal campaigns and/or working on GPUS committees. If there are any questions about the nomination or voting process, please contact Phil Huckelberry, phil.huckelberry at gmail.com. [Note: The current bylaws for the GSCC and GHCC were adopted June 8, 2008, as Proposal 346. See http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=346 for the text of the bylaws.] Phil Huckelberry Co-Chair, GPUS _______________________________________________ Natlcomvotes mailing list To send a message to the list, write to: Natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org To unsubscribe or change your list options, go to: http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomvotes If your state delegation changes, please see: http://gp.org/committees/nc/documents/delegate_change.html To report violations of listserv protocol, write to forummanagers at lists.gp-us.org For other information about the Coordinating Committee, see: http://gp.org/committees/nc/ ****************************************** Tim McKee, Manchester CT, main number cell-860-778-1304, 860-643-2282 National Committee member of the Green Party of the United States and is a spokesperson for the Green Party of CT. BLOG-http://thebiggreenpicture.blogspot.com -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Fri Feb 6 07:31:44 2009 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 07:31:44 -0500 Subject: {news} =?windows-1252?q?Fw=3A_=5Bfpva-foro=5D_Fwd=3A_Green_Party_?= =?windows-1252?q?of_Canada_calls_for_no_nukes_in_Saskatchewan/Le_P?= =?windows-1252?q?arti_Vert_du_Canada_contre_le_nucl=E9aire_en_Sask?= =?windows-1252?q?atchewan?= Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael Bernard Date: 2009/2/5 Subject: Green Party of Canada calls for no nukes in Saskatchewan/Le Parti Vert du Canada contre le nucl?aire en Saskatchewan To: Media Release For Immediate Release February 5, 2009 Green Party of Canada calls for no nukes in Saskatchewan REGINA--The Green Party of Canada and the Green Party of Saskatchewan joined the Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan this week, adding our voices to a growing chorus calling for no nuclear plants to be built in the province. Saskatchewan currently is a producer of uranium but has no operating nuclear plants. "The people of Saskatchewan want clean energy that is economically and environmentally sustainable, they don't want their health and environment threatened by a nuclear plant and they don't want their tax dollars going to bail out this industry," said Amy Collard, the Natural Resources Critic for the Green Party of Canada. The Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan is calling for a non-nuclear energy strategy, including wind, solar, small-scale hydro power and energy conservation programs. These and other programs, such as farmers and villages receiving a tariff for feeding renewable electricity into the public grid, would see Saskatchewan become a leader in renewable energy and enable the province to phase out the coal fired plants that currently provide one third of the energy requirement. "We have already made great strides in this province," said Ms. Collard. "We have great programs such as net-metering and the Small Producers Program which are encouraging more wind farms and co-generation. We need to keep moving forward. Supporting the nuclear industry would be a step in the wrong direction." Bruce Power has recently expressed interest in building new nuclear plants along the North Saskatchewan River. The Coalition points out that wind power provides more than five times the number of jobs as nuclear power does to generate the same amount of electricity. Bruce Power's proposal for nuclear plants on Saskatchewan's relatively small grid would require massive public costs for expanding the public grid for profitable exports, while still requiring expensive back-up capacity due to the unreliability of nuclear power. "The nuclear industry is not economically successful; they are sustained through massive government subsidies, including another $750 million in the 2009 fiscal stimulus budget," said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May. "Investment in renewable energy strengthens local economies and provides jobs without endangering ecosystems or the health of our children." Saskatchewan should therefore reject Bruce Power's push to build nuclear plants. Nuclear power is not a sound energy, environmental, health, water or job-creating policy. It is not in the fundamental public interest for present or future citizens of Saskatchewan. Instead, the province needs to embrace the sustainable energy path. -30- Contact: Amber Jones Leader Green Party of Saskatchewan 306-653-5836. Michael Bernard Communications Officer Green Party of Canada 613-562-4916 ext. 244 (c) 613-614-4916 Communiqu? de presse Pour diffusion imm?diate Le 5 F?vrier 2009 Le Parti Vert du Canada contre le nucl?aire en Saskatchewan REGINA ? Le Parti Vert du Canada et le Parti Vert de la Saskatchewan ont rejoint cette semaine la Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan, ajoutant leurs voix au nombre grandissant de citoyennes et de citoyens qui r?clament l'annulation du projet de construction d'une centrale nucl?aire en Saskatchewan. Bien que la Saskatchewan produise de l'uranium, elle ne compte aucune centrale nucl?aire en op?ration. ? Les gens de la Saskatchewan veulent une ?nergie propre et durable sur les plans de l'?conomie et de l'environnement; ils ne veulent pas d'une centrale nucl?aire qui menacerait leur sant? et leur environnement, et ils ne veulent pas que l'argent de leurs imp?ts serve ? financer cette industrie ?, a d?clar? Amy Collard, porte-parole du Parti Vert du Canada en mati?re de ressources naturelles. La Coalition r?clame une strat?gie de l'?nergie non-nucl?aire, ax?e notamment sur la production d'?nergie ?olienne et solaire, les petites centrales hydro?lectriques et des programmes de conservation de l'?nergie. Ces derniers, conjugu?s ? d'autres programmes tels que l'octroi de subventions sous forme de tarifs d'alimentation aux exploitants agricoles et aux villages qui produisent de l'?lectricit? renouvelable, permettraient ? la Saskatchewan de se tailler une place de chef de file dans le domaine de l'?nergie renouvelable et d'?liminer progressivement les centrales au charbon qui couvrent ? l'heure actuelle le tiers des besoins ?nerg?tiques de la province. ? Nous avons d?j? r?alis? des progr?s consid?rables dans la province ?, a affirm? Mme Collard. ? Nous avons d'excellents programmes comme la facturation nette et le Small Producers Program, qui favorisent la construction de parcs d'?oliennes et la cog?n?ration. Nous devons continuer d'aller de l'avant. Appuyer l'industrie nucl?aire ?quivaudrait ? faire un grand pas dans la mauvaise direction. ? Bruce Power a exprim? un int?r?t ? construire de nouvelles centrales nucl?aires en bordure de la rivi?re Saskatchewan Nord. La Coalition a cependant fait valoir que, pour la m?me quantit? d'?lectricit? produite, la production d'?nergie ?olienne fournissait plus de cinq fois le nombre d'emplois fournis par la production d'?nergie nucl?aire. La proposition de Bruce Power, qui pr?voit la construction de centrales nucl?aires sur un r?seau ?lectrique plut?t limit?, signifie que la province devrait engager des frais consid?rables pour ?largir son r?seau de distribution ?lectrique afin de rentabiliser le projet gr?ce aux exportations. Il faudrait par ailleurs pr?voir une capacit? de secours extr?mement co?teuse ?tant donn? la non-fiabilit? des centrales nucl?aires. ? L'industrie nucl?aire n'est pas rentable d'un point de vue ?conomique; elle doit sa survie aux g?n?reuses subventions publiques, dont un nouvel investissement de 750 millions de dollars pr?vu dans le budget de relance de l'?conomie de 2009 ?, a d?clar? Elizabeth May, chef du Parti Vert du Canada. ? Les investissements dans l'?nergie renouvelable renforcent les ?conomies locales et cr?ent des emplois sans mettre en p?ril nos ?cosyst?mes ou la sant? de nos enfants. ? La Saskatchewan n'a d'autre choix que de rejeter la proposition de Bruce Power pour la construction de nouvelles centrales nucl?aires. L'?nergie nucl?aire est une bien mauvaise politique sur les plans de l'?nergie, de l'environnement, de la sant?, de la protection de l'eau et de la cr?ation d'emplois. Elle n'est pas dans l'int?r?t fondamental des citoyennes et des citoyens de la Saskatchewan, ni aujourd'hui, ni demain. Au lieu de cela, la province doit axer son d?veloppement ?nerg?tique sur les sources d'?nergie durables. -30- Renseignements : Amber Jones Chef, Parti Vert de la Saskatchewan T?l. : 306-653-5836 Michael Bernard Agent des communications Parti Vert du Canada T?l. : 613-562-4916, poste 244 Cell : 613-614-4916 -- in friendship, Silvaine Zimmermann -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ fpva-foro mailing list fpva-foro at lists.globalgreens.org http://lists.globalgreens.org/listinfo.cgi/fpva-foro-globalgreens.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.13 - Release Date: 1/23/2009 12:00 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amyvasnunes at hotmail.com Sun Feb 8 18:06:48 2009 From: amyvasnunes at hotmail.com (Amy Vas Nunes) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 18:06:48 -0500 Subject: FW: {news} Nominations Due February 21 for Green House & Senate Campaign Committees In-Reply-To: <20090208204237.A2B52326774@ws1-8.us4.outblaze.com> References: <20090208204237.A2B52326774@ws1-8.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: I nomminate Mike DeRosa if he would like, Amy From: timmckee at mail.comTo: amyvasnunes at hotmail.comDate: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 15:42:37 -0500Subject: RE: {news} Nominations Due February 21 for Green House & Senate Campaign Committees once again you are sending emails just to me,, not that list. I am not censoring you,, but ii am not the person to send email or nomiations to,, btw,, did u ask mike?? first?? it is a lotof work,, and he may not have time You email me a report afetr i asked for these reports - ON YOUR BEHALF- but u sent it to me,, not the state committe or other who might use them like Barbara our secrtrty,, ----- Original Message -----From: "Amy Vas Nunes" To: timmckee at mail.comSubject: RE: {news} Nominations Due February 21 for Green House & Senate Campaign CommitteesDate: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 21:38:42 -0500 I nominate Mike De Rosa, Amy From: timmckee at mail.comTo: ctgp-news at ml.greens.orgDate: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 20:28:38 -0500Subject: {news} Nominations Due February 21 for Green House & Senate Campaign Committees ----- Original Message -----From: "Phil Huckelberry" To: "The natlcomvotes (aka National Committee Votes) listserv is for decision-making and management of GP-US affairs." Subject: [usgp-nc] Nominations Due February 21 for Green House & Senate Campaign CommitteesDate: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 21:52:47 -0600*** DELEGATES: *** Please forward this message to your state partiesand/or caucuses. Note that the dates have changed, so even if youforwarded the previous message, please forward this as well.Nominations are now being accepted for candidates for the GreenSenatorial Campaign Committee and Green House Campaign Committee.Nominations will be accepted through Saturday, February 21, with anelection proposal to go on the Voting Queue for two weeks ofdiscussion starting on Monday, February 22, and a voting periodscheduled from Monday, March 9 through Sunday, March 15. The timelinehas been extended at the request of the GSCC and some NationalCommittee delegates, and in light of the very low number ofnominations made thus far.The Green National Committee is empowered to elect up to 7 members tothe GSCC, and up to 9 members to the GHCC. Nominations may be made byany member of the Green National Committee. The elections will beconducted using Single Transferable Voting. The elections are all fortwo-year terms. Note that a person may not simultaneously serve onmore than one of the Steering Committee, GSCC, and GHCC. Nominatedcandidates may submit 250-word statements for the consideration of theNational Committee.Nominations should be directed to Phil Huckelberry, GPUS Co-Chair, atphil.huckelberry at gmail.com. When submitting nominations, pleaseclearly state the position of the name and person making thenomination, and the name, email address, and state and/or caucusaffiliation of the person being nominated.It is preferred, but not required, that candidates have previousexperience in working on federal campaigns and/or working on GPUScommittees.If there are any questions about the nomination or voting process,please contact Phil Huckelberry, phil.huckelberry at gmail.com.[Note: The current bylaws for the GSCC and GHCC were adopted June 8,2008, as Proposal 346. Seehttp://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=346 for the text of thebylaws.]Phil HuckelberryCo-Chair, GPUS_______________________________________________Natlcomvotes mailing listTo send a message to the list, write to:Natlcomvotes at green.gpus.orgTo unsubscribe or change your list options, go to:http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomvotesIf your state delegation changes, please see:http://gp.org/committees/nc/documents/delegate_change.htmlTo report violations of listserv protocol, write to forummanagers at lists.gp-us.orgFor other information about the Coordinating Committee, see:http://gp.org/committees/nc/****************************************** Tim McKee, Manchester CT, main number cell-860-778-1304, 860-643-2282 National Committee member of the Green Party of the United States and is a spokesperson for the Green Party of CT. BLOG-http://thebiggreenpicture.blogspot.com -- Be Yourself @ mail.com!Choose From 200+ Email AddressesGet a Free Account at www.mail.com! ****************************************** Tim McKee, Manchester CT, main number cell-860-778-1304, 860-643-2282 National Committee member of the Green Party of the United States and is a spokesperson for the Green Party of CT. BLOG-http://thebiggreenpicture.blogspot.com -- Be Yourself @ mail.com!Choose From 200+ Email AddressesGet a Free Account at www.mail.com! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apbrison at hotmail.com Tue Feb 10 22:41:50 2009 From: apbrison at hotmail.com (allan brison) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:41:50 -0500 Subject: {news} My 2 most recent aldermanic neewsletters Message-ID: Greens, Attached are my two most recent newsletters. They give an idea of some of the things I do as an elected official. There will be another one in 2 weeks which will cover more of the city-wide legislative issues as opposed to the constituent service items in these. Best, Allan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 010109 newsletter.doc Type: application/msword Size: 103424 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 020109 newsletter.doc Type: application/msword Size: 269312 bytes Desc: not available URL: From edubrule at sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 11 00:03:50 2009 From: edubrule at sbcglobal.net (edubrule) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:03:50 -0500 Subject: {news} Fw: TAKE ACTION: Ensure human needs are met in the final recovery plan! Message-ID: 6-Story Newsletter Template + Images ----- Original Message ----- From: AFSC Connecticut To: edubrule at sbcglobal.net Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 4:09 PM Subject: TAKE ACTION: Ensure human needs are met in the final recovery plan! American Friends Service Committee Connecticut In This Issue: Feb 9 2009 . TAKE ACTION: Ensure human needs are met in the final recovery plan! TAKE ACTION: Ensure human needs are met in the final recovery plan! TAKE ACTION: Ensure human needs are met in the final recovery plan! The Senate and House have passed different versions of President Obama's economic recovery package. While the total cost is similar, there are significant differences in how the House and Senate would allocate the funds. Now Congress must resolve these differences in a conference committee made up of key members of both houses. Your help is needed to ensure that the final bill retains the highest funding for programs that provides the great benefit to people most in need. Call your U.S. senators and representative toll-free* today at 1-800-473-6711. Tell them to make sure the conference negotiators: * Retain the highest funding for programs that have the greatest benefit for the lowest- income people, including aid to states and housing programs. * Remove the flawed "E-Verify" requirement. * Remove $1 billion in funding for nuclear weapons. Click here to find your senators and representative and their direct phone number if the toll-free line is busy. Don't give up; many people are calling. Background: Last month more than 600,000 Americans lost their jobs. Every day we delay a final stimulus bill, another 20,000 people join them in financial crisis. Many states and communities are facing huge budget gaps and are cutting services when people need them most. The Senate stripped $40 billion in aid that states badly need for education, food stamps and other vital services. Restoring that money will create and preserve jobs, help communities, and boost the economy. AFSC also is concerned about these provisions: * Moderate and low-income housing: The House bill includes $4.2 billion to redevelop abandoned and foreclosed homes, as part of Neighborhood Stabilization grants. These funds were stripped out by the Senate and should be restored. * E-Verify: The House bill requires all entities receiving recovery funds to enroll in the currently voluntary E-Verify program for all new hires. E-Verify http://www.nilc.org/immsemplymnt/ircaempverif/e-verify-facts-2009-01-29.pdf is a flawed system that would cause workplace discrimination. It contradicts the legislation's purpose and sends the wrong message at a time when Congress should focus on helping workers get jobs, not keep them out of the job market. * Nuclear weapons: The Senate version spends $1 billion on nuclear weapons-related activities, at a time when the Obama administration has pledged a commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. Call your members of Congress toll-free* TODAY: 1-800-473-6711 Click here for AFSC's letters to Congress and more resources on the crisis. http://www.afsc.org/EconomicJustice/US/ht/d/sp/i/74311/pid/74311 *This toll-free number is provided by the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker organization which works for social and economic justice and peace (http://www.afsc.org/). AFSC welcomes groups to use the number in support of non-partisan work and without linking it to a website that silicates donations or actions, which may be used to support partisan lobbying or work. 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 timmckee at mail.com Wed Feb 11 09:44:10 2009 From: timmckee at mail.com (Tim McKee) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:44:10 -0500 Subject: {news} Fw: [usgp-dx] Guy Chichester, Original Green: 1935-2009 Message-ID: <20090211144410.A4B1E606861@ws1-4.us4.outblaze.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Howie Hawkins" To: natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org Subject: [usgp-dx] Guy Chichester, Original Green: 1935-2009 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:22:06 -0500 Guy Chichester, one of the founders of the Green Party in the US, passed yesterday. Guy was one of the founders of the anti-nuclear Clamshell Alliance in 1976. Guy and I were the two Clams who went to the national meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota to start a Green Party in the US in August 1984. Guy always looked for ways to bring people together around common ground and practical actions when philosophical abstractions were dividing people who agreed on 95%. In the Greens' many internal squabbles, Guy made friends of people who thought they opposed him. Guy won over several antinuclear and then Green Party activists who had been villifying him a few years before when the Clamshell Alliance splintered in 1978. Once they began to work directly with him, they had a hard time remembering what their beefs with him were a few years before. My most vivid early memory of Guy was picketing Amoskeag Bank in Manchester with the People's Energy Project of the Granite State Alliance over its proposed financing for Seabrook in 1974 or 1975. A picket line with Guy was a picket line you wouldn't want to miss. He would make it fun. Guy played a big role in developing the Green Party in the 1980s and 1990s. He got the Greens more engaged in anti-nuclear activism, from the big wave of post Chernobyl demonstrations to an anti-nuclear demonstration in conjuction with Green national meetings meetings in Minnesota in 1992. Guy was the only guy to successfully use the New Hampshire Constitution's 200+ years old "right of revolution" clause to convince a jury to find him innocent in a civil disobedience action. Guy's many legacies will live on. Some testimonies from other Clamshell Alliance members follow below, concluding, appropriately, with an appeal to remember Guy by fighting the $50 billion loan guarantees for new nukes in the stimulus bill. No Nukes! -- Howie Hawkins ********************** Dear Friends, It is with a tremendous sense of sadness and loss that I write to share the news that our friend and longtime antinuclear, environmental and social justice activist Guy Chichester passed away last night at his home in Rye, New Hampshire. As many know, Guy had problems with his heart over the past few years and had been living with a pacemaker. He had recently been hospitalized for a couple of weeks in Brigham and Woman's hospitol in Boston, and made a decision last weekend to return to his home. I find myself at a loss for words. Last night with the full moon of New Hampshire winter I found myself filled with memories of shared times with Guy that stretched back 35 years. This afternoon I sat at the kitchen table in his home, a place Guy welcomed many friends and strangers, and smiled and ached exchanging Guy stories with his wife and partner of 51 years Maddy, and 4 of his five children,his children Noelle and Jenny and Blake and Ben. In springtime there will be a celebration of Guy's life. I look forward to smiling and laughing and conspiring with old friends and new friends at that event. love Renny Cushing ********************* In Praise of Guy Let us sing in admiration and praise and love of Guy from Rye, Guy Chi a man I've known for three decades and more who lies at home on his death bed enfolded by family and friends. Guy Chichester the man who organized me at the Rochester, NH library in 1976, after showing a film, Lovejoy's Nuclear War, inviting me to a meeting that began fourteen years of struggle with the Clamshell Alliance. Guy whose forthright courage gave me courage. Guy who blocked off Route 1-A with saw horses. Guy wearing a multi-colored African National Congress beret felling a Seabrook warning siren poll, toppling as the police drove up. Guy who convinced a jury that his civil disobedience was no felony, no crime because of the twenty year history of resistance to the violation of our democratic rights. Afterwards, the jury asked in the Superior Court Parking lot what they could do. Guy who didn?t suffer fools gladly, who spoke his mind, who stood up and invited others to come along. Guy an American tough guy, practicing non-violence and active resistance to the designs of Governor Thomson and the bully Sununu, to Public Service Company and their lackeys in places high and low, to the Judges of the NRC, to Onassis and his oil refiner plans. Guy, co-founder of Clamshell, the U.S. Green Party, on and on. A Long Island carpenter who moved to the NH Seacoast where the struggle found him. A man with a big house, big family, elegantly gracious Maddy at his side, a man with open arms, big insights and appetites, open doors and courage. A man who became my long term friend, an old comrade of many actions from affinity groups occupying the Board Room of the First National Bank to Seabrook occupations with thousands of Clams. A man who stood up. I man who would leave no one behind. A man I sat next to in court as his make believe lawyer arguing with a company judge against a bogus injunction. A man picked from all of us as one of the 100 N.H, notables of the 20th century in the newspaper?s nod to activism. Guy no plaster saint, a real American hero. Guy, as a Long Island carpenter facing the repo man in the middle of the night, told me he reflexively hurled bricks from his porch at his car. Bricks that hit the car with a loud bang, bang and the repo man screamed, don't shoot, don't shoot and disappeared into the night. The arc of those bricks becomes the path pursued by a champion of democracy and nonviolent resistance to illegitimate authority, a Sam Adams for our times. A man that thousands of Clams and history will not forget. My friend, my brother in years of dedicated action, highs and lows, triumphs and defeats, nonviolently fighting the good fight, a life well lived. Roy Morrison ******************** My heart goes out to Guy and his family in their moment of grief. I too experienced Guy's great moral character. He helped organize me into the Granite State Alliance in the summer of 1975, and later into Clamshell activities. He was supportive when I went to work for the United Farmworkers Union--calling me "one of Cesar's boys"; further, he was supportive of my work in the defense of human rights of farm laborers, of indigenous peoples, and of press freedom in Central America, especially El Salvador. When I returned to the Seacoast a while ago to care for my terminally ill mother, Guy could be found in the middle of the anti- war movement and non-violent civil disobedience. I'm with Roy, that Guy has been a Seacoast consciousness-raiser, organizer, and speaker of truth-to-power beyond compare. Let us all cheer for Guy Chichester, and his life-long work on behalf of all of the people (humankind), not just those only interested in making profits. John Kavanagh *********************** Sad news, indeed. Guy is a hero of mine - and I don't have too many heroes. In 1976, as a 23 year old carpenter-turning-activist I felt a lot of kinship with Guy. I often drove down from Portland, ME to Rye and spent many hours talking & drinking beer with Guy at his picnic table in the early Clamshell days of spring 1976. And we stayed in touch over the years. Last summer my wife, too, was hospitalized for awhile at Brigham and Woman's in Boston before coming home to Maine for a few days before passing on a full moon night. I now edit CommonDreams.org and would like to give our Guy's passing the attention it deserves. If there are any good obits/articles/tributes/photos that anyone knows of could you let me know at editor at commondreams.org. Thanks, Craig Brown ******************** Siren-feller. Truth-giant. Beautiful images. Beautiful man. Guy always made me feel good when I was around him. It's the first, and perhaps most important, quality needed in those who want to transform the world. Another sorely-needed quality is courage, and Guy sure set the standard. Bye Guy. I'm smilin' at ya. Eric Wolfe *************************** Thinking of that picnic table, that kitchen table rally stages, construction site, courtrooms sharing a stage at MIT - Guy tossing out an accordion of paper (remember that old computer printer paper?) listing all the "incidents", that is accidents, that had occurred at nuclear power plants - the MIT students loved it shoulder to shoulder at the stock exchange The earth, the seacoast, NH, the movement, all of us are richer for having known Guy We are all poorer for his passing He watched over Mother Earth, Panchamama So fitting that Grandmother Moon, Mamakilla, watched over his passing Sending him and all of you the power of love and courage that Guy so embodied in our work together to change the world, (Cindy) Girvani Leerer ************************** Guy was the first to correct me on my mispronunciation of "nu-cu-lar." Paul Gunter, Beyond Nuclear ********************** Guy lived out loud!! He was a character, an actor, passionate for the planet, and fearless in front of authority. He also looked good in a beret...smile. We all would do well to carry his spirit forward and fight for what we know to be right! Blessings to his family...No Nukes! david hills ************************* > From Harvey Wasserman: THIS ONE'S FOR GUY....CALL/MEET WITH MARKEY & STOP THIS GODDAM NUKE STIMULUS/BAILOUT THIS ONE'S FOR GUY.... WE GOTTA STOP THIS THING. WE ARE WITHIN HOURS OF HAVING A $50 BILLION LOAN GUARANTEE PACKAGE FOR NEW NUKES SLIPPED THROUGH WITH THE STIMULUS BILL. ED MARKEY IS A KEY PLAYER HERE, AS HE IS THE NEW CHAIR OF THE ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE IN THE HOUSE. HE, PELOSI, WAXMAN AND OBEY IN THE HOUSE, PLUS REID AND BOXER IN THE SENATE. WE WILL BE DECADES SORTING THIS OUT IF IT PASSES....LETS TAKE GUY WITH US AND STOP THIS!!! NOW!!!! LOVE & NO NUKES, SLUGGO (give 'em hell up there, brother; we sure will down here) ************ More from Harvey Wasserman: Markey's office should be flooded with calls, emails & visits, along with waxman, pelosi & obey. this is going to be VERY close. please spread throughout the internet. if anybody's in the district, or in dc, in-person visits would probably be useful now.... tell them your name is Guy Chichester.... _______________________________________________ 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/ ****************************************** Tim McKee, Manchester CT, main number cell-860-778-1304, 860-643-2282 National Committee member of the Green Party of the United States and is a spokesperson for the Green Party of CT. BLOG-http://thebiggreenpicture.blogspot.com -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From timmckee at mail.com Wed Feb 11 17:55:19 2009 From: timmckee at mail.com (Tim McKee) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:55:19 -0500 Subject: {news} [usgp-dx] 2009 Candidate Recruitment Update_Nader and MCkinney Message-ID: <20090211225519.63CAE606865@ws1-4.us4.outblaze.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent McMillan" To: "national comm affairs" Subject: [usgp-dx] 2009 Candidate Recruitment Update Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:20:29 -0500 Dear NC Delegate: As of Feb. 11, 2009 the current number of identified candidates is 74. A comparable point in the election cycle: On Feb. 11 of 2005 we had 23 candidates. Other past years: On Feb. 11 of 2004 we had 78 candidates. On Feb. 11 of 2006 we had 45 candidates. On Feb. 11 of 2007 we had 20 candidates. On Feb. 11 of 2008 we had 112 candidates. I started my employment with the Green Party of the United States as Political Director on Feb. 11, 2004. Thank you for the opportunity of five years of service! (I'm leaving for Denver early in the morning for the American Citizens Summit and wanted to get this out.) Tip: Look for a press conference announcement on Feb 12 in regards to a 'Transpartisan Sunshine Cabinet' involving Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney. In service: Brent McMillan, Scapegoat-in-chief Green Party of the United States 202-319-7191 brent at gp.org _______________________________________________ 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/ ****************************************** Tim McKee, Manchester CT, main number cell-860-778-1304, 860-643-2282 National Committee member of the Green Party of the United States and is a spokesperson for the Green Party of CT. BLOG-http://thebiggreenpicture.blogspot.com -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From smderosa at cox.net Wed Feb 11 21:52:33 2009 From: smderosa at cox.net (Mike DeRosa) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:52:33 -0500 Subject: {news} Support HB 6436: A bill that will reduce our petitioning requirements to 1000 SIGNATURES! Message-ID: <006001c98cbc$f4cbb160$de631420$@net> Greens, Good News: Today the GAE (Government And Elections) committee released HR 6436 in written form. I gave the bill to Atty. and CT Green Party co-chair Steve Fornier to look at earlier today. He says that the bill would reduce our state-wide office and congressional petitioning requirements to 1000 valid signatures (VS 7500 SIGNATURES OR 1% OF THE VOTES IN LAST ELECTION UNDER THE PRESENT LAW). In the past we have been required to collect 7500 valid signatures to get on the ballot for president or for other state-wide office and we have had to collect over 3000 valid signatures for congress. The bill also requires the Sec. of the State to do all the checking of the signatures and takes the responsibility away from the town clerks. The following link will direct you to a PDF of HB 6436: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/h/pdf/2009HB-06436-R00-HB.pdf. Read it and let me know what you think! There is going to be a public hearing on this bill VERY SOON. Here is the info from the GAE website: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 Download to Calendar 9:30 AM Government Administration and Elections Committee Meeting followed by a Public Hearing LOB Room 2B YOU NEED TO GET THERE AT 8AM TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK. THE PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS LIST IS AVAILABLE AT 8:30AM. IF YOU GET THERE EARLY YOU CAN GET OUT VERY EARLY AND MOST OF THE REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE THERE TO HEAR YOUR TESTIMONY. THE WHOLE EVENT IS ON THE CT NETWORK, ANOTHER WAY TO GET OUR MESSAGE OUT. THIS BILL CAME FROM THE CO-CHAIRS OF THE GAE COMMITTEE AFTER SEVERAL OF US MET WITH THEM RECENTLY. MAKE A SPECIAL EFFORT TO ATTEND THIS HEARING. IF THIS BILL PASSES IT WILL ABLE TO MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE TO THE GREEN PARTY AND WILL REDUCE ONE OF MOST UNFAIR AND DISCRIMINATORY MINOR PARTY REQUIREMENTS FOR BALLOT ACCESS. CALL YOUR REP, AND ASK THAT SHE OR HE SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION. Sincerely, Mike DeRosa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richard.duffee at gmail.com Thu Feb 12 09:06:40 2009 From: richard.duffee at gmail.com (Richard Duffee) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:06:40 -0500 Subject: {news} Re: [CTGP-elections] Support HB 6436: A bill that will reduce our petitioning requirements to 1000 SIGNATURES! In-Reply-To: <006001c98cbc$f4cbb160$de631420$@net> References: <006001c98cbc$f4cbb160$de631420$@net> Message-ID: <21f4f7390902120606g5cb88f7dy290070fed54c18f0@mail.gmail.com> Mike, Do you know why they decided to reduce the requirements by 86.7% of presidential, senatorial, gubernatorial, and other state-wide candidates, but have only reduced the requirements for congressional candidates by 51% to 67%? That is, the requirements for congressional races have fluctuated between 2050 and 3000 depending upon whether the previous election was a presidential one or not. Because there are 5 congressional races in the state, the bill is, in effect reducing the need for valid signatures from somewhere between 10,250 and 15,000 down to 5,000 at the same time that it is reducing the statewide seat requirements from 7500 to 1000. A commensurate reduction in congressional requirements would be to 200, not 1000. Do you have any sense of whether raising this issue could backfire by making some legislators feel, "Hell, if they're not even going to be satisfied with an offer like that, the hell with them!" Does anyone know whether they discussed the difference between congressional races and the others? Did they acknowledge that congressional races are not state-wide races? What did they say about that fact? Shall we swap drafts of speeches around amongst ourselves for comment? Have a meeting before the 18th about them? A conference call? I'll be there on the 18th. Richard On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Mike DeRosa wrote: > *Greens,* > > * * > > *Good News:* > > * * > > *Today the GAE (Government And Elections) committee released HR 6436 in > written form. I gave the bill to Atty. and CT Green Party co-chair Steve > Fornier to look at earlier today. He says that the bill would **reduce** > **our state-wide office and congressional petitioning requirements to **1000 > valid signatures **(VS 7500 SIGNATURES OR 1% OF THE VOTES IN LAST > ELECTION UNDER THE PRESENT LAW).* > > * * > > *In the past we have been required to collect 7500 valid signatures to get > on the ballot for president or for other state-wide office and we have had > to collect over 3000 valid signatures for congress. **The bill also > requires the Sec. of the State to do all the checking of the signatures and > takes the responsibility away from the town clerks.* > > *The following link will direct you to a PDF of HB 6436: > http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/h/pdf/2009HB-06436-R00-HB.pdf**. * > > *Read it and let me know what you think!* > > *There is going to be a public hearing on this bill VERY SOON. Here is > the info from the GAE website:* > > *Wednesday, February 18, 2009*** > > * * > > *Download to Calendar* > > *9:30 AM* > > *Government Administration and Elections Committee Meeting followed by a > Public Hearing* > > *LOB Room 2B* > > *YOU NEED TO GET THERE AT 8AM TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK**. THE PUBLIC HEARING > SPEAKERS LIST IS AVAILABLE AT 8:30AM. IF YOU GET THERE EARLY* > > *YOU CAN GET OUT VERY EARLY AND MOST OF THE REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE THERE > TO HEAR YOUR TESTIMONY. THE WHOLE EVENT IS ON THE CT NETWORK,* > > * ANOTHER WAY TO GET OUR MESSAGE OUT. THIS BILL CAME FROM THE CO-CHAIRS > OF THE GAE COMMITTEE AFTER SEVERAL OF US MET WITH THEM * > > *RECENTLY.* > > *MAKE A SPECIAL EFFORT TO ATTEND THIS HEARING**. IF THIS BILL PASSES IT > WILL ABLE TO MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE TO THE GREEN * > > *PARTY AND WILL REDUCE ONE OF MOST UNFAIR AND DISCRIMINATORY MINOR PARTY > REQUIREMENTS FOR BALLOT ACCESS. CALL YOUR REP, AND* > > *ASK THAT SHE OR HE SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION.* > > *Sincerely,* > > *Mike DeRosa* > > * * > > > > > > > > __._,_.___ > Messages in this topic > > (1) Reply (via web post) > | > Start a new topic > > Messages| > Files| > Photos| > Links| > Database| > Polls| > Members| > Calendar > MARKETPLACE > ------------------------------ > From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > Change settings via the Web(Yahoo! ID required) > Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest| Switch > format to Traditional > Visit Your Group > | > Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe > > Recent Activity > > > Visit Your Group > > Yahoo! News > > Get it all here > > Breaking news to > > entertainment news > John McEnroe > > on Yahoo! Groups > > Join him for the > > 10 Day Challenge. > Support Group > > Lose lbs together > > Share your weight- > > loss successes. > . > > __,_._,___ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richard.duffee at gmail.com Thu Feb 12 09:25:19 2009 From: richard.duffee at gmail.com (Richard Duffee) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:25:19 -0500 Subject: {news} Re: [CTGP-elections] Support HB 6436: A bill that will reduce our petitioning requirements to 1000 SIGNATURES! In-Reply-To: <21f4f7390902120606g5cb88f7dy290070fed54c18f0@mail.gmail.com> References: <006001c98cbc$f4cbb160$de631420$@net> <21f4f7390902120606g5cb88f7dy290070fed54c18f0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <21f4f7390902120625m7df00687qfbc47c52b8f94a6@mail.gmail.com> Mike, I suspect some irony in this. The LWV and newspapers already claim that being on the ballot is not significant enough to warrant presence in the debates or news coverage. If the signature requirement is reduced, their claim will be strengthened. They'll say, "So you're on the ballot. So what? Anyone can get on the ballot. An individual can do it all on his own without any party support at all. This is supposed to be politics, not a hobby. Politics is about the moblization of groups in pursuit of realistic political objectives. You want us to let you in a debate or cover you when we don't even know if you actually represent a group?" I suspect that the reason some legislators believe this legislation has a chance of passing is that the majority of legistors know that the rather obnoxious and condescending response I've just quoted represents a general consensus now among the news media and the hosts of debates. Some legislators who would formerly have objected, after witnessing this year, will say, "So fine, Make it easier for them to get ballot access. That's not going to get them into the papers or the debates, and it certainly isn't going to give them any shot at the money. It's just going to make us look very magnanimous. That will take the wind out of their sails and make their arguments even less plausible." Richard On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Richard Duffee wrote: > Mike, > Do you know why they decided to reduce the requirements by 86.7% of > presidential, senatorial, gubernatorial, and other state-wide candidates, > but have only reduced the requirements for congressional candidates by 51% > to 67%? That is, the requirements for congressional races have fluctuated > between 2050 and 3000 depending upon whether the previous election was a > presidential one or not. Because there are 5 congressional races in the > state, the bill is, in effect reducing the need for valid signatures from > somewhere between 10,250 and 15,000 down to 5,000 at the same time that it > is reducing the statewide seat requirements from 7500 to 1000. A > commensurate reduction in congressional requirements would be to 200, not > 1000. > > Do you have any sense of whether raising this issue could backfire by > making some legislators feel, "Hell, if they're not even going to be > satisfied with an offer like that, the hell with them!" Does anyone know > whether they discussed the difference between congressional races and the > others? Did they acknowledge that congressional races are not state-wide > races? What did they say about that fact? > > Shall we swap drafts of speeches around amongst ourselves for comment? Have > a meeting before the 18th about them? A conference call? > > I'll be there on the 18th. > Richard > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Mike DeRosa wrote: > >> *Greens,* >> >> * * >> >> *Good News:* >> >> * * >> >> *Today the GAE (Government And Elections) committee released HR 6436 in >> written form. I gave the bill to Atty. and CT Green Party co-chair Steve >> Fornier to look at earlier today. He says that the bill would **reduce** >> **our state-wide office and congressional petitioning requirements to **1000 >> valid signatures **(VS 7500 SIGNATURES OR 1% OF THE VOTES IN LAST >> ELECTION UNDER THE PRESENT LAW).* >> >> * * >> >> *In the past we have been required to collect 7500 valid signatures to >> get on the ballot for president or for other state-wide office and we have >> had to collect over 3000 valid signatures for congress. **The bill also >> requires the Sec. of the State to do all the checking of the signatures and >> takes the responsibility away from the town clerks.* >> >> *The following link will direct you to a PDF of HB 6436: >> http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/h/pdf/2009HB-06436-R00-HB.pdf**. * >> >> *Read it and let me know what you think!* >> >> *There is going to be a public hearing on this bill VERY SOON. Here is >> the info from the GAE website:* >> >> *Wednesday, February 18, 2009*** >> >> * * >> >> *Download to Calendar* >> >> *9:30 AM* >> >> *Government Administration and Elections Committee Meeting followed by a >> Public Hearing* >> >> *LOB Room 2B* >> >> *YOU NEED TO GET THERE AT 8AM TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK**. THE PUBLIC HEARING >> SPEAKERS LIST IS AVAILABLE AT 8:30AM. IF YOU GET THERE EARLY* >> >> *YOU CAN GET OUT VERY EARLY AND MOST OF THE REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE THERE >> TO HEAR YOUR TESTIMONY. THE WHOLE EVENT IS ON THE CT NETWORK,* >> >> * ANOTHER WAY TO GET OUR MESSAGE OUT. THIS BILL CAME FROM THE CO-CHAIRS >> OF THE GAE COMMITTEE AFTER SEVERAL OF US MET WITH THEM * >> >> *RECENTLY.* >> >> *MAKE A SPECIAL EFFORT TO ATTEND THIS HEARING**. IF THIS BILL PASSES IT >> WILL ABLE TO MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE TO THE GREEN * >> >> *PARTY AND WILL REDUCE ONE OF MOST UNFAIR AND DISCRIMINATORY MINOR PARTY >> REQUIREMENTS FOR BALLOT ACCESS. CALL YOUR REP, AND* >> >> *ASK THAT SHE OR HE SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION.* >> >> *Sincerely,* >> >> *Mike DeRosa* >> >> * * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> __._,_.___ >> Messages in this topic >> >> (1) Reply (via web post) >> | >> Start a new topic >> >> Messages| >> Files| >> Photos| >> Links| >> Database| >> Polls| >> Members| >> Calendar >> MARKETPLACE >> ------------------------------ >> From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods >> >> [image: Yahoo! Groups] >> Change settings via the Web(Yahoo! ID required) >> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest| Switch >> format to Traditional >> Visit Your Group >> | >> Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe >> >> Recent Activity >> >> >> Visit Your Group >> >> Yahoo! News >> >> Get it all here >> >> Breaking news to >> >> entertainment news >> John McEnroe >> >> on Yahoo! Groups >> >> Join him for the >> >> 10 Day Challenge. >> Support Group >> >> Lose lbs together >> >> Share your weight- >> >> loss successes. >> . >> >> __,_._,___ >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richard.duffee at gmail.com Thu Feb 12 11:19:55 2009 From: richard.duffee at gmail.com (Richard Duffee) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:19:55 -0500 Subject: {news} Re: [CTGP-elections] Support HB 6436: A bill that will reduce our petitioning requirements to 1000 SIGNATURES! In-Reply-To: <49943ABD.7090209@earthlink.net> References: <006001c98cbc$f4cbb160$de631420$@net> <21f4f7390902120606g5cb88f7dy290070fed54c18f0@mail.gmail.com> <21f4f7390902120625m7df00687qfbc47c52b8f94a6@mail.gmail.com> <49943ABD.7090209@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <21f4f7390902120819j15f2b0e4o8f0ffa15cb5adf26@mail.gmail.com> I did not imply that the bill is bad, but that it is not a panacea. If it passes, among the reasons for its passage will be that it does not have any positive effect on the press, the LWVs, or campaign finance reform; all those are actually larger issues for electability than the number of signatures required, and the legislators know that. Also, I guess that the reason the congressional requirement was not reduced proportionately to 200 is that last year we made a bigger impact on the congressional races than on the others, so they're more worried about our affecting close races. Since most of them are psychologically conservative and they cannot know a year or more ahead of time whether such an effect would be positive or negative for them, they'll assume it would be negative. I hope we'll all make it to the hearing early and make the arguments most likely to make the bill pass. Unfortunately, those are not the arguments closest to our hearts. I am not so anti-human as to say that we should not say what we actually think, only that if we ascend in fine frenzies of conviction, we're likely to fall from the sky like Icarus. Richard On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Ken Krayeske wrote: > At first, I was thrilled to see the potential easing of ballot access > laws - yet Richard makes immense sense here, too. > > Overall, though, I think if you only need 1,000 signatures, it means less > time you have to spend collecting signatures, more time for campaigning and > fundraising. If we only had to collect 1,000 for the Green Party statewide > slate in 2006, we could have done so much more with the CTGP treasury, > instead of spending it on a petition drive. > > And also remember that for public campaign financing, you still need an > unfair amount of signatures - and this may be an effort to counter that, > too. > > peace, > kk > > Richard Duffee wrote: > > Mike, > I suspect some irony in this. The LWV and newspapers already claim that > being on the ballot is not significant enough to warrant presence in the > debates or news coverage. If the signature requirement is reduced, their > claim will be strengthened. They'll say, "So you're on the ballot. So what? > Anyone can get on the ballot. An individual can do it all on his own without > any party support at all. This is supposed to be politics, not a hobby. > Politics is about the moblization of groups in pursuit of realistic > political objectives. You want us to let you in a debate or cover you > when we don't even know if you actually represent a group?" > > I suspect that the reason some legislators believe this legislation has a > chance of passing is that the majority of legistors know that the rather > obnoxious and condescending response I've just quoted represents a general > consensus now among the news media and the hosts of debates. Some > legislators who would formerly have objected, after witnessing this year, > will say, "So fine, Make it easier for them to get ballot access. That's not > going to get them into the papers or the debates, and it certainly isn't > going to give them any shot at the money. It's just going to make us look > very magnanimous. That will take the wind out of their sails and make their > arguments even less plausible." > Richard > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Richard Duffee wrote: > >> Mike, >> Do you know why they decided to reduce the requirements by 86.7% of >> presidential, senatorial, gubernatorial, and other state-wide candidates, >> but have only reduced the requirements for congressional candidates by 51% >> to 67%? That is, the requirements for congressional races have fluctuated >> between 2050 and 3000 depending upon whether the previous election was a >> presidential one or not. Because there are 5 congressional races in the >> state, the bill is, in effect reducing the need for valid signatures from >> somewhere between 10,250 and 15,000 down to 5,000 at the same time that it >> is reducing the statewide seat requirements from 7500 to 1000. A >> commensurate reduction in congressional requirements would be to 200, not >> 1000. >> >> Do you have any sense of whether raising this issue could backfire by >> making some legislators feel, "Hell, if they're not even going to be >> satisfied with an offer like that, the hell with them!" Does anyone know >> whether they discussed the difference between congressional races and the >> others? Did they acknowledge that congressional races are not state-wide >> races? What did they say about that fact? >> >> Shall we swap drafts of speeches around amongst ourselves for comment? >> Have a meeting before the 18th about them? A conference call? >> >> I'll be there on the 18th. >> Richard >> >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Mike DeRosa wrote: >> >>> *Greens,* >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *Good News:* >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *Today the GAE (Government And Elections) committee released HR 6436 in >>> written form. I gave the bill to Atty. and CT Green Party co-chair Steve >>> Fornier to look at earlier today. He says that the bill would **reduce* >>> * **our state-wide office and congressional petitioning requirements to >>> **1000 valid signatures **(VS 7500 SIGNATURES OR 1% OF THE VOTES IN >>> LAST ELECTION UNDER THE PRESENT LAW).* >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *In the past we have been required to collect 7500 valid signatures to >>> get on the ballot for president or for other state-wide office and we have >>> had to collect over 3000 valid signatures for congress. **The bill also >>> requires the Sec. of the State to do all the checking of the signatures and >>> takes the responsibility away from the town clerks.* >>> >>> *The following link will direct you to a PDF of HB 6436: >>> http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/h/pdf/2009HB-06436-R00-HB.pdf**. * >>> >>> *Read it and let me know what you think!* >>> >>> *There is going to be a public hearing on this bill VERY SOON. Here is >>> the info from the GAE website:* >>> >>> *Wednesday, February 18, 2009*** >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *Download to Calendar* >>> >>> *9:30 AM* >>> >>> *Government Administration and Elections Committee Meeting followed by a >>> Public Hearing* >>> >>> *LOB Room 2B* >>> >>> *YOU NEED TO GET THERE AT 8AM TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK**. THE PUBLIC HEARING >>> SPEAKERS LIST IS AVAILABLE AT 8:30AM. IF YOU GET THERE EARLY* >>> >>> *YOU CAN GET OUT VERY EARLY AND MOST OF THE REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE >>> THERE TO HEAR YOUR TESTIMONY. THE WHOLE EVENT IS ON THE CT NETWORK,* >>> >>> * ANOTHER WAY TO GET OUR MESSAGE OUT. THIS BILL CAME FROM THE CO-CHAIRS >>> OF THE GAE COMMITTEE AFTER SEVERAL OF US MET WITH THEM * >>> >>> *RECENTLY.* >>> >>> *MAKE A SPECIAL EFFORT TO ATTEND THIS HEARING**. IF THIS BILL PASSES IT >>> WILL ABLE TO MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE TO THE GREEN * >>> >>> *PARTY AND WILL REDUCE ONE OF MOST UNFAIR AND DISCRIMINATORY MINOR PARTY >>> REQUIREMENTS FOR BALLOT ACCESS. CALL YOUR REP, AND* >>> >>> *ASK THAT SHE OR HE SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION.* >>> >>> *Sincerely,* >>> >>> *Mike DeRosa* >>> >>> * * >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > __._,_.___ > Messages in this topic > > (4) Reply (via web post) > | > Start a new topic > > Messages| > Files| > Photos| > Links| > Database| > Polls| > Members| > Calendar > MARKETPLACE > ------------------------------ > From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > Change settings via the Web(Yahoo! ID required) > Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest| Switch > format to Traditional > Visit Your Group > | > Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe > > Recent Activity > > > Visit Your Group > > Yahoo! News > > Odd News > > You won't believe > > it, but it's true > Dog Fanatics > > on Yahoo! Groups > > Find people who are > > crazy about dogs. > Find helpful tips > > for Moderators > > on the Yahoo! > > Groups team blog. > . > > __,_._,___ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dbedellgreen at hotmail.com Fri Feb 13 16:03:58 2009 From: dbedellgreen at hotmail.com (David Bedell) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:03:58 -0500 Subject: {news} Re: Justice of the Peace Message-ID: Also, Scott Deshefy is a Justice of the Peace in Lebanon, and today I was sworn in as a JP in Stamford. Since New York now recognizes CT same-sex marriages, there is a steady flow of New York couples (as well as some from other states) coming to CT to get married. I think we'd be doing them a service by registering JPs in all the towns along the New York border (save on driving distance). And we really ought to get one Green JP in each of the larger cities. In addition to performing marriages, JPs can notarize nominating petitions, which may come in useful. David Bedell ----- Original Message ----- From: David Bedell To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org ; ctlavendergreens at yahoogroups.com ; ctgp-candidates at yahoogroups.com Cc: Hector Lopez ; Judy Peluso ; ronsureshajp at yahoo.com ; justleif at yahoo.com ; Matt Loter ; Godfrey, Phoebe Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 1:30 AM Subject: Justice of the Peace Congratulations to all our new Green Justices of the Peace, sworn in this month for 4-year terms: Hector Lopez, New Canaan Judy Peluso, New Haven Ron Suresha, New London Leif Smith, Redding Matt Loter, Stamford Laurel Freeman, Windham Phoebe Godfrey, Windham (Windham now has FOUR Green JPs!) And a special congratulations to Ken Cornet and Joe Mustich, Green JPs who celebrated their own wedding on November 12, the first day it became legal in Connecticut! I've posted a full list at http://www.ctgreens.org/elected.shtml with links: some JPs have created their own webpages, some are listed on their town websites, and most are listed in the directories of the Justice of the Peace Association (http://www.findajp.com ) or Love Makes a Family (http://www.lmfct.org/site/PageServer?pagename=clergy_civilunion ) If you would like to become a JP, or if you are a JP and would like to advertise your services more widely, I'd be glad to help. Commonly used powers of the Justices of the Peace include: a.. Administration of General Oaths b.. Authority to take the acknowledgement in the conveyance of real estate c.. Acknowledgement of primary and nomination petitions d.. Issuance of a subpoena in a civil action or probate proceeding e.. Performance of marriages f.. Performance of Civil Unions David Bedell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From j.desmet at att.net Sat Feb 14 19:13:24 2009 From: j.desmet at att.net (Jean de Smet) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:13:24 -0500 Subject: {news} Support HB 6436: A bill that will reduce our petitioningrequirements to 1000 SIGNATURES! In-Reply-To: <006001c98cbc$f4cbb160$de631420$@net> Message-ID: <002b01c98f02$3a0b85b0$6271f34c@jean1oa1rgr0ov> I thought we were asking for Equal treatment, not just "not as bad as the other requirements" treatment? Is the lawsuit lost? This is liberalism-but I'll support it, if you advise that this is our only chance. Jean -----Original Message----- From: ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org [mailto:ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org] On Behalf Of Mike DeRosa Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 9:53 PM To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org; CTGP-elections at yahoogroups.com; newhavengreens at yahoogroups.com; CTVOTER at yahoogroups.com; RecountTheVotes at yahoogroups.com Subject: {news} Support HB 6436: A bill that will reduce our petitioningrequirements to 1000 SIGNATURES! Greens, Good News: Today the GAE (Government And Elections) committee released HR 6436 in written form. I gave the bill to Atty. and CT Green Party co-chair Steve Fornier to look at earlier today. He says that the bill would reduce our state-wide office and congressional petitioning requirements to 1000 valid signatures (VS 7500 SIGNATURES OR 1% OF THE VOTES IN LAST ELECTION UNDER THE PRESENT LAW). In the past we have been required to collect 7500 valid signatures to get on the ballot for president or for other state-wide office and we have had to collect over 3000 valid signatures for congress. The bill also requires the Sec. of the State to do all the checking of the signatures and takes the responsibility away from the town clerks. The following link will direct you to a PDF of HB 6436: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/h/pdf/2009HB-06436-R00-HB.pdf. Read it and let me know what you think! There is going to be a public hearing on this bill VERY SOON. Here is the info from the GAE website: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 Download to Calendar 9:30 AM Government Administration and Elections Committee Meeting followed by a Public Hearing LOB Room 2B YOU NEED TO GET THERE AT 8AM TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK. THE PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS LIST IS AVAILABLE AT 8:30AM. IF YOU GET THERE EARLY YOU CAN GET OUT VERY EARLY AND MOST OF THE REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE THERE TO HEAR YOUR TESTIMONY. THE WHOLE EVENT IS ON THE CT NETWORK, ANOTHER WAY TO GET OUR MESSAGE OUT. THIS BILL CAME FROM THE CO-CHAIRS OF THE GAE COMMITTEE AFTER SEVERAL OF US MET WITH THEM RECENTLY. MAKE A SPECIAL EFFORT TO ATTEND THIS HEARING. IF THIS BILL PASSES IT WILL ABLE TO MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE TO THE GREEN PARTY AND WILL REDUCE ONE OF MOST UNFAIR AND DISCRIMINATORY MINOR PARTY REQUIREMENTS FOR BALLOT ACCESS. CALL YOUR REP, AND ASK THAT SHE OR HE SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION. Sincerely, Mike DeRosa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From smderosa at cox.net Sat Feb 14 20:07:09 2009 From: smderosa at cox.net (Mike DeRosa) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:07:09 -0500 Subject: {news} Support HB 6436: A bill that will reduce our petitioning requirements to 1000 SIGNATURES! In-Reply-To: <002b01c98f02$3a0b85b0$6271f34c@jean1oa1rgr0ov> References: <006001c98cbc$f4cbb160$de631420$@net> <002b01c98f02$3a0b85b0$6271f34c@jean1oa1rgr0ov> Message-ID: <001e01c98f09$ba94c780$2fbe5680$@net> Hi, Jean: The lawsuit is not lost. We have our last court "hearing" on March 11th in Bridgeport. The legislation that we are talking about (HB 6436) only covers ballot access. That is, how many signatures we need to get on the ballot. This bill does not have anything to do with the petitioning that is required to gain access to the campaign finance grants for an office that require us to collect valid signatures from 20% of the people who voted for the office in the last election(actually we are talking closer to 40% since many names will be thrown off for obvious political reasons)(10%-15% signatures for incremental grants of 33% and 66% respectively). If you could come and speak at the legislature on Feb 18th, 2009 that would be great. You know how much work went into getting all of us the ballot in 2006. We had to realistically collect over 15,000 signatures(7500 valid) to run an entire slate. You could talk about the importance of people having diversity in their political choices. Your voice would add a special legitimacy to our effort, since you are the highest elected Green in CT. Also you will get exposure on the CT Network. We did bring up the fact to the committee co-chairs that the requirements to obtain funding under CT campaign finance law were impossible to attain by any minor or major party. If we win we will have to come back to this committee to negotiate a change in this part of the CF law. But until the judge rules in our favor and the appellate court confirms his decision (if he rules in our favor) we will remain stuck in the land of "steady habits and political amnesia". I hope this clarifies the situation. The following link will direct you to a PDF of HB 6436 (click here): http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/h/pdf/2009HB-06436-R00-HB.pdf. I have attached the document that we presented to the committee co-chairs. In case anyone thinks that we don't suffer from political amnesia in this state I have included this little piece of CT's suppressed history: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OELVyy0gbLw/SOv1QuUkFSI/AAAAAAAAAv0/46BW020Cyb8/s4 00/McLevy+Two.jpg In the early 1930s, Bridgeport, an industrial city in southern Connecticut, was plagued by corruption and hard hit by the Great Depression. In 1931, voters had ousted the incumbent Republican mayor for Democrat Edward Buckingham, but by 1933, dissatisfaction had spread to both parties. McLevy surprised the media and the public by winning the election, along with a Socialist majority on the Board of Aldermen, Bridgeport's city council. McLevy went on to be reelected eleven times For more information click here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper_McLevy Sincerely, Mike DeRosa From: Jean de Smet [mailto:j.desmet at att.net] Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 7:13 PM To: 'Mike DeRosa'; ctgp-news at ml.greens.org; CTGP-elections at yahoogroups.com; newhavengreens at yahoogroups.com; CTVOTER at yahoogroups.com; RecountTheVotes at yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: {news} Support HB 6436: A bill that will reduce our petitioningrequirements to 1000 SIGNATURES! I thought we were asking for Equal treatment, not just "not as bad as the other requirements" treatment? Is the lawsuit lost? This is liberalism-but I'll support it, if you advise that this is our only chance. Jean -----Original Message----- From: ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org [mailto:ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org] On Behalf Of Mike DeRosa Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 9:53 PM To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org; CTGP-elections at yahoogroups.com; newhavengreens at yahoogroups.com; CTVOTER at yahoogroups.com; RecountTheVotes at yahoogroups.com Subject: {news} Support HB 6436: A bill that will reduce our petitioningrequirements to 1000 SIGNATURES! Greens, Good News: Today the GAE (Government And Elections) committee released HR 6436 in written form. I gave the bill to Atty. and CT Green Party co-chair Steve Fornier to look at earlier today. He says that the bill would reduce our state-wide office and congressional petitioning requirements to 1000 valid signatures (VS 7500 SIGNATURES OR 1% OF THE VOTES IN LAST ELECTION UNDER THE PRESENT LAW). In the past we have been required to collect 7500 valid signatures to get on the ballot for president or for other state-wide office and we have had to collect over 3000 valid signatures for congress. The bill also requires the Sec. of the State to do all the checking of the signatures and takes the responsibility away from the town clerks. The following link will direct you to a PDF of HB 6436: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/h/pdf/2009HB-06436-R00-HB.pdf. Read it and let me know what you think! There is going to be a public hearing on this bill VERY SOON. Here is the info from the GAE website: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 Download to Calendar 9:30 AM Government Administration and Elections Committee Meeting followed by a Public Hearing LOB Room 2B YOU NEED TO GET THERE AT 8AM TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK. THE PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS LIST IS AVAILABLE AT 8:30AM. IF YOU GET THERE EARLY YOU CAN GET OUT VERY EARLY AND MOST OF THE REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE THERE TO HEAR YOUR TESTIMONY. THE WHOLE EVENT IS ON THE CT NETWORK, ANOTHER WAY TO GET OUR MESSAGE OUT. THIS BILL CAME FROM THE CO-CHAIRS OF THE GAE COMMITTEE AFTER SEVERAL OF US MET WITH THEM RECENTLY. MAKE A SPECIAL EFFORT TO ATTEND THIS HEARING. IF THIS BILL PASSES IT WILL ABLE TO MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE TO THE GREEN PARTY AND WILL REDUCE ONE OF MOST UNFAIR AND DISCRIMINATORY MINOR PARTY REQUIREMENTS FOR BALLOT ACCESS. CALL YOUR REP, AND ASK THAT SHE OR HE SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION. Sincerely, Mike DeRosa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 24818 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Recomendations for changing ballot access laws 2009 Green Party of CT 2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 15976 bytes Desc: not available URL: From smderosa at cox.net Sat Feb 14 20:10:59 2009 From: smderosa at cox.net (Mike DeRosa) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:10:59 -0500 Subject: {news} Nature of and Support HB 6436: A bill that will reduce our petitioning requirements to 1000 SIGNATURES! In-Reply-To: <001e01c98f09$ba94c780$2fbe5680$@net> References: <006001c98cbc$f4cbb160$de631420$@net> <002b01c98f02$3a0b85b0$6271f34c@jean1oa1rgr0ov> <001e01c98f09$ba94c780$2fbe5680$@net> Message-ID: <003d01c98f0a$4346ad00$c9d40700$@net> Hi, Jean: The lawsuit is not lost. We have our last court "hearing" on March 11th in Bridgeport. The legislation that we are talking about (HB 6436) only covers ballot access. That is, how many signatures we need to get on the ballot. This bill does not have anything to do with the petitioning that is required to gain access to the campaign finance grants for an office that require us to collect valid signatures from 20% of the people who voted for the office in the last election(actually we are talking closer to 40% since many names will be thrown off for obvious political reasons)(10%-15% signatures for incremental grants of 33% and 66% respectively). If you could come and speak at the legislature on Feb 18th, 2009 that would be great. You know how much work went into getting all of us on the ballot in 2006. We had to realistically collect over 15,000 signatures(7500 valid) to run an entire slate. You could talk about the importance of people having diversity in their political choices. Your voice would add a special legitimacy to our effort, since you are the highest elected Green in CT. Also you will get exposure on the CT Network. We did bring up the fact to the committee co-chairs that the requirements to obtain funding under CT campaign finance law were impossible to attain by any minor or major party. If we win we will have to come back to this committee to negotiate a change in this part of the CF law. But until the judge rules in our favor and the appellate court confirms his decision (if he rules in our favor) we will remain stuck in the land of "steady habits and political amnesia". I hope this clarifies the situation. The following link will direct you to a PDF of HB 6436 (click here): http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/h/pdf/2009HB-06436-R00-HB.pdf. I have attached the document that we presented to the committee co-chairs. In case anyone thinks that we don't suffer from political amnesia in this state I have included this little piece of CT's suppressed history: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OELVyy0gbLw/SOv1QuUkFSI/AAAAAAAAAv0/46BW020Cyb8/s4 00/McLevy+Two.jpg In the early 1930s, Bridgeport, an industrial city in southern Connecticut, was plagued by corruption and hard hit by the Great Depression. In 1931, voters had ousted the incumbent Republican mayor for Democrat Edward Buckingham, but by 1933, dissatisfaction had spread to both parties. McLevy surprised the media and the public by winning the election, along with a Socialist majority on the Board of Aldermen, Bridgeport's city council. McLevy went on to be reelected eleven times For more information click here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper_McLevy Sincerely, Mike DeRosa From: Jean de Smet [mailto:j.desmet at att.net] Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 7:13 PM To: 'Mike DeRosa'; ctgp-news at ml.greens.org; CTGP-elections at yahoogroups.com; newhavengreens at yahoogroups.com; CTVOTER at yahoogroups.com; RecountTheVotes at yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: {news} Support HB 6436: A bill that will reduce our petitioningrequirements to 1000 SIGNATURES! I thought we were asking for Equal treatment, not just "not as bad as the other requirements" treatment? Is the lawsuit lost? This is liberalism-but I'll support it, if you advise that this is our only chance. Jean -----Original Message----- From: ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org [mailto:ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org] On Behalf Of Mike DeRosa Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 9:53 PM To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org; CTGP-elections at yahoogroups.com; newhavengreens at yahoogroups.com; CTVOTER at yahoogroups.com; RecountTheVotes at yahoogroups.com Subject: {news} Support HB 6436: A bill that will reduce our petitioningrequirements to 1000 SIGNATURES! Greens, Good News: Today the GAE (Government And Elections) committee released HR 6436 in written form. I gave the bill to Atty. and CT Green Party co-chair Steve Fornier to look at earlier today. He says that the bill would reduce our state-wide office and congressional petitioning requirements to 1000 valid signatures (VS 7500 SIGNATURES OR 1% OF THE VOTES IN LAST ELECTION UNDER THE PRESENT LAW). In the past we have been required to collect 7500 valid signatures to get on the ballot for president or for other state-wide office and we have had to collect over 3000 valid signatures for congress. The bill also requires the Sec. of the State to do all the checking of the signatures and takes the responsibility away from the town clerks. The following link will direct you to a PDF of HB 6436: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/h/pdf/2009HB-06436-R00-HB.pdf. Read it and let me know what you think! There is going to be a public hearing on this bill VERY SOON. Here is the info from the GAE website: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 Download to Calendar 9:30 AM Government Administration and Elections Committee Meeting followed by a Public Hearing LOB Room 2B YOU NEED TO GET THERE AT 8AM TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK. THE PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS LIST IS AVAILABLE AT 8:30AM. IF YOU GET THERE EARLY YOU CAN GET OUT VERY EARLY AND MOST OF THE REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE THERE TO HEAR YOUR TESTIMONY. THE WHOLE EVENT IS ON THE CT NETWORK, ANOTHER WAY TO GET OUR MESSAGE OUT. THIS BILL CAME FROM THE CO-CHAIRS OF THE GAE COMMITTEE AFTER SEVERAL OF US MET WITH THEM RECENTLY. MAKE A SPECIAL EFFORT TO ATTEND THIS HEARING. IF THIS BILL PASSES IT WILL ABLE TO MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE TO THE GREEN PARTY AND WILL REDUCE ONE OF MOST UNFAIR AND DISCRIMINATORY MINOR PARTY REQUIREMENTS FOR BALLOT ACCESS. CALL YOUR REP, AND ASK THAT SHE OR HE SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION. Sincerely, Mike DeRosa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 24818 bytes Desc: not available URL: From TDayan at aol.com Sat Feb 14 10:55:17 2009 From: TDayan at aol.com (TDayan at aol.com) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 10:55:17 EST Subject: {news} Re: [CTGP-candidates] Re: Justice of the Peace Message-ID: Congratulations, Dave! **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=fe bemailfooterNO62) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From smderosa at cox.net Mon Feb 16 17:58:15 2009 From: smderosa at cox.net (Mike DeRosa) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:58:15 -0500 Subject: {news} TOMORROW:COME TO GREEN ROAD SHOW AND PASTA DINNER TUES. 2/17/09 6PM-9PM French Social Circle 373 Main St East Hartford, CT Message-ID: <001c01c9908a$0d5f3640$281da2c0$@net> REMINDER: PASTA DINNER AND Green Party 2009 Road Show. TOMORROW! http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:2OaLB4IiQbWRdM:http://www.thepulse.co.th /images/roadshow.jpg WHAT: Pasta Dinner and Green Party 2009 Road Show - Green Local and State candidates and Green elected officials tell the unique story of the Green Party in CT. The true narrative of CT's fastest growing third Party (including dinner and desert-donation requested)(More Road Shows Planned). When and Where: ROAD SHOW : TUES 2/17/09 6PM to 9PM; Pasta Dinner, Salad, And Road Show; FRENCH SOCIAL CIRCLE 373 MAIN ST. EAST HARTFORD, CT (860-919-4042 info/tickets)$15.(Special thanks to Steve Fornier and Albert Marceau) Image Why: To expose new people to the unique narrative of the CT Green Party and facilitate preferred solution based outcomes that promote social and environmental justice. http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/06/13/cmWIND_LARGE_wideweb__430x286,0.jp g E-mail Contacts: smderosa at cox.net 860-919-4042 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3958 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7788 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6613 bytes Desc: not available URL: From timmckee2008 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 18 19:19:14 2009 From: timmckee2008 at yahoo.com (Tim McKee) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:19:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: {news} You Can Make a Difference Message-ID: <843615.65472.qm@web44812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> *********************************************************************** Tim McKee Manchester CT Home-860-643-2282 Cell-860-778-1304 Tim McKee, is a National Commitee member of the Green Party of the United States and is a spokesperson for the?Green Party of CT. BLOG- http://thebiggreenpicture.blogspot.com/ --- On Tue, 2/17/09, Green Party of the United States wrote: From: Green Party of the United States Subject: You Can Make a Difference To: timmckee2008 at yahoo.com Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 9:10 PM ? Back to GP.org #yiv1306691504 st1\:*{} Dear Green Friend: Your past support of the Green Party has enabled us to elect qualified candidates to office all over the nation.? Elected Greens have a positive impact on the quality of life of the people they serve and continue to demonstrate and develop the Green message by leading their communities in facing and solving tough problems.? In 2008, we elected 42 Greens to office in 14 states who will make a difference in promoting the Green message. ? Richard Carroll, who was elected as the Green Party's first state legislator in Arkansas in November, is already starting to make a difference.? He proposed two bills that will make ballot access easier in Arkansas.? One of the bills, which increases the period that a new party can petition from 60 to 90 days, has already passed the State House. ? The hard work that the Illinois Green Party put into overcoming their state's difficult ballot access laws and winning party status in 2006 is paying off.? For the first time, the Green Party is having a contested primary in Illinois.? Four Green candidates are running for their party's nomination in the 5th Congressional District special election to replace Rahm Emanuel.? The candidates are Mark Arnold Fredrickson, who ran against Emanuel in the 2004 Democratic Primary; Deb Gordils, who ran against Alderman Dick Mell (33rd Ward) in 2003; and Matt Reichel and Simon Ribeiro who are making their first run for office. ? In Wisconsin, Todd Price is running in the non-partisan election for Superintendent of Public Education.? The Green Party of Wisconsin collected 2,000 signatures to get Todd on the ballot in January.? The primary will be held on February 17.? If Todd comes in first or second in the primary, he will advance to the general election.? Pete Karas, former Green Racine Alderperson, is running for mayor of Racine this spring.? As John Nichols recently wrote, "If anyone can turn Racine Green -- with a capital "G" -- and establish some new models for politics at the municipal level in Wisconsin, it's Pete Karas." ? Our Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates have continued their work after the election.? Cynthia McKinney made a valiant effort to bring medical supplies to Gaza during the Israeli invasion before her ship was rammed by the Israeli military and forced to turn away.? Rosa Clemente is starting a speaking tour to discuss the issues that Cynthia and she raised during the 2008 campaign. ? So far, there are 74 Green candidates that have announced their intention to run for office this year.? At this time in 2005, only 23 candidates had declared.? ? This is an exciting time for us! The Green Party has never been as relevant as it is today.? Whether it is the economic crisis, global warming, energy, or healthcare - Green Party candidates and office-holders advocate for solutions that address on-the-ground reality on behalf of the citizens living today and those to come. Greens will not betray the public interest for corporate cash. We accept no corporate money because we believe corporate influence is bad for politics.. ?Your money will be used to help recruit more candidates in 2009, fund ballot access drives in states such as North Carolina (yes some states can petition in 2009), build stronger state parties, conduct candidate campaign schools and spread the Green platform far and wide. ? If every Green donates just $50.00, less than a dollar a week, we can make a remarkable impact on politics across the country. We will be able to buy media ads, run more candidates in 2009 and bring Green issues to the forefront.?? Can you give $50.00 today?? Please consider $100.00 or even $150.00 to help Greens who cannot afford to give right now.? Whatever amount you are able to contribute, no matter how large or how small, we promise we'll put your money to good use at the state and national level.? Click here to support our efforts. ? Make a Difference... Give Generously... ? ?"The Green Party is no longer the alternative; the Green Party is the imperative." - Rosa Clemente The Green Party takes no money from real estate companies, investment firms, or insurance companies; In fact, we don't take any corporate money because we think corporate money in politics is wrong. If you agree, please help us today. Your donation to the Green Party will help make sure we have a strong Green party today and into the future. ? = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DO NOT REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = All comments, feedback and content suggestions should be sent to:? gpinfo at gp.org Click here to unsubscribe. Paid for by the Green Party of the United States Email: gpinfo at gp.org Office: PO Box 57065 Washington, D.C. 20037 202-319-7191 or toll-free (US): 866-41GREEN ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roseberry3 at cox.net Sat Feb 21 23:07:10 2009 From: roseberry3 at cox.net (B Barry) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 23:07:10 -0500 Subject: {news} Proposed agenda for the 7PM 2-24-09 SCC CTGP meeting at Portland Senior Center Message-ID: <20090222040713.PELS15713.eastrmmtao101.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> Proposed agenda for the 7PM 2-24-09 SCC CTGP meeting at Portland Senior Center Location: Portland Senior Center, 7 Waverly Avenue, Portland, CT 06480 Facilitator: To Be Determined A. Preliminaries: 1. (1 minute): Introductions of voting/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. (4-6 minutes): Review and approval of minutes of 12-30-09 and 1-27-09 SCC meetings. 4. (2-4minutes): Review and acceptance of the minutes of the 1-19-09 and 2-17-09 EC meetings. 5. (2-4 minutes): Treasurer?s report from treasurer: Christopher Reilly. B. Any proposals/referendums by chapters, committee. 1. Election Autopsy from Steve Fournier, co-chairperson: Four our first meeting of 2009, having had a couple of months to reflect on the election of 2008, it seems a good time to assess our status and plan for the coming year and the 2010 election. Vote-getting experience: In the election of the U.S. House of Representative, Greens received less than 5% of the vote. Green candidates were excluded from most broadcast debates and largely ignored by the media. Green won ballot status in 3 districts and will be able to run candidates without petitioning in the next congressional election, but no Green candidate had a discernible effect on the outcome. In state elections, four Green candidates in tree-way races did poorly (under 10%), even though their districts were safe for the Democrat. In the one two-way contest, the Green candidate did better at 19%. Voters for our write-ins likely were not all counted, and there were fewer than 100 recorded altogether. Under the campaign finance law, now under legal challenge, all but one of our ballot candidates got so few votes that successor candidates in these districts are legally disqualified from public financing in 2010. They are likely to face at least one major party candidate who does qualify, and the major party opponents will spend tens of dollars for every spent by Greens, further disabling potential Green voters and guaranteeing continuation of the Democratic/Republican dynasty. Fundraising experience: The Greens? five congressional candidates were barely able to raise enough to gain name recognition, and this was in sprawling districts. It is extremely unlikely that any could have raised $5000 in a much smaller state legislative district. Greens running for state office raised negligible amounts. Greens? fundraising problems are compounded by the fact that progressives? natural constituency consists of the working poor, the unemployed and underemployed, and students. Greens would have to abandon principle and alter the party?s message to appeal to high-income individuals. The required $5000 private funding threshold will present little impediment to Democrats and Republicans. In fact, it appears that private campaign funds, in helping candidates meet the threshold, will continue to wield influence, but for a much smaller investment. Public funding for Democrats and Republicans, far from empowering the poor, will make it ever more likely that the needs of people without resources will be ignored. Planning for 2010 and beyond: Greens? best hope of winning a seat in the state House or Senate will be a long-term project involving the recruitment of one or more well-known, popular progressives to try to turn out 10% in the first election year (the best that can be hoped for without public funding) in order to qualify for funding two years later. By the 2014 election, Greens might be able to run one or more partially funded candidates and make themselves competitive. Greens might also reasonably predict that the Democrat or Republican will face no opponent in 2010 in many districts (a third of them faced no opponent in 2008), raising the slim change that a green might garner enough votes to qualify for funding in 2012. Recruiting candidates was difficult before publicly-funded campaigns for major party opponents. With public funding, potential Green candidates now have to be willing to run hard with a certainty of defeat, and such people are rare on the current political landscape. Candidates will have to be willing to appeal to voters to cast their sufficient money to qualify for funding. A plan for recruiting such people could be our biggest challenge in the coming year. To adapt to the public funding law, the state party might be well advised to direct all contributors to candidate committees, even if it meant strangling the state treasury. As a pressure group or a progressive lobby, Greens are frustrated at every turn by the public financing scheme, which will always depress the Green vote. In the past, social movements have run doomed election campaigns for the purpose of widening debate and gradually attracting support. All signs indicate that, in state elections at least, support for Green issues will appear to be eroding and not growing. Public funding is likely to keep potential supporters from casting Green votes, simply because the outcome of almost every contest will be known far in advance. It won?t be possible to gauge true levels of support for social justice and environmental restoration when elections are, for all practical purposes, fixed. Debate won?t be broadened but narrowed under the new regime. Greens might also have to abandon the message that the party is running to win state contests and acknowledge that?s running to qualify for funds in a future election. To conserve the party?s sparse resources, members will have to consider, this year, whether it?s worthwhile to run candidates for state office at all, in view of these disabling laws, and whether the party might more profitably put its emphasis on local elections and national office. C. Reports: 1. (10-15 minutes): GPUS reports from: a) Cliff Thornton, National Co-chairperson of the GPUS; b) CTGP representatives: Tim McKee and Charlie Pillsbury; c) National Committee Members: Steve Fournier, Richard Duffee and S. Michael DeRosa. 2. (20 minutes): CTGP 2-09 meetings with CT State Legislative Government and Election Committee Co-chairpersons. 3. (10 minutes): Update regarding CTGP lawsuit with the ACLU against the State of CT regarding the 2005 State of CT Campaign Finance Reform Laws. Report from Steve Fournier. 4. (15 minutes): CTGP concerns regarding the Elections Department of the CT. Secretary of State during the 11-08 election: a) votes not counted for write-in candidates for president; b) voting problems found by independent election auditors but not by the Secretary of State. 5. (5-10minutes): CTGP literature. 6. (5-10 minutes): CTGP potential goals for 2009: a) legislative goals for petitioning; b) electric rates; c) universal health care. 7. (5 minutes): Authorization of money to get the state-wide list of registered Green Party voters. 8. (10-15minutes): Volunteers for the Internal Elections Committee, Convention Committee for 4-09 CTGP Convention. 9. (2-5 minutes, each): Chapter reports. 10. Date and place for the 3-31-09, Tuesday SCC meeting. Date, place and time of next EC meeting in 3-09: to be determined. 12. 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 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.25/1956 - Release Date: 2/16/2009 6:31 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dbedellgreen at hotmail.com Mon Feb 23 01:23:21 2009 From: dbedellgreen at hotmail.com (David Bedell) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 01:23:21 -0500 Subject: {news} CT's highest-paid employees Message-ID: Good question, Ken. David Bedell http://www.norwichbulletin.com/sports/x1658752417/UConn-Mens-Basketball-Calhoun-gets-into-heated-spat-over-salary UConn Men's Basketball: Calhoun gets into heated spat over salary By PAT EATON-ROBB The Associated Press Posted Feb 22, 2009 @ 12:00 AM HARTFORD - UConn men's basketball coach Jim Calhoun got into a heated exchange at a post-game news conference Saturday with a freelance journalist and political activist who questioned why the coach of a public university was making $1.6 million in tough economic times. "Not a dime back," Calhoun joked as Ken Krayeske asked about Calhoun's salary and the state's budget deficit, which is estimated at $944 million for the current fiscal year and up to $8 billion over the next two years. When Krayeske continued the line of questioning, Calhoun got angry. "My best advice to you is, shut up," said Calhoun, who offered to talk to Krayeske after the news conference, in which Calhoun was discussing the top-ranked Huskies' 64-50 win over South Florida. "If these guys covered this stuff, I wouldn't have to do it," said Krayeske, who had been granted a photo pass to attend the news conference. Now visibly angry, Calhoun responded. "Quite frankly, we bring in $12 million to the university, nothing to do with state funds," Calhoun shouted back. "We make $12 million a year for this university. Get some facts and come back and see me ... Don't throw out salaries and other things. "Get some facts and come back and see me. We turn over $12 million to the University of Connecticut, which is state-run. Next question." Krayeske, 36, of Hartford is a political activist and self-described freelance journalist who has landed in the headlines after other high-profile incidents in the past. They included his January 2007 arrest at Gov. M. Jodi Rell's inaugural parade, where Hartford police charged Krayeske with breach of peace and interfering with an officer. Police said Krayeske dropped his bike and stepped into the parade route, a security breach they considered a potential attempt to disrupt the event. He later said he was attempting to photograph the governor for his Web site. The charges were later dismissed. Krayeske also was the campaign manager for Connecticut Green Party candidate Cliff Thornton's 2006 gubernatorial run. Calhoun, who has two national titles, is set to make $1.6 million in 2009-10, the final year of his contract. Women's basketball coach Geno Auriemma, who has brought five national championships to Storrs, recently signed a five-year, $8 million deal that begins July 1. UConn football coach Randy Edsall signed a five-year deal a year ago that pays him an average of $1.5 million annually. The three coaches are among the state's highest paid employees. Copyright ? 2009 GateHouse Media, Inc. Some Rights Reserved. From dbedellgreen at hotmail.com Mon Feb 23 02:48:56 2009 From: dbedellgreen at hotmail.com (David Bedell) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:48:56 -0500 Subject: {news} Proposed agenda for the 7PM 2-24-09 SCC CTGP meeting at Portland Senior Center Message-ID: With regard to: #5. (5-10minutes): CTGP literature. I can't be at the 2/24 meeting, but I'd like to announce that I've adapted the five outreach flyers created by the New Haven chapter and posted them on the Platform page of the website: http://www.ctgreens.org/platform.shtml They are in PDF format and can be downloaded and printed. If others would like to create similar flyers, I can share the MS Publisher template for these. I could also use some technical assistance, since the result of my conversion from Publisher to PDF leaves something to be desired. David Bedell From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Mon Feb 23 08:32:14 2009 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:32:14 -0500 Subject: {news} RELEASE Case against Green Boston City Councilmember unravels; Greens seek probe of FBI targeting Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "dcsgpnews4" To: Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 12:22 AM Subject: RELEASE Case against Green Boston City Councilmember unravels; Greens seek probe of FBI targeting > Distributed by the Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org > > Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts http://www.massgreens.org > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 20 February 2009 > > Contact: Jill Stein, 617-852-4727, Eli Beckerman, 617-821-1453 > Co-chairs, Green-Rainbow Party, cochairs at green-rainbow.org > > > FBI Case Against Turner Unravels; Renewed call for Investigation of > FBI Targeting > > > The FBI's "cooperating witness" who is the foundation of the FBI > attempt to convict Chuck Turner and Dianne Wilkerson of extortion has > announced that he is no longer cooperating with the FBI. In a front > page article in Friday's Boston Globe, Ronald Wilburn states that he > "felt he had been used by the FBI to topple a pair of prominent black > politicians". Wilburn goes on to say "Dianne is a thief. Chuck isn't. > Dianne knew better. Chuck is a victim of circumstance." Those > circumstances, it should be noted, appear to have been fully > engineered by the FBI informant. Importantly, the suspicious > activities they suggest were initiated and carried out by the FBI > informant, not by Chuck Turner. The unfolding facts thus appear not > only to exonerate Turner, but also to raise serious concerns about the > abuse of secret police powers by the FBI. > > While much of the Boston media presented the case against Turner as > "damning", and some even claimed that the presumption of innocence was > "meaningless", a more skeptical position was adopted by those who knew > Turner well. An analysis of the FBI affidavit by John Andrews of the > Green-Rainbow Party found the affidavit to be "a decidedly > unconvincing document that fails to provide a legitimate law > enforcement justification for the targeting of Turner." Turner has > steadfastly insisted that he is innocent, and his case has drawn > support both from his own community and from nationally known figures > such as Ramsey Clark. > > "The flimsy nature of the case against Turner underscores the need to > investigate FBI bias in selecting public officials to be targets of > sting operations" said Green-Rainbow Party co-chair Jill Stein. Stein > noted that "Turner has been an outspoken critic of FBI infringements > on civil liberties, and has clashed with the FBI on high profile cases > such as the imprisonment of the American Indian Movement's Leonard > Peltier and the FBI killing of Puerto Rican separatist Filiberto Ojeda > Rios. It is crucial that we get to the bottom of the question of > whether Turner was targeted because he dared to criticize FBI > behavior." > > The Green-Rainbow Party's initial request for a Department of Justice > investigation was declined by the DOJ, who merely referred the matter > to the FBI. According to Green-Rainbow co-chair Eli Beckerman, "The > latest turn of events makes it more important than ever that an > investigation of political motivations in FBI targeting be conducted > by parties who are not part of the FBI hierarchy." For his part, > Turner has asked that all potential politically-motivated indictments > that were initiated under the Bush Administration be examined. > > Green-Rainbow communications director Lloyd Smith added, "The charges > against Turner should be dropped. But that alone isn't enough. Until > we get to the bottom of the targeting issue on a nationwide level, any > public official who criticizes FBI misbehavior will have to worry > about whether they'll be the next target of a sting operation. If > Attorney General Eric Holder wants to demonstrate the courage of his > convictions, and that we're not a 'nation of cowards', he should act > upon former Attorney General Ramsey Clark's request and investigate > potentially racially and/or politically motivated FBI targeting." > > > ##### > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.11.2 - Release Date: 2/20/2009 > 12:00 AM > > From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Mon Feb 23 08:32:56 2009 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:32:56 -0500 Subject: {news} RELEASE Pa. Greens seek action against judicial corruption after juvenile detention scandal Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "dcsgpnews4" To: Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 12:24 AM Subject: RELEASE Pa. Greens seek action against judicial corruption after juvenile detention scandal Distributed by the Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org GREEN PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA http://www.gpofpa.org Attention: News Editor For Immediate Release Contact: Hillary Kane, 267-971-3559 Tim Reim, 814-838-1193 Carl Romanelli 570-574-0829 Green Party Condemns Judicial Corruption ? Green leaders call into question the privatization of essential public services creating opportunities for corruption ? Green Party urges local governments to ban private management of public responsibilities such as juvenile detention White-hot outrage cannot adequately describe Green reaction to revelations of children unjustly sent to PA juvenile detention centers on the orders of corrupt local judges. Two Pennsylvania judges have pleaded guilty to earning millions by wrongfully sending teenagers to privately-run youth detention centers. Prosecutors say Luzerne County Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan took $2.6 million in payoffs to place juvenile offenders in a situation in which personal greed fed by corporate excess turned people into profit. "This calls to the very question of the value of the civil rights of the individual children wrongfully removed from their homes to appease the 'predatory capitalism' conducted by Pennsylvania Child Care, LLC" said Hillary Kane, Chair of the Green Party of Pennsylvania. "When I think of the long-term impact unwarranted juvenile detention will have on those children and their families, it really makes me angry." "The concept of removing the responsibility and oversight of public governing to private corporations has been one of increasing belief that market forces, which worship profit over people, could deliver services more efficiently and at a lower cost to taxpayers," said Blyden Potts, Secretary of the Green Party of Pennsylvania. "What you wind up with is this type of abuse that would not occur under a properly-led public administration that respects its citizens." The Green Party of Pennsylvania believes local municipal and township governments have the right and duty to refuse the contracting of some state activities. We call for local governments to enact ordinance prohibitions against the private management of public responsibilities, specifically, juvenile detention centers in their locale. Social Justice remains a key pillar of Green political beliefs. This scandal has shaken Pennsylvanian parents and families to the core. We grieve for the suffering of the parents and young people wrongful abused. Greens call for not only full financial and judicial redress for the innocent people involved, but for a full investigation of the political environment that allowed for the many years of corruption and abuse by the two judges, and those private business interests complicit in this scandal. Said Carl Romanelli of Luzerne County; "Sadly, Greens have been at odds with these judges here in Luzerne County for years. It makes one wonder where the peer review has been. Further, the appeals system in Pennsylvania simply rubber stamps the corrupt decisions of criminal judges. We must break the cycle of judges protecting themselves, and their exclusive club, rather than protecting the rights of Pennsylvanians. You need look no deeper than my case with the state court to see this ugly dynamic at play," said Romanelli referring to his ongoing ballot access court case. # # # From richard.duffee at gmail.com Mon Feb 23 23:56:06 2009 From: richard.duffee at gmail.com (Richard Duffee) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:56:06 -0500 Subject: {news} Fwd: USGP-INT voting on Gaza statement In-Reply-To: <80C8B5ECBDBA4C209CBED29CA37048C0@JUSTINE> References: <80C8B5ECBDBA4C209CBED29CA37048C0@JUSTINE> Message-ID: <21f4f7390902232056i15b9fdfco7cddba28e6266725@mail.gmail.com> Dear CtGP, The most important recent issue before the International Committee involves the following draft resolution on Israel and Palestine. The IC has voted for it. The question is what status the vote of the IC alone gives it. The leadership of the IC seems to believe that the IC's vote is sufficient to make it a USGP policy statement. Others of us believe that the vote of the national committee is necessary for it to have that status. I think you may want to weigh in on the issue, so whatever response you have I will forward to the International Committee. Whatever else you want to say, I'd like to hear yes or no responses on two questions: 1) Is this a statement of policy to which you can agree? 2) Do you believe that the International Committee is obligated to forward it to the National Committee before promulgating it as the policy of the USGP? (I believe I can correctly tell you the positions on both questions of the three Connecticut IC members: member question 1 2 Justine McCabe yes no Amy Vas Nunes no yes Richard Duffee yes yes But I'd like to know what other Ct. Greens think.) Richard Duffee Here's the statement: ================================================== January 18, 2009 *DRAFT Green Party Statement **On Gaza Crisis and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict* Although Green Parties represent different countries and regions of the world, we share common principles relevant to understanding and resolving this conflict. Among these principles are non-violence, including consistent enforcement of international law; ecological wisdom and sustainability, including reducing the negative impact of humankind on the natural environment; and social justice, thereby rejecting discrimination based on gender, class or ethnicity. These principles guide our response to the crisis in Gaza that began on December 27, 2008. *We:* *Call for a full and continuing ceasefire between Israel and the Hamas government in Gaza, a complete withdrawal of all Israeli forces and opening of border crossings there;* *Condemn the killing of civilians, which is illegal under international law; * *Condemn the excessive and disproportionate force used by Israel, the Occupying Power in Gaza,* which as of January 18, had resulted in the killing of over 1,300 Palestinians, mostly civilians, injury of more than 5,300, destruction of Gaza's infrastructure, destruction of hundreds of homes, displacement of thousands of Palestinians, attacks on UN schools and the UNRWA warehouse, the source of basic necessities, such as food, fuel and medicines. According to a 1/15/09 UN press release: "One in every 250 people in Gaza is either now dead or significantly injured . . . That was comparable to 33,000 people in New York City or 1.2 million people in the United States."* http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/47d4e277b48d9d3685256ddc00612265/b974aca8e8fe201d85257540004ffedc!OpenDocument * During this time 13 Israelis were killed, of whom ten were soldiers; three civilians were killed and dozens injured by Hamas rocket attacks. http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1232171510978&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout *Furthermore,** *we are greatly distressed by the continuing decoupling of these recent hostilities from their historic context, which encourages, *inter alia*, the following obstacles to peace: ? Demonization of Palestinians as inherently anti-Semitic, hateful terrorists; ? Delegitimization of lawful resistance by Palestinians to Israeli violations of their human and legal rights; ? Propounding the myth of balance between the two peoples despite the patently disproportionate military and political power between them: an occupying power, Israel ? nuclear-armed with the fourth largest military in the world, backed by a superpower ? and Palestinians, an effectively disarmed, impoverished and occupied people; ? Jettisoning of international law in favor of bilateral negotiations between two actors of such grossly unequal power, a course begun with the Madrid / Oslo process; ? Distortions of genuine, human security needs of Israelis in favor of Israeli state security and regional domination; ? Conflation of criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Semitism, which promotes regressive elements on both sides for political gain, trivializes the historic prejudice against Jews, and inhibits the expression of sympathy Palestinians do have for Jewish suffering, especially the Nazi holocaust. ** *We call for a redirection of international attention to the root causes of past and ongoing hostilities between Israelis and Palestinians: Palestinian dispossession and ethnic cleansing by Israel since 1948, and an apartheid-like system in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) that discriminates against non-Jews.* [See *Background below] ** *THEREFORE:* *Recalling** *the historic examples of apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany that a just, enduring peace, and reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis depend on acknowledgement of wrongdoing and restitution and; *Recalling** *that Europeans, not Palestinians, were responsible for the Nazi holocaust; and that individual European Green Parties, especially those elected representatives to their governments, to the European Green Party, and in their capacity to influence the European Union's relation to Israel, have a special duty to ensure that Palestinians no longer pay for historic European transgressions against Jews; and *Recalling** *that the Green Party of the United States has a particular obligation in relation to this conflict as the US government is Israel's closest ally: ? That Israel receives more than $5 billion annually in military and financial aid; that as current hostilities in Gaza illustrate, Israel's use of this military aid often violates American laws. The ? Arms Export Control Act stipulates that US-supplied weapons be used only for "legitimate self-defense" ? US Foreign Assistance Act prohibits military assistance to any country "which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights" ? Proxmire Amendment bans military assistance to any government that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to allow inspection of its nuclear facilities, as Israel refuses to do; ? That the United States government, including both its major parties, has not been an impartial peace broker in this conflict but continues to provide political cover and protection to Israel internationally, particularly at the United Nations, where it has vetoed scores of Security Council Resolutions opposing Israel's violations of Palestinian human rights and international law, thereby undermining the central purpose of the UN Charter to maintain international peace and security; ? That US support for Israeli violations against the Palestinian people is a main source of antipathy to the US and the West among the world's formerly colonized peoples who identify with Palestinians; that this US support not only decreases US/Western national security, but also contributes to Middle East and international instability; and http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41982 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/world/14clash.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/65b122b6-e8c0-11dd-a4d0-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1 *Recognizing* that despite 61 years of continuous diplomatic attempts by the international community, it has failed to bring about Israel's compliance with international law or respect for basic Palestinian human rights; and *Recognizing** *that, despite abundant condemnation of Israel's policies by the UN, International Court of Justice, and all relevant international conventions, the international community of nations has* *failed to stop violations by Israel of Palestinian human rights in Israel and the OPT, while Israeli crimes continue with impunity, as the recent assault on Gaza illustrates; and *Recalling* that ending institutionalized racism (apartheid) in South Africa demanded an unusual, cooperative action by the entire international community in the form of a boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign against apartheid South Africa, and that BDS have become the most effective nonviolent means for achieving justice and genuine peace between Palestinians and Israelis, and in the region, through concerted international pressure as applied to apartheid South Africa; and *Recognizing** *that Palestinian resistance to ongoing dispossession has mainly been nonviolent, including its most basic form ? remaining in their homes, on their land; and that while Palestinian armed resistance is legitimate under international law when directed at non-civilian targets, we believe that only nonviolent resistance will maintain the humanity of Palestinian society, elicit the greatest solidarity from others, and maximize the chance for future reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians; and *Recognizing, *however, that our appeal to Palestinians to continue to resist nonviolently in the face of ongoing existential threats from Israel is hypocritical unless accompanied by substantial acts of international support; and *Recalling *that in 2005, Palestinian Civil Society appealed to the international community to support a BDS campaign against Israel; and *Recalling* that in response, at least two Green Parties have passed resolutions supporting this BDS campaign: Green Party of the United States in 2005 http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_11_28.shtml Green Party of England and Wales in 2008 http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1733 ; ** *We, international Green parties:* *Call* publicly for the implementation of boycott and divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era; and *Agree* to pressure our respective governments to impose embargoes and sanctions against Israel; and *Support* maintaining these nonviolent punitive measures until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people's inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by: 1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Palestinian lands and dismantling the Wall in the West Bank; 2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and 3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194. ** ** Background* ? There is international consensus among scholars, including Israeli Jews (David Hirst, Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Tom Segev) that in 1948, Israel ethnically cleansed at least 80% of the native Palestinian Christians and Muslims ? the majority population ? from their lands and homes because they were not Jews, an act of genocide under international law. (See Professor Francis A. Boyle, who successfully argued before the World Court that ethnic cleansing is a form of genocide http://www.mediamonitors.net/francis1.html.) In 1948, Palestinian Christians and Muslims owned 93% of the land. ? Since 1948, Israel has prevented Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes in Israel, while allowing non-native Jews to immigrate there. This constitutes a violation of several bodies of international law (law of nationality, customary human rights law / refugee law, humanitarian law) and international conventions, such as The Universal Declaration of Human rights (Article 13(2), 1948), The Fourth Geneva convention, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1951), all embodied in UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (reaffirmed annually since 1948), and Security Council Resolution 237. Moreover, for those refugees who wish to return, feasible plans have been proposed that would have meant minimal displacement of the current population, given that about 80% of Israeli Jews live in only 15% of the country, and that the vast majority of refugees could return to areas from which they came, as they are vacant or underpopulated. http://english.aljazeera.net/archive/2005/05/200849162924283293.html http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/prrn/papers/abusitta.html ? In the 1967 war, Israel seized control and has maintained a military occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights, Palestinian West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza (OPT), in violation of international law, which emphasizes the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war no matter how the conflict began or how long it endures. During the war, another 300,000 Palestinians became refugees, some for the second time. ? As the Occupying Power, Israel continues to violate its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, by the following practices: ? ongoing settlement of Jewish-only colonies in the West Bank / East Jerusalem on land, of which 40% is privately owned by Palestinians, that contain between 480,000 and 550,0000 Israelis ? more than half settling during the Oslo Peace Process ? denial of freedom of movement by over 500 checkpoints and roadblocks ? collective punishment, including curfews and closures, prevention of medical treatment, demolition of over 10,000 homes, of which, according to UN figures, only 6% involved any security suspects ? targeted assassinations ? detention without charge ? torture in detention ? denial of the right to peaceful assembly ? the uprooting, since 2000 alone, of nearly 2 million trees, and razing thousands of acres of agricultural land. In sum, Israel has taken control of more than 50% of West Bank land (the whole West Bank represents only 22% of historic Palestine) to establish the settlements and reserve land for their expansion; Israel controls 100% of West Bank water, diverting 80% for Israeli use, leaving only 20% for Palestinians ? insufficient for Palestinian life and agriculture. http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/200205_Land_Grab.asp http://www.btselem.org/english/water/2008070_acute_water_shortage_in_the_west_bank.asp http://www.imemc.org/article/48308 http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/water/2007/0523arabisrael.htm According to Israel's human rights group B'Tselem, since September 2008, Israel has escalated its policy of separating the West Bank from Gaza and forcibly transferring ? ethnic cleansing ? West Bank Palestinians to Gaza, a policy supported by Israel's supreme court. http://www.btselem.org/english/press_releases/20080910.asp For US support of Israeli "benign" ethnic cleansing, see "Ethic Cleansing: Constructive, Benign, and Nefarious." *ZMagazine*, August 09, 2006 By Edward S. Herman and Grace Kwinjeh http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/3419 ? In 2002, Israel began building a 790 km-long (494 mile) "separation barrier" or "apartheid wall" in the occupied West Bank, confiscating huge swaths of Palestinian agricultural land and water sources along a route that deviates from the 1967 "Green Line." In 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled the barrier to be illegal under international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, that it must be dismantled and reparations paid to Palestinians for losses incurred, and that "all States are under obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting form the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory . . . They are also under obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction." http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf Similarly, a detailed investigation by B'Tselem confirmed that, "under the guise of security," Israel's routing of the separation barrier was primarily to enable the expansion of illegal settlements and protect the economic interests of Israeli real estate developers, all in violation of Palestinian human rights, especially self-determination. http://www.btselem.org/Download/200512_Under_the_Guise_of_Security_Eng.doc Thus far, Israel has refused to comply with the ICJ ruling, and continues to build the wall. ? Israel maintains an apartheid-like system in the West Bank, where a "concrete" barrier, two different legal systems and a "matrix of control" separate Israeli-Jewish settlers and Palestinians, and relegate the latter to a no man's land of statelessness. For example, former US President Jimmy Carter *(Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid) *and B'Tselem describe the institutionalized system of discrimination in the OPT as "apartheid." Similarly, citing the planned system of Jewish-only roads and settlements, and two different legal systems, B'Tselem reported in 2002: Israel has created in the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality. This regime is the only one of its kind in the world, and is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa. http://www.btselem.org/English/Press_Releases/20040616.asp Again, in their 2004 report, "Discrimination-based separation ? An Apartheid Practice": The roads regime, which is based on separation through discrimination, bears clear similarities to the racist apartheid regime that existed in South Africa until 1994. An individual's national origin determines their right to use various roads. This policy is based on a racist premise: that all Palestinians are security risks, and it is therefore justifiable to restrict their movement. Thus the policy indiscriminately harms the entire Palestinian population, in violation of their human rights and of international law. http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/200408_Forbidden_Roads.asp On November 25, 2008, UN General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann also likened Israel's policies toward the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to South Africa's treatment of blacks under apartheid. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1226404827209 ? Even before the current hostilities, Gaza was an immense open-air prison for 1.5 million people ? two-thirds of whom are refugees from 1948 and 1967 ? squeezed into 140 square miles and hemmed in on all sides by 25-foot-high walls separated by a vast expanse of bulldozed earth. (See "The Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion," March 2008, http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/images/03/06/gaza.implosion.pdf.) In late 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew its soldiers and 8,000 settlers but continued to control Gaza from the air and sea, and monitor all exits and entries of persons and supplies. A blockade began after January 2006 when Hamas won parliamentary elections in the OPT, a result not accepted by Israel, the US and the EU, which withdrew aid from Gaza despite the facts that the election was regarded as fair and democratic, with a huge voter turnout ( http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1181813074587), and that Hamas had rescinded its call for Israel's destruction and offered of a long-term truce in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from all the OPT. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/12/israel. The US then covertly armed Hamas' political rival, Fatah, to provoke a Palestinian civil war and overthrow Hamas. After intense fighting, Hamas gained full control of Gaza in June 2007. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804?printable=true¤tPage=all Since then, Israel has defined Gaza as an "enemy entity" and maintained a siege that intensified on November 5, 2008. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n02/sieg01_.html. By December 2008, according to UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights for the OPT, Richard Falk, Gaza had a malnutrition rate of 75%, and healthcare and economic systems on the verge of collapse with 95% of factories closed and the highest unemployment rate in the world. http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/489/88/PDF/N0848988.pdf?OpenElement http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-falk/understanding-the-gaza-ca_b_154777.html In November 2008 Israel denied entry of humanitarian aid to Gaza as UN food aid was running out. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7726943.stm. On 12/30/08 Israel rammed and severely damaged the SS *Dignity* in international waters. It was carrying medical supplies to Gaza with a delegation of physicians and human rights activists, including former US congresswoman and US Green Party's 2008 presidential candidate, Cynthia McKinney. http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=162 http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/30/gaza.aid.boat/?iref=hpmostpop#cnnSTCText In sum, these are violations of international law under which Israel remains the Occupying Power charged with the protection of Palestinians in OPT, including Gaza. ("Israel prepares for war crimes over Gaza" http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout&cid=1232171555977&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss ) According to UN Special Rapporteur Falk's 8/25/08 report to the UN General Assembly: The whole approach taken toward Gaza by Israel and by the United States of America, and the European Union, since the Hamas electoral victory in January 2006, involves a massive and unlawful systematic violation of article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which unconditionally prohibits collective punishment. ? Israel also maintains an apartheid-like system in Israel (within the 1967 "Green Line") that systematically discriminates against its non-Jewish citizens, especially the 20% of its population who are Palestinian-Israelis. Unlike South African institutionalized racism (apartheid), the non-Jewish citizens of Israel can vote in elections for members of the parliament (Knesset) where they can have representation, though they have never been part of a governing coalition. Yet, the presence of these rights obscures Israel's unacknowledged history of ethnic cleansing of the non-Jewish majority inhabitants of historic Palestine (1947?49; 1967) and their continuing dispossession, and masks the fundamental structures of the Israeli state that preclude equality and discriminate against non-Jewish citizens on an ethnic basis. Indeed, not all rights are citizenship rights. In Israel, other rights, defined as "nationality" rights, are reserved for Jews only: exclusive use of land, privileged access to private and public employment, special educational loans, home mortgages, preferences for admission to universities, among others. From its official beginning, the Declaration of Independence, Israel established itself as a Jewish state, with a Jewish character, principles on which its Basic Laws are anchored. While Israel has no constitution, this Declaration and its Basic Laws are viewed as the equivalents of constitutional law. For example, the 1985 amendment to Section 7a of the Basic Law (ironically, the "Anti-Racist Law") bars any political party from participating in elections that explicitly or implicitly denies the Jewish and democratic character of the State of Israel; and the 1992 Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, which reiterates the Jewish and democratic characters of the state (in Section 1a): "The purpose of the basic law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state." Indeed, in the midst of the current Gaza crisis, the Israeli Elections Committee banned the participation of two Palestinian-Israeli parties (50% of Arab parties) in the upcoming elections because they opposed the assault on Gaza and call for Israel to change from being a Jewish state to a state of all its citizens. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054867.html http://news.antiwar.com/2009/01/12/israel-bans-arab-parties-from-election ] Thus, Israel's self-definition defies logic: Israel cannot simultaneously be a Jewish state and democratic ? which would require defining itself as the state of all its citizens. Instead, by law and unlike any other country in the world, Israel defines itself as the state of all the Jews in the world, to whom privilege over (even native) non-Jewish citizens is given. This exclusivity contrasts sharply with the alternative of designating the country as the "homeland" for the Jewish people, an inclusive designation that could be applied to the other people for whom the country is also homeland, the Palestinians. In analyzing Israel's Basic Laws, Palestinian-Israeli Nadim Rouhana (Henry Hart Rice Professor of Conflict Resolution, George Mason University and Director of the Arab Center for Applied Social Research in Haifa) underscores the inherent contradiction between Israel's self-identity as Jewish and democratic (*Palestinian Citizens in an Ethnic Jewish State*, 1997), p. 46: According to Kretzmer (1990), simply by introducing the 1985 amendment to Section 7a of the Basic Law . . . the Israeli Knesset demonstrated that the 'recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people has indeed become an incontrovertible constitutional fact.' But again, how can this definition of the state of Israel align with the essence of democracy: having the state as an equally accessible tool of all of its citizens? It simply precludes all non-Jewish citizens from claiming the state as equally theirs. If the state is the apparatus that concentrates power, determines the distribution of resources, rights and duties, benefits and national priorities, determines the criteria for significant national goals, and promulgates laws and regulations to achieve these goals, then by defining itself as the state of only one group of its citizens (and some who are not its citizens), the state cannot avoid violating the principles of democracy. As the international community shunned apartheid South Africa in the late 20 th century, the growing international opposition to Israel's attempt to legitimize Jewish ethnic dominance reflects 21st century world consciousness and consensus that such institutionalized dominance is archaic and undemocratic. Professor Virginia Tilley concludes (*The One-State Solution,* pp. 181?182): [S]elf-styled as the 'only democracy in the Middle East,' Israel remains the only ethnic democracy claiming membership in the Euro-American international community. That claim is becoming an intolerable embarrassment, as the model is long obsolete elsewhere. For instance, the "White Australia" project sustained a racial democracy in the early twentieth century, banning Asian immigration and excluding Aborigines on the belief that only racial homogeneity could permit whites to freely enjoy a democratic practice brought from Europe. Southern states in the United States used a host of methods, official and unofficial, to exclude black voting and secure white dominion well into the 1960's. But the civil movements that challenged and defeated these systems carried with them more than local or national change; they campaigned for and consolidated an international normative discourse that rejected ethnoracial supremacy as an inherent source of injustice, dehumanization, and human suffering. The shift rose to catch South Africa and quickly discredited apartheid; Milosevic's Serbian ambitions also came too late and hit the cresting wave. The lessons from World War II had at last come to fruition: ethnic nationalism generates unacceptable discourses of ethnic supremacy and inferiority, grant moral authority to ethnic cleansing, and precludes equal rights before the law, which is the foundational principle of Western democracies. If a state is to be truly democratic ? with all its citizens held equal before the law ? it cannot be based on ethnic dominion. Whatever Israel claims based on the past sins of Europe or on its own mythologized past of peaceful resistance to ferocious Arabs, if the Jewish state claims membership in the Western club, it cannot expect to be held exempt from these principles. With regard to apartheid, according to Article II, International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid* *(1973):* http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/11.htm* For the purpose of the present Convention, the term 'the crime of apartheid', which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them: (c) Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups . . . (d) Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof; For a side-by-side comparison of the convention's definition of "apartheid" with examples of Israel's human rights record within Israel as well as in the Occupied Territories, see report by Israeli Uri Strauss, "Defining Apartheid: Israel's Record" http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article689.shtml *See also * "Israel's 'Ethnocracy' and the Demographic Threat: Dr. As'ad Ghanem on Israel's Palestinian Citizens, October 21, 2009. ttp://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/d/ContentDetails/i/2359/pid/223 "Neither two states nor one: Disengagement and 'creeping apartheid' in Israel/Palestine" by Prof. Oren Yiftachel, *The Arab World Geographer*, Vol.8, No. 3, 2005, http://www.geog.bgu.ac.il/members/yiftachel/new_papers_eng/Yiftachel%20in%20Arab%20World%20Geographer.pdf ; "Democracy or Ethnocracy: Territory and Settler Politics in Israel/Palestine"* *by* *Oren Yiftachel, http://www.merip.org/mer/mer207/yift.htm "Apartheid In the Holy Land" Paper Prepared Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed for the United Nations Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, 31st August?7th September, South Africa, http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq11.html *Some of the Israel laws discriminating against Israel's non-Jewish citizens * *Exclusive citizenship/immigration laws*: ? Law of Return (1950) and the Citizenship Law (1952) ? Population Registry Law (1965) ? Citizenship and Entry into Israel law (July 2003) *Exclusive use of state land by Jews* As a consequence of the following laws, non-Jews ? "non-nationals" ? who had succeeded in remaining in their native land, were dispossessed of their property at Israel's founding in 1948, internally displaced and excluded by law from leasing, purchasing, building, or farming 93% of the land of Israel within the Green Line ? land that is regarded by Israel as the inalienable patrimony of the Jewish people wherever they live, and is owned by the Jewish National Fund and the state and regulated by the Israel Land Authority. These land control mechanisms perpetuate a legally enforced system of territorial separation, by which Palestinian-Israelis (20+% of the population) now own only 3% of the land. This situation is actually worse than apartheid South Africa's policy of "influx control" restricting the residence and land available to black South Africans citizens ? 13% ? while the remaining 87% was reserved for "white South Africa." *1949:* Emergency Regulations (Cultivation of Waste Lands) Ordinance *1950:* Absentee Property Law *1952:* World Zionist Organization ?Jewish Agency for the Land of Israel (Status) Law *1953:* Land Acquisition Law; Law for Confiscating Land for Public Interests; Jewish National Fund Law *1954:* Covenant between the Government of Israel and the Zionist Executive / Executive for the Jewish Agency for the Land of Israel *1960:* Basic Law; Israel Lands; Israel Lands Law; Israeli Lands Administration Law *1961:* Covenant between the State of Israel and the Jewish National Fund *1980:* Land Acquisition Law (Peace Treaty with Egypt): seizes thousands of dunams of Palestinian land to expand Jewish communities in the Negev *Discrimination and ethnic cleansing continues for Palestinian?Israelis*:** Unrecognized Arab villages in Israel: At least eighty thousand Palestinian Bedouin?Israelis live in about 45 "unrecognized" villages in the Negev desert in the south of Israel. Following the adoption of the Planning and Construction Law of 1965, the villages did not appear on any Israeli map and were not recognized by any official government and ignored by all government planning projects. These Bedouin are citizens of Israel and have the right to vote in national elections and are expected to pay taxes. Yet their villages are deprived of basic services, like housing, water, electricity, education and health care. According to a report by anti-apartheid peace activists Bangani Ngeleza and Adri Nieuwhof: There are disturbing similarities in living conditions between unrecognised villages and informal settlements under apartheid. These include lack of access to adequate potable water, lack of proper sanitation facilities, absence of proper road infrastructure, the lack of educational facilities, houses built of corrugated iron sheets (in some cases of black plastics and cardboard) etc. The similarities are striking between racially based policies that lay behind the creation of white settlements under the apartheid regime in South Africa then and the establishment of Jewish settlements by the Israeli government. "Unrecognised villages in the Negev expose Israel's apartheid policies" Bangani Ngeleza and Adri Nieuwhof, *The Electronic Intifada,* 21 December 2005http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4358.shtml; "Bedouin ask UN to help fight systemic discrimination in Israel" http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=734096 *Continuing efforts to "Judaize" Arab?Israeli areas like the Galilee, Negev and East Jerusalem* Israel continues policies to constrain Palestinian?Israeli life while privileging that of Jewish?Israelis.** See "A Campaign to Challenge Israeli Apartheid" March 31, 2005 by Kole Kilibarda *http://www.caiaweb.org/files/kilibarda.jamjoum-JNFcampaign.pdf* Isabelle Humphries, a British researcher on Palestinian internal refugees, attests to institutionalized Israeli discrimination towards Palestinian?Israelis displaced from their homes in the Galilee in 1948 but not expelled: While Israel continues to claim that it is a democracy, it finds ways to discriminate and implement an apartheid system ? and no more so than in the allocation of land and town planning. While the state and high court system maintain the pretense of keeping opportunities open to all, independent private organizations have no obligation to do so. Thus the state delegates and coordinates its work with Zionist establishments technically able to act as quasi-state institutions, despite the fact that their mandates openly state their aim of serving one ethnic group alone. The latest development plan for the Galilee and Negev is in full cooperation with the World Zionist Organization (WZO), the Jewish Agency (JA) and the Jewish National Fund (JNF) ? non-state actors with an open Zionist and racist agenda. http://www.wrmea.com/archives/Sept_Oct_2005/0509012.html See also "Policy of Settlement and 'spacial' Judaization in the Naqab" by Hana Hamdan, *Adalah's Newsletter*, Vol 11, October, 2005 http://www.adalah.org/newsletter/eng/mar05/ar2.pdf "Bedouin ask UN to help fight systemic discrimination in Israel." http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=734096 *Segregated education systems until university* According to a 2006 Human Rights Watch report, The Israeli government operates two separate school systems for its 1.8 million school children: a Jewish system and an Arab system. The students in the latter are Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, nearly one quarter of all Israeli school children. Under international law, states may offer children separate educational systems for linguistic or religious reasons, but they may not discriminate in doing so . . . despite small advances in recent years, the discriminatory practices against Palestinian Arab school children that are institutionalized in its education system place Israel in violation of its international legal obligations.* http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/01/02/discrimination-against-palestinian-arab-children-israeli-education-system * Also see* "Discrimination Against Palestinian Arab Children in the Israeli Education System" *by Zama Coursen-Neff in the New York University *Journal of International Law and Politics*, January 2, 2006.** While Israeli education is integrated at the university level, discrimination persists. Beyond the fact that the system advantages Jewish?Israelis in competing for university places, in 2003 Israel universities stopped an experimental admission procedure when it became clear that the main beneficiaries were Palestinian?Israelis rather than those intended ? Jewish?Israeli students from low-income development towns. According to *Ha'aretz*'s* *Relly Sa'ar ("Universities return to aptitude exams to keep Arabs out"): There's no politically correct spin to put on it, and the facts speak for themselves: As soon as Israel's top university administrators noticed that the big winners from admissions policy changes were not Jewish youngsters from low-income towns, but rather Arabs, they reverted back to the old admissions system. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=365572 . _______________________________________________ usgp-int mailing list usgp-int at gp-us.org http://forum.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-int -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From smderosa at cox.net Tue Feb 24 00:01:03 2009 From: smderosa at cox.net (Mike DeRosa) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:01:03 -0500 Subject: {news} REMINDER: ROAD SHOW THIS THURS 2/26/09-WILLIMANTIC 7pm Message-ID: <001a01c9963c$e4c2ddf0$ae4899d0$@net> REMINDER: Green Road Show: THIS THURS 7PM See below: Participate in the WILLIMANTIC/WINDHAM Green Party 2009 Road Show! http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:2OaLB4IiQbWRdM:http://www.thepulse.co.th /images/roadshow.jpg WHAT: WILLIMANTIC/WINDHAM Green Party 2009 Road Show - Green Local and State candidates and Green elected officials tell the unique story of the Green Party in CT. The true narrative of CT's fastest growing third Party (including literature and refreshments served)(More Road Shows Planned). When and Where: ROAD SHOW FOR WILLIMANTIC/WINDHAM: THIS THURS 2/26/09 7PM to 9PM; The Wrench In The Works coffee house at 861 Main ST. WILLIMANTIC CT. (REFRESHMENTS WILL BE SERVED)(info 860-919-4042)FREE(Special thanks to Michael Westerfield). Why: To expose new people to the unique narrative of the CT Green Party and facilitate preferred solution based outcomes that promote social and environmental justice. http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/06/13/cmWIND_LARGE_wideweb__430x286,0.jp g E-mail Contacts: westerfield at sysmatrix.net hecate at crows.ner smderosa at cox.net or call 860-919-4042 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3958 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6233 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6613 bytes Desc: not available URL: From amyvasnunes at hotmail.com Mon Feb 23 14:56:34 2009 From: amyvasnunes at hotmail.com (Amy Vas Nunes) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:56:34 -0500 Subject: {news} Proposed agenda for the 7PM 2-24-09 SCC CTGP meeting at Portland Senior Center In-Reply-To: <20090222040713.PELS15713.eastrmmtao101.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> References: <20090222040713.PELS15713.eastrmmtao101.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> Message-ID: Barbra.To my knowledge the 3 CTGP spaces on the International committe are filled by myself. Richard and McCabe? I am also on the USGP Platform Committee wich I think could take 2 more members from Ct? Perhaps some peopel that are on our State Platform group? Amy From: roseberry3 at cox.net To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 23:07:10 -0500 CC: phoebe.godfrey at uconn.edu; phoebegodfrey at uconn.edu Subject: {news} Proposed agenda for the 7PM 2-24-09 SCC CTGP meeting at Portland Senior Center Proposed agenda for the 7PM 2-24-09 SCC CTGP meeting at Portland Senior Center Location: Portland Senior Center, 7 Waverly Avenue, Portland, CT 06480 Facilitator: To Be Determined A. Preliminaries: 1. (1 minute): Introductions of voting/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. (4-6 minutes): Review and approval of minutes of 12-30-09 and 1-27-09 SCC meetings. 4. (2-4minutes): Review and acceptance of the minutes of the 1-19-09 and 2-17-09 EC meetings. 5. (2-4 minutes): Treasurer?s report from treasurer: Christopher Reilly. B. Any proposals/referendums by chapters, committee. 1. Election Autopsy from Steve Fournier, co-chairperson: Four our first meeting of 2009, having had a couple of months to reflect on the election of 2008, it seems a good time to assess our status and plan for the coming year and the 2010 election. Vote-getting experience: In the election of the U.S. House of Representative, Greens received less than 5% of the vote. Green candidates were excluded from most broadcast debates and largely ignored by the media. Green won ballot status in 3 districts and will be able to run candidates without petitioning in the next congressional election, but no Green candidate had a discernible effect on the outcome. In state elections, four Green candidates in tree-way races did poorly (under 10%), even though their districts were safe for the Democrat. In the one two-way contest, the Green candidate did better at 19%. Voters for our write-ins likely were not all counted, and there were fewer than 100 recorded altogether. Under the campaign finance law, now under legal challenge, all but one of our ballot candidates got so few votes that successor candidates in these districts are legally disqualified from public financing in 2010. They are likely to face at least one major party candidate who does qualify, and the major party opponents will spend tens of dollars for every spent by Greens, further disabling potential Green voters and guaranteeing continuation of the Democratic/Republican dynasty. Fundraising experience: The Greens? five congressional candidates were barely able to raise enough to gain name recognition, and this was in sprawling districts. It is extremely unlikely that any could have raised $5000 in a much smaller state legislative district. Greens running for state office raised negligible amounts. Greens? fundraising problems are compounded by the fact that progressives? natural constituency consists of the working poor, the unemployed and underemployed, and students. Greens would have to abandon principle and alter the party?s message to appeal to high-income individuals. The required $5000 private funding threshold will present little impediment to Democrats and Republicans. In fact, it appears that private campaign funds, in helping candidates meet the threshold, will continue to wield influence, but for a much smaller investment. Public funding for Democrats and Republicans, far from empowering the poor, will make it ever more likely that the needs of people without resources will be ignored. Planning for 2010 and beyond: Greens? best hope of winning a seat in the state House or Senate will be a long-term project involving the recruitment of one or more well-known, popular progressives to try to turn out 10% in the first election year (the best that can be hoped for without public funding) in order to qualify for funding two years later. By the 2014 election, Greens might be able to run one or more partially funded candidates and make themselves competitive. Greens might also reasonably predict that the Democrat or Republican will face no opponent in 2010 in many districts (a third of them faced no opponent in 2008), raising the slim change that a green might garner enough votes to qualify for funding in 2012. Recruiting candidates was difficult before publicly-funded campaigns for major party opponents. With public funding, potential Green candidates now have to be willing to run hard with a certainty of defeat, and such people are rare on the current political landscape. Candidates will have to be willing to appeal to voters to cast their sufficient money to qualify for funding. A plan for recruiting such people could be our biggest challenge in the coming year. To adapt to the public funding law, the state party might be well advised to direct all contributors to candidate committees, even if it meant strangling the state treasury. As a pressure group or a progressive lobby, Greens are frustrated at every turn by the public financing scheme, which will always depress the Green vote. In the past, social movements have run doomed election campaigns for the purpose of widening debate and gradually attracting support. All signs indicate that, in state elections at least, support for Green issues will appear to be eroding and not growing. Public funding is likely to keep potential supporters from casting Green votes, simply because the outcome of almost every contest will be known far in advance. It won?t be possible to gauge true levels of support for social justice and environmental restoration when elections are, for all practical purposes, fixed. Debate won?t be broadened but narrowed under the new regime. Greens might also have to abandon the message that the party is running to win state contests and acknowledge that?s running to qualify for funds in a future election. To conserve the party?s sparse resources, members will have to consider, this year, whether it?s worthwhile to run candidates for state office at all, in view of these disabling laws, and whether the party might more profitably put its emphasis on local elections and national office. C. Reports: 1. (10-15 minutes): GPUS reports from: a) Cliff Thornton, National Co-chairperson of the GPUS; b) CTGP representatives: Tim McKee and Charlie Pillsbury; c) National Committee Members: Steve Fournier, Richard Duffee and S. Michael DeRosa. 2. (20 minutes): CTGP 2-09 meetings with CT State Legislative Government and Election Committee Co-chairpersons. 3. (10 minutes): Update regarding CTGP lawsuit with the ACLU against the State of CT regarding the 2005 State of CT Campaign Finance Reform Laws. Report from Steve Fournier. 4. (15 minutes): CTGP concerns regarding the Elections Department of the CT. Secretary of State during the 11-08 election: a) votes not counted for write-in candidates for president; b) voting problems found by independent election auditors but not by the Secretary of State. 5. (5-10minutes): CTGP literature. 6. (5-10 minutes): CTGP potential goals for 2009: a) legislative goals for petitioning; b) electric rates; c) universal health care. 7. (5 minutes): Authorization of money to get the state-wide list of registered Green Party voters. 8. (10-15minutes): Volunteers for the Internal Elections Committee, Convention Committee for 4-09 CTGP Convention. 9. (2-5 minutes, each): Chapter reports. 10. Date and place for the 3-31-09, Tuesday SCC meeting. Date, place and time of next EC meeting in 3-09: to be determined. 12. 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 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.25/1956 - Release Date: 2/16/2009 6:31 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From smderosa at cox.net Wed Feb 25 17:18:53 2009 From: smderosa at cox.net (Mike DeRosa) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:18:53 -0500 Subject: {news} REMINDER: ROAD SHOW THIS THURS 2/26/09-WILLIMANTIC 7pm Message-ID: <00b201c99797$0b634200$2229c600$@net> 2nd REMINDER: Green Road Show: THIS THURS 7PM See below: Participate in the WILLIMANTIC/WINDHAM Green Party 2009 Road Show! http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:2OaLB4IiQbWRdM:http://www.thepulse.co.th /images/roadshow.jpg WHAT: WILLIMANTIC/WINDHAM Green Party 2009 Road Show - Green Local and State candidates and Green elected officials tell the unique story of the Green Party in CT. The true narrative of CT's fastest growing third Party (including literature and refreshments served)(More Road Shows Planned). When and Where: ROAD SHOW FOR WILLIMANTIC/WINDHAM: THIS THURS 2/26/09 7PM to 9PM; The Wrench In The Works coffee house at 861 Main ST. WILLIMANTIC CT. (REFRESHMENTS WILL BE SERVED)(info 860-919-4042)FREE(Special thanks to Michael Westerfield). Why: To expose new people to the unique narrative of the CT Green Party and facilitate preferred solution based outcomes that promote social and environmental justice. http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/06/13/cmWIND_LARGE_wideweb__430x286,0.jp g E-mail Contacts: westerfield at sysmatrix.net hecate at crows.ner smderosa at cox.net or call 860-919-4042 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3958 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6233 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6613 bytes Desc: not available URL: