From thebiggreenpicture at gmail.com Tue Jan 5 16:31:14 2010
From: thebiggreenpicture at gmail.com (Tim McKee)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:31:14 -0500
Subject: {news} Sec of State files against Greens cam. fin. lawsuit
Message-ID: <7b13ca7b1001051331l358af4f3sccffc5b432690a97@mail.gmail.com>
Candidates Debate Campaign Financing Options As Court Date
Approaches
by Christine Stuart | Jan 5, 2010 1:27pm
(0) Comments <#cmt> | Log in to Post a Comment <#loggin>
Posted to: Election
2010
Christine Stuart photo
Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz
It?s hard to play the game if you don?t know the rules. Just ask all the
people running for statewide offices?who have no idea what rules will end up
governing how they raise money.
Gubernatorial candidate Susan Bysiewicz went to court Tuesday to help her
and all her opponents get some answers. She asked the court to clarify the
fundraising rules for 2010.
?We just need to know what the rules are,? Bysiewicz said Tuesday. She said
that?s why she filed this amicus brief with
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
?I decided to file this brief because time is of the essence. We are just
five months away from our state convention and eight months away from a
statewide primary and we need to know the rules,? Bysiewicz said.
Bysiewicz was submitting a brief in the case of the Green Party v.
Connecticut. In that case, the appeals court is deciding whether to throw
out the state?s existing public financing law, as a federal judge ruled last
August.
In a visit to the Capitol press room Tuesday Bysiewicz said she filed the
brief with the court to give it a candidates? perspective of how disruptive
throwing out the public system could be to the 2010 election. The Second
Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in the case on Jan. 13.
Ned Lamont, another Democratic candidate exploring a run for governor in
2010, said Tuesday that he really thinks it?s important ?they clarify the
rules of the road.? The ambiguity isn?t good for any of the candidates, he
said.
He said he hopes the court rules expeditiously, but won?t be basing his
decision to jump from an exploratory committee to a candidate committee on
the courts decision.
?I?ve got to make up my mind about whether we move from an exploratory to a
candidate committee and whether we take taxpayer financing or not,? Lamont
said.
He said he?d have his answer sometime next month.
At the moment Lamont said he?s raising small donations from individuals and
keeping with the spirit of the public campaign finance law, however, he
didn?t rule out self-funding his campaign should he decide to become a full
blown candidate.
At least one of the two Republican candidates for governor has said they he
won?t participate in the public finance system and will raise money
privately. That candidate is Greenwich businessman and former Ambassador to
Ireland Tom Foley.
?I?m not sure the Democrats want to fight with one arm tied behind their
backs,? Lamont said.
While Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy said he sees Lamont?s point, he said he
doesn?t believe it?s a good enough reason to ignore the whole Citizens
Election program.
?In order for CEP to survive it needs the full and complete support of the
entire Democratic Party,? Malloy said in a press release Monday.
?That means more than just words. It means actually utilizing a program that
so many Democrats worked so hard to create,? Malloy said. ?If a well-known
Democrat such as Ned chooses not to do so, it could deal a major blow to the
system?s future. It?s time to prove that our actions and our ideals are more
than just rhetoric.?
Malloy said Tuesday that he doesn?t understand why the General Assembly
hasn?t acted to correct the problems U.S. District Court Judge Stefan
Underhill pointed out with the system when he decided it was
?unconstitutional.?
?If the legislature had acted the Court of Appeals wouldn?t be hearing the
appeal because it would have been moot,? Malloy said.
Other Democrats running for governor who plan to participate in the public
campaign system include Ridgefield First Selectman Rudy Marconi, former
House Speaker James Amann, and state Sen. Gary LeBeau. Republican Lt. Gov.
Michael Fedele has also pledged to participate in the public campaign
system.
--
*************************************************
Tim McKee -National Committee of the Green Party for the state of
Connecticut, New Britain,CT
(860)778-1304 Cell- best way to reach me
(860) 505-8454 (H)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From thebiggreenpicture at gmail.com Tue Jan 5 18:20:43 2010
From: thebiggreenpicture at gmail.com (Tim McKee)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 18:20:43 -0500
Subject: {news} Nader: Obama fans falling away, one by one
Message-ID: <7b13ca7b1001051520l7565d597hdd3327414fc82512@mail.gmail.com>
The Register Citizen
(registercitizen.com),
Serving Torrington, CT
Opinion
RALPH NADER: Obama fans falling away, one by one
Monday, January 4, 2010
Those long-hoping, long-enduring members of the liberal intelligentsia are
starting to break away from the least-worst mindset that muted their
criticisms of Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign.
They still believe that the president is far better than his Republican
counterpart would have been. Some still believe that sometime, somewhere,
Obama will show his liberal stripes. But they no longer believe they should
stay loyally silent in the face of the escalating war in Afghanistan, the
near-collapse of key provisions in the health insurance legislation, the
likely anemic financial regulation bill, or the obeisance to the bailed out
Wall Street gamblers. Remember this Administration more easily embraces
bonuses for fat cats than adequate investment in public jobs.
Of all the loyalists, among the first to stray was Bob Herbert, columnist
for The New York Times. He wondered about his friends telling him that Obama
treats their causes and them ?as if they have nowhere to go.? Then there was
the stalwart Obama-ist, the brainy Gary Wills, who broke with Obama over
Afghanistan in a stern essay of admonition.
If you read the biweekly compilation of progressive and liberal columnists
and pundits in The Progressive Populist, one of my favorite publications,
the velvet verbal gloves are coming off.
Jim Hightower writes that ?Obama is sinking us into ?Absurdistan.?? He
bewails: ?I had hoped Obama might be a more forceful leader who would reject
the same old interventionist mindset of those who profit from permanent war.
But his newly-announced Afghan policy shows he is not that leader.?
Norman Solomon, expressed his sharp deviation from his long-time admiration
of the politician from Chicago. He writes: ?President Obama accepted the
2009 Nobel Peace Prize while delivering ? to the world as it is ? a pro-war
speech. The context instantly turned the speech?s insights into flackery for
more war.? Strong words indeed!
Arianna Huffington has broken in installments. But her disillusionment is
expanding. She writes: ?Obama isn?t distancing himself from ?the Left? with
his decision to escalate this deepening disaster [in Afghanistan]. He?s
distancing himself from the national interests of the country.?
John R. MacArthur, publisher of Harper?s Magazine, was never an Obama fan
and has been upset with what he calls ?the liberal adoration of Obama.? In a
piece for the Providence Journal, he cites some writers still loyal to
Obama, such as Frank Rich of The New York Times, Hendrick Hertzberg of The
New Yorker, and Tom Hayden, who are showing mild discomfort in the midst of
retained hope over Obama?s coming months. They have not yet cut their ties
to the masterspeaker of ?Hope and Change.?
Gary Wills has crossed his Rubicon, calling Obama??s Afghanistan escalation
?a betrayal.? Wills is a scholar of both the Presidency and of political
oratory (his small book on Lincoln?s Gettysburg address is a classic
interpretation). So he uses words carefully, to wit: ?If we had wanted
Bush?s wars, and contractors, and corruption, we could have voted for John
McCain. At least we would have seen our foe facing us, not felt him at our
back, as now we do.??Rest assured the liberal-progressive commentariat has
another two years to engage in challenge and chagrin. For in 2012, silence
will mute their criticisms as the stark choices of the two-party tyranny
come into view and incarcerate their minds into the least-worst voting
syndrome (just as they have done in recent Presidential election years).
It is hard to accord them any moral breaking point under such self-imposed
censorship. Not much leverage in that approach, is there?
*URL:
http://www.registercitizen.com/articles/2010/01/04/opinion/doc4b414799dee46602146247.prt
*
? 2010 registercitizen.com, a Journal
RegisterProperty
--
*************************************************
Tim McKee -National Committee of the Green Party for the state of
Connecticut, New Britain,CT
(860)778-1304 Cell- best way to reach me
(860) 505-8454 (H)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From thebiggreenpicture at gmail.com Tue Jan 5 19:41:59 2010
From: thebiggreenpicture at gmail.com (Tim McKee)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 19:41:59 -0500
Subject: {news} Nader for Senate letter writing campaign
Message-ID: <7b13ca7b1001051641m83179f7na7606da07b556ff3@mail.gmail.com>
Please forward to any list serve!
Dear Nader for Senate backers,
2010 is our time to step it up and made your voice be heard. If you want
Ralph Nader to run, we have to really create a buzz!
Everyone please write a short ?letter to the editor? saying why you think
Ralph should run! In state or outside, we need all of you to do this!
Out of state? This is a NATIONAL campaign- why are you interested in this
race? Will you send money or volunteer in the race?
In Connecticut, your voice is vital!
Talking points: Nader can win! He will be an independent voice! Dodd is part
of the problem.
Short letters (200 words or less) Send to many different papers. Stay
positive.
The daily papers are very important- Hartford Courant letters at courant.com
New London Call, New Haven Register, New Britain Herald,
Hartford, New Haven and Fairfield Advocates are important weeklies as well.
This link for the League of Women Voters lets you send 5 emails Letters at
once!!
http://www.capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/media/?command=state_search&state=ct
These letters will go a long way to electing a progressive Senator!
Tim McKee
--
*************************************************
Tim McKee -National Committee of the Green Party for the state of
Connecticut, New Britain,CT
(860)778-1304 Cell- best way to reach me
(860) 505-8454 (H)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From thebiggreenpicture at gmail.com Wed Jan 6 10:35:18 2010
From: thebiggreenpicture at gmail.com (Tim McKee)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 10:35:18 -0500
Subject: {news} CT GREENS STILL PUSH NADER AFTER DODD QUITS
Message-ID: <7b13ca7b1001060735m6309e84cn2af8e199a31790d1@mail.gmail.com>
*GREEN PARTY** OF CONNECTICUT*
*News Release- January 6, 2010 - for immediate release *
CONTACT; Tim McKee, Spokesperson and National Committee member, cell (860)
860-778-1304, Email: thebiggreenpicture at gmail.com
Steve Fournier, State Co-Chair (860) 794-6718
Mike DeRosa, State Co-Chair (860) 919-4042
*CT GREENS STILL PUSH NADER AFTER DODD QUITS*
* *
*Hartford, CT*-Green Party of Connecticut officials announced today that
they are still pushing for Ralph Nader to enter the U.S. Senate race,
despite the announcement of Senator Dodd?s retirement. Tim McKee, a Green
Party spokesperson said ?Thousands of people are asking Nader to run and are
willing to commit to money and volunteer time if Nader seeks the Green Party
nomination. On social networking sites, such Facebook and MySpace, over 2
thousand people are asking Nader to run for the Senate in just a few weeks.
This is still a national race with people from all across the country
saying they want to get involved?
Steve Fournier, State Co-Chair said ?*With Dodd out, nothing really changes*.
Where does a Richard Blumenthal stand of Green Party issues such Single
Payer Health Care? Ending the Wars? Removing the influence of big money in
politics? Only Nader and the Greens are answering those questions, not the
Democrat machine.?
Mike DeRosa, State Co-Chair said ?Blumenthal is still in Federal Court
trying to defend the state?s unconstitutional Campaign Finance Reform and
would not debate the Republican and Green Party candidates for Attorney
General in the last election. His stances on election reform and other
issues are very weak.?
McKee added ?This election was never about Dodd and his corruption or the
national machine of the Democrats funding Blumenthal now. Drafting Nader is
a grass roots effort by thousands of people who are sick of slick party
bosses. We are stepping up our efforts to get Nader to run, raise 3-5
million dollars and win the race. Local meetings for the Nader campaign will
be announced next week.?
* *
*www.ct greens.org*
http://www.facebook.com/RALPH NADER FOR US SENATE CONNECTICUT
#END OF RELEASE#
--
*************************************************
Tim McKee -National Committee of the Green Party for the state of
Connecticut, New Britain,CT
(860)778-1304 Cell- best way to reach me
(860) 505-8454 (H)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From thebiggreenpicture at gmail.com Thu Jan 7 17:07:03 2010
From: thebiggreenpicture at gmail.com (Tim McKee)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 17:07:03 -0500
Subject: {news} Sec of State files against Greens cam. fin. lawsuit(press
release)
Message-ID: <7b13ca7b1001071407w7bb6e731kf7cfb4e8483be4ad@mail.gmail.com>
News Published: Jan 5, 2010 - 1:06 PM
------------------------------
Bysiewicz: Uphold clean elections
By Secretary of the State's Office
*Files Brief With Court of Appeals*
F
Calling
on the courts to uphold Connecticut?s landmark clean elections law,
Secretary of the State and potential gubernatorial candidate Susan Bysiewicz
today filed an amicus brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, making her the first candidate to officially urge the Court
to reverse the District Court judgment that struck down the clean elections
law in August (Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield, 648 F.Supp.2d 298 (D.
Conn. 2009).
Bysiewicz, a long?time advocate for clean elections and strict campaign
finance reforms, makes the case that invalidating the Citizens Election
Program (CEP) so close to the upcoming primary and general elections will
create an inequitable campaign environment for candidates who have
participated in the program in good faith. The CEP provides public campaign
financing grants to qualified candidates for state office provided that they
adhere to strict fundraising and spending limits.
"The Citizens Election Program was a giant leap forward to combat the
corruption that has marred Connecticut politics in recent years," said
Bysiewicz. ?Now, we risk not just falling backward, but creating harmful new
disruptions to an election in?process. For that reason, it is vital that the
Court hear from someone this law directly affects, an actual candidate who
has pledged to participate in the Citizen Election Program in 2010."
The CEP was developed and adopted as law following multiple state and
municipal corruption scandals that have marked Connecticut?s recent
political history. In August 2009, a federal judge ruled the CEP
unconstitutional based on a lawsuit filed by Connecticut?s Green and
Libertarian Parties. In her action, Bysiewicz joins Connecticut Common Cause
and Connecticut Citizen Action Group to support the program and the
principles on which the CEP was founded.
Bysiewicz argues that the first step must be to provide a fair and
consistent set of rules for the 2010 elections. However, she pledged to
continue her fight to protect and fine tune a system of campaign financing
that allows qualified candidates, regardless of personal wealth, to run for
public office in the years to come. ?I?ve spent the better part of two
decades trying to encourage young people to get involved in our political
process and in government. Public campaign financing ensures that anyone can
run for public office, not just the wealthiest among us or those supported
by special interest money,? said Bysiewicz.
?By establishing the CEP, we leveled the playing field so that ideas could
take the place of dollars. We cannot afford to go back in time where offices
could be bought and money counted more than anything,? said Bysiewicz.
?Connecticut needs the CEP in 2010; but we?ll continue to need it in order
to attract the best, the brightest, and the most committed public servants
in the future.?
? Copyright by ConnecticutPlus.com. Some articles and pictures posted on our
website, as indicated by their bylines, were submitted as press releases and
do not necessarily reflect the position and opinion of ConnecticutPlus.com,
Canaiden LLC or any of its associated entities. Articles may have been
edited for brevity and grammar.
--
*************************************************
Tim McKee -National Committee of the Green Party for the state of
Connecticut, New Britain,CT
(860)778-1304 Cell- best way to reach me
(860) 505-8454 (H)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From thebiggreenpicture at gmail.com Fri Jan 8 11:11:53 2010
From: thebiggreenpicture at gmail.com (Tim McKee)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:11:53 -0500
Subject: {news} national Greens- Reminder - Platform Amendments are now being
received
Message-ID: <7b13ca7b1001080811n621a9889y3ff3ea91a5a9c185@mail.gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: rodgers777 at earthlink.net
Date: Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:15 AM
Subject: [usgp-nc] Reminder - Platform Amendments are now being received
To: gpus vote list
Friends,
The Platform Committee is now receiving amendments to the platform. Our
schedule calls for soliciting amendments from December first to February
fifteenth. States and Caucuses are eligible to submit amendments. They
will be edited by the Platform Committee and posted online in a rough draft
form on March sixteenth with feedback requested from the states and
caucuses. New amendments will be accepted through April fifteenth.
Please confer with your state and/or caucus regarding amendments which you
feel are necessary to update the platform. We request that amendments be as
short and succinct as possible. The following information is needed:
1. Platform chapter, number and letter to be amended or replaced.
2. Language to be amended or replaced.
3. New replacement language. Please state if this is a new plank.
4. Contact information and name of state party or caucus that approved
submission
Please send your amendments to platformamendments at gp.org.
The timeline for amending the platform is supplied for your information.
TIMELINE for AMENDING the PLATFORM in 2010
Dec 1 - Feb 15 -- Input from states and caucuses regarding amendments
Feb 16 - Mar 15 -- Editing by Platcom of input from states and caucuses
Mar 16 -- Rough draft posted online and circulated to states and caucuses
for feedback. New amendments accepted through Apr 15.
1 May - 31 May -- Collation and integration by Platcom of feedback from
states and caucuses.
1 Jun -- Final draft posted online and circulated to states and caucuses
Summer -- Presentation and discussion at Annual National Meeting (ANM).
New amendments will not be accepted at the ANM, but changes to the Final
Draft of the 2010 Platform will be allowed.
Respectfully,
Barbara Rodgers-Hendricks
Green Party of Florida
Liaison, Platform Committee
rodgers777 at earthlink.net
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
_______________________________________________
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 -National Committee of the Green Party for the state of
Connecticut, New Britain,CT
(860)778-1304 Cell- best way to reach me
(860) 505-8454 (H)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From thebiggreenpicture at gmail.com Fri Jan 8 15:05:49 2010
From: thebiggreenpicture at gmail.com (Tim McKee)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 15:05:49 -0500
Subject: {news} 2010: Third party time?
Message-ID: <7b13ca7b1001081205m51eed469rff6ab6c7aed8c72c@mail.gmail.com>
*OpEdNews*
Original Content at
http://www.opednews.com/articles/2010-Third-Party-Time-for-by-Howie-Hawkins-100101-972.html
------------------------------
*January 1, 2010*
*2010: Third Party Time for Progressives and Independents?*
*By Howie Hawkins*
December opened up with another escalation in Afghanistan. Then there was
the sabotage of binding carbon reductions in Copenhagen. On Christmas Eve,
there was the Insurance Company Entitlement Act masquerading as health care
reform.
By the end of the month a sharp debate had broken out in the progressive
media and blogosphere. The number of progressives airing their nagging
doubts about the wisdom of putting all their eggs in the basket of the
Democrats reached a critical mass.
It is not enough to say that Obama and the Democrats have betrayed
progressives, or that, as always, the path to change begins with grassroots
mobilization. A critical part of the solution is a progressive third party.
Without the political independence of progressives, both major parties
ignore progressives who are left holding their nose and voting for the
Democrats as the lesser evil.
All the doubts in the back of progressives' minds are coming into sharp
focus. The recycled Bushies and Clintonites appointed by the administration.
The trillions for war and Wall Street while unemployment, foreclosures, and
economic stagnation deepened. Single payer "off the table." Card check union
recognition abandoned. Complicity in Bush-era war crimes by refusing to
"look back" and prosecute. New crimes committed with the continuation of
extraordinary rendition, secret prisons, torture by proxy, targeted
assassinations, indefinite detention, habeas suspension, state secrets,
military commissions, and warrantless wiretapping. Tacit support for the
Honduran military coup. "Secret" wars in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. The
list goes on.
We shouldn't be surprised. History shows that for more than a century the
Democrats' role in the two-party system of corporate rule has been to
co-opt, absorb, weaken, and defeat movements for progressive change, as the
late Peter Miguel
Camejolaid
out in his 2004 Avocado
Declaration . Right now, the
evidence for this corporate function of the Democratic Party is as stark as
it has ever been. The Democrats swept the election and the corporate agenda
swept the Congress.
Most progressives spent the 2000s working to put the Democrats back in
charge of Congress and the White House. They can't blame the Republicans
now. The Democrats have the power. Progressive Democrats got what they
wished for, but what do they have to show for it? It's a year later and
their mandate for change is fast eroding. Democratic politicians and
progressive leaders were merely cheerleaders who never made demands and
backed them up with action. The Democrats' corporate backers weren't so
na?ve. They demanded and received their IOUs.
The Democrats are pursuing corporatist policies across the board, using big
government to subsidize big business in return for big campaign
contributions. It's just a rebranding as Democratic of Republican policies
of corporate welfare for the rich, which is supposed to "trickle down" as
jobs and income for working people, but never does. Even before the
election, it was the Democratic leadership in Congress, with Obama's
outspoken support, who pushed through the $700 billion TARP bailout for Wall
Street just days after it was at first defeated in the face of popular
outrage.
The Democrats are not only alienating voters on the Left, but also
independents in the Center. Polls now indicate that these independents are
swinging back to the Republicans as the lesser evil because their small
government rhetoric at least promises to cut taxes. Many voters realize they
are being ripped off by both major parties. They correctly understand that
Democratic power brokers don't look out for the little guys anymore than
Republicans do. If the Left doesn't offer a progressive alternative to the
Democratic corporate liberals, the Republican corporate conservatives will
be the only alternative that angry voters will have in 2010 to get back at
the party in power.
It could have been different. When the Democrats swept into power, they had
a mandate for bold progressive change. They could have enacted, with broad
Center-to-Left popular support, a Green New Deal to address the interrelated
crises of energy, climate, and economic depression. Instead of bailing out
the big banks and automakers, they could have nationalized them on the cheap
when they were insolvent. Public banks could have then restructured millions
of mortgages on affordable, long-term, fixed-rate terms for homeowners
facing foreclosure. The automakers could have been retrofitted to produce
electric cars, mass transit, wind turbines, and solar panels just as the
federal government had them make tanks, trucks, and airplanes for World War
II. With investments from public banks and federal infrastructure spending
guaranteeing a market for a green reconstruction of the nation's energy and
transportation systems, US manufacturing, jobs, and the whole economy could
have been renewed on a sustainable basis.
It could have been different. But what to do now?
Some progressives are rallying to the defense of the Democrats, defending
the indefensible as the lesser evil to Republican reaction. They want to
"save the Obama Presidency" no matter what he does. This approach will only
discredit the Left and demoralize its voters, who will sit out the 2010
elections in large numbers. It will also lose much of the independent
Center, which will swing back to the Republicans if only in disgust and
protest.
Other progressives say it's time to challenge conservative Democrats in the
primaries. But it was the progressive Democrats in office who never planted
their flag or refused to compromise any further while Obama and the
Democratic leadership in Congress made one concession after another to
Republicans and Blue Dogs on the stimulus bill, health care, labor law
reform, global warming, and the wars. Progressive Democratic politicians
went along with the concessions because they know, as well as conservative
Democrats know, that the Left has nowhere else to go with their votes.
Another school of progressives says it is time to build protest movements
that can make the Democrats live up to their reform promises, citing how the
labor movement pushed through New Deal reforms in the 1930s. These
progressives forget that the impact of the labor movement was multiplied
tremendously by the election of many third party progressives as
Representatives, Senators, and Governors. By early 1935, Floyd Olson, the
Farmer-Labor Governor of Minnesota, Robert La Follette, Jr., the Progressive
Governor of Wisconsin, and Huey Long, the "Share Our Wealth" Democratic
Senator from Louisiana, were all potentially powerful populist third party
presidential candidates. Democratic National Committee polling found such an
electoral challenge might cost Franklin Roosevelt the election in 1936. This
third party electoral threat played a major role in instigating the more
progressive Second New Deal of 1935. As the Works Progress Administration,
the National Labor Relations Act, and the Social Security Act were enacted
that year, the third party movement subsided.
No doubt social movements and protest demonstrations are needed. But without
an independent progressive electoral alternative, the Democrats know they
can take the votes of progressive social movements for granted. Witness the
failure of the massive anti Iraq war demonstrations in early 2003 to move
the Democrats to take an antiwar stand. The Democrats voted funding for
Bush's war throughout three national election cycles because they knew the
peace movement would support them anyway.
What is missing is the political independence of progressives. Progressives
need to build independent social movements, not movements dependent on
electing and lobbying Democrats. And the independent social movements need
their own party to exercise their own independent power. With a powerful
party on the Left, the Democrats will no longer be able to take progressive
movements and votes for granted. The Left will be able to speak directly to
the people with its own voice, for its own program, on its own power,
without having their progressive demands mistranslated and watered down by
Democratic politicians who appeal to their Right while they count on their
captive voters on the Left.
A strong Left party would also win over many independents in the Center, the
largest bloc of voters. Polling shows these independents would prefer a
Green New Deal of public jobs, health care, and enterprise to the Democrats'
tribute payments to big business and the Republicans' domestic spending
cutbacks that will devastate public services and worsen the interrelated
crises of energy, climate, and economy.
It is time for progressives to face the reality of a two-party system of
corporate rule where competing coalitions of corporate investors in the
political process fundamentally agree on a bipartisan consensus for empire
abroad and anti-worker policies at home. Democrats and Republicans limit
their advertised competition mainly to liberal vs. conservative approaches
to cultural issues. The Democrats are more beholden to campaign
contributions from Big FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) than they are
to their voters. The main financial base of the Republicans is Big Fossil
(Coal, Oil, Gas), hence their anti-scientific denial of climate change. When
Big FIRE vs. Big Fossil dominates politics, the ordinary people get screwed.
The best way to fight the Right is to build an independent party of the
Left. The Right we have to fight is the corporatist bi-partisan consensus
for empire and exploitation. The corporate bosses have two parties. It is
time that working people built one of their own.
Yes, the American electoral system of winner takes all in single member
districts is stacked against third parties. But that system did not stop
progressive third parties from realigning the party systems in Mexico and
New Zealand to the point where they could institute more democratic
electoral systems based on proportional representation. Almost all of the
few remaining countries that don't have proportional representation have
still been able to create major third parties, notably Canada and the UK.
Because these countries have independent leftwing parties based on labor and
other progressive movements, they have won standards of workers' rights,
public services, social welfare, corporate regulation, environmental
protection, and defense-oriented militaries that are far more progressive
than US standards.
While the electoral system presents serious obstacles, the far bigger
obstacle in the US has been the unwavering commitment of the leaders of
labor, peace, and environmental organizations to the Democrats who
consistently betray their progressive goals. We can end these self-inflicted
defeats through independent political action. It is the grassroots
organizers and activists who will have to lead the break out. Most of the
leadership and staff of these organizations are too tied to Democratic
politicians and operatives through patronage, grants, jobs, and their social
class, status, and networks.
The Green Party has been organizing toward an independent progressive
alternative for years. The Greens have won hundreds of local elections
throughout the country in recent years, almost a third of those they enter.
Their percentage of votes in state and national legislative elections has
steadily climbed, often to double digits. These results indicate the
potential. But it will not be realized until a critical mass of progressive
organizers and activist break with the Democrats.
The Democratic Party has been the graveyard for every broad progressive
movement since the Populists more than a century ago. 2010 should be the
year when progressive movements finally break their dependence on the
corporate-sponsored Democrats and present their programs directly to the
voters through their own independent candidates and party.
Let's make the choice in 2010 between a Green New Deal and the corporatism
of the two old parties.
______________
Howie Hawkins is a Teamster who unloads trucks at UPS in Syracuse, New York
and the editor of *Independent Politics: The Green Party Strategy
Debate*.
He was the 2006 New York Green Party candidate for US Senate and is
exploring a run for the Green Party's nomination for Governor in 2010.
**
**
Author's Website: www.howiehawkins.org
Author's Bio: Howie Hawkins is a Teamster who unloads trucks at UPS in
Syracuse, New York. He has been an organizer in peace, justice, labor, and
the environmental movements since the late 1960s and was a co-founder of the
Green Party in the United States. His articles on politics, economics, and
environmental issues have appeared in Against the Current, Green Politics,
International Socialist Review, New Politics, Peace and Democracy News, Z
Magazine, and other publications. He is the editor of Independent Politics:
The Green Party Strategy Debate (Haymarket, 2006).
Back
--
*************************************************
Tim McKee -National Committee of the Green Party for the state of
Connecticut, New Britain,CT
(860)778-1304 Cell- best way to reach me
(860) 505-8454 (H)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From thebiggreenpicture at gmail.com Fri Jan 8 15:44:49 2010
From: thebiggreenpicture at gmail.com (Tim McKee)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 15:44:49 -0500
Subject: {news} Green candidate Dan Hamburg on Obama's first year
Message-ID: <7b13ca7b1001081244g1245ac4co5d8089b179c7c318@mail.gmail.com>
-
This opinion piece is from former US Congressmember and 1998 California
Green gubernatorial candidate Dan Hamburg. In 2010 Dan will be running
for county supervisor: http://www.votehamburg5.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100107/OPINION/100109616/1350
GUEST OPINION: Hamburg on Obama's first year
By DAN HAMBURG
January 7, 2010
Almost a year ago, I wrote an opinion piece for The Press Democrat
calling on Barack Obama to be the champion the country so sorely needed
(?Looking for a hero in the White House,? Close to Home, Jan. 17, 2009).
I pointed back to the flush of hope that greeted Bill Clinton's election
in 1992, hope that was quickly dashed on the shoals of NAFTA and the
Contract with America. Would Obama's early tenure follow a similar
trajectory?
So far it has. Obama's first year, including the ongoing health care
snafu, has served only to amplify the fact that the government of our
country is run by corporations. As Ralph Nader pointed out more than a
decade ago, it is government ?of the Exxons, by the General Motors, and
for the DuPonts.? Meanwhile, these corporate ?persons? slyly deflect
public anger back onto the government for the dysfunction and cruelty
that results.
This is a society in which the gap between rich and poor grows ever
wider even as the work-for-a-living class forks it over to cover bad
bets made by the wealthiest. It's a society in which health care remains
a privilege, tens of millions of middle-class homes are submerged and
untold millions of well-paying industrial and information jobs have been
outsourced. Public and private debt has reached astronomical
proportions. It's a society inured to perpetual war in service to a vast
armaments industry.
As Rabbi Michael Lerner put it, it's a society that ?leaves people
hungry not only for life's necessities, but for ethical and spiritual
fulfillment as well.?
While the failure to reach a climate agreement in Copenhagen is being
blamed on China, it was the United States ? the world's lone superpower
? that lost face.
Mark Lynas exposed this in the Guardian writing ?The Chinese premier,
Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead
sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit
opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal ...?
But the most hideous manifestations of the current moral, ethical and
legal swamp we inhabit ? worse even than the ongoing hijacking by Wall
Street banksters ? are the nearly decade-old wars/occupations in Iraq
and Afghanistan. These demonstrate how far we have strayed from the
nation's founding principles.
Today, our patriarchs are people like Alan Greenspan, who casually admit
that ?The Iraq war is really about oil.?
In truth, as author Dallas Darling recently put it, ?In the end, the
global war on terror is really a ruse for a centuries old dream by
western powers to dominate the Arabian Peninsula.?
The AfPak war is more of the same. Asia Times correspondent Pepe
Escobar's sums it up: ?Once again, since the late 1990s, it all comes
back to TAPI -- the Turkmenistan/Afghanistan/Pakistan/India gas pipeline
-- the key reason Afghanistan is of any strategic importance to the
United States.?
Barack Obama understands this. He also knows that beneath the soil of
Afghanistan is a rich store of uranium, tungsten, molybdenum and rare
earths (used for everything from TVs to wind turbines to Priuses). And
the corporations that supply the missiles, the drones, the surveillance
equipment, the helicopters and the fighter jets know that Obama knows
this. Why else would they have made him the heavily funded presidential
hopeful in history?
In fulfillment of his pledge to the armchair warriors, President Obama
has just signed the largest military budget in history, larger than the
combined spending of the rest of the planet. Now this military is being
unleashed on a semi-literate people engaged in a decades-long civil war.
Chances of ?success? are slim.
As Florida Democrat Alan Grayson explains, ?This is an 18th century
strategy being employed against a 14th century enemy.?
Military intelligence inside the Obama administration estimates that
there are approximately 100 al-Qaida fighters in the entire country of
Afghanistan. This is the ?cancer? the president says justifies sending
30,000 more troops at a cost of $1 billion for every thousand. Once the
latest Obama surge is in place, the United States will have twice as
many troops and contractors in Afghanistan as did the USSR at the height
of its south Asian disaster.
While the elites ? economic, military and political ? hold tight to
their faith in the exceptional character of the American imperium,
pressure is building for a new narrative. ?Burgeoning forces for
democracy are emerging,? writes Middle East scholar Mark Levine, ?both
in the Muslim world and across the global south.?
These forces were on display in Copenhagen and are now bravely gathering
on the streets of Tehran. U.S. preoccupation with the global war on
terror has helped Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil and other Latin American
countries free themselves from decades of subservience.
The new decade could even bring a resurgence of democracy here at home.
If Barack Obama isn't prepared to help lead such a movement, he'll have
to get out of the way.
As Dylan warned a few decades back, ?You'd better start swimming or
you'll sink like a stone.?
Dan Hamburg, a resident of Ukiah, represented the 1st Congressional
District from 1993-95.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 -National Committee of the Green Party for the state of
Connecticut, New Britain,CT
(860)778-1304 Cell- best way to reach me
(860) 505-8454 (H)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From thebiggreenpicture at gmail.com Fri Jan 8 16:15:54 2010
From: thebiggreenpicture at gmail.com (Tim McKee)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:15:54 -0500
Subject: {news} NADER LESS LIKELY TO RUN- CT GREENS TO MEET WHAT IS NEXT?
Message-ID: <7b13ca7b1001081315m1d07fd9bn1e2d89721c766a37@mail.gmail.com>
WE INVITE ALL CT GREENS TO A MEETING JAN. 19 AT 7 PM AT STEVE FOURNIER'S
HOUSE -74 TREMONT FOR WHAT IS NEXT..
Nader's Senate prospects hit snag with Dodd's retirement
By Maria Recio, McClatchy Newspapers Maria Recio, Mcclatchy Newspapers
1 hr 29 mins ago
WASHINGTON ? What's up with Ralph Nader ?
The three-time presidential candidate and consumer crusader, mostly under
the political radar while hustling a new book of fiction, also has been
quietly thinking about doing something completely different: running for the
U.S. Senate .
The intriguing prospect of running against embattled Sen. Christopher Dodd ,
D- Conn. , in his home state this year has hit a snag, however. Dodd made
the surprise announcement Wednesday that he'll be retiring, leaving the race
open to a strong Democrat, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal .
That has Nader, 75, known for his "spoiler" role in the 2000 presidential
election, re-thinking his chances.
"The attraction is a three-way race," Nader said in a telephone interview.
His voice raspy from a cold, Nader ? "I never get sick" ? spoke from his
home in Washington . "It's less likely to have a three-way race with such a
strong candidate."
Blumenthal, who's held the attorney general position since he was first
elected in 1990, has a reputation for pursuing consumer and environmental
causes.
Dodd was a more inviting target for Nader, who's among the critics of the
chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee for his
handling of the financial crisis and for benefiting from a favorable
mortgage from scandal-ridden Countrywide Financial Corp.
Nader was looking at a contest as the third option between a weakened Dodd
and a Republican opponent; among the candidates is Linda McMahon , former
chief executive of World Wrestling Entertainment Inc.
In the 2000 election, Nader, the Green Party nominee, earned more than
97,000 votes in Florida . Democratic nominee Al Gore lost the state ? and
thus the presidency ? to George W. Bush by 537 votes.
Nader hates the "spoiler" label, arguing that a number of factors were in
play, including that Gore lost his home state of Tennessee .
As for a Connecticut run, Nader seems untroubled that he's primarily
Washington -based, saying that he's often at his family's Winsted, Conn. ,
home and is, in fact, registered to vote in the Nutmeg State.
Even if this year's candidacy may seem remote, Nader clearly has the bug,
even if it means he has to wait until 2012.
"The main thing is Lieberman," he said.
Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman , a former Democrat turned independent, has
enraged liberals for his closeness to Republicans, even campaigning with GOP
presidential nominee John McCain in 2008, and for supporting Republican
positions. He's up for re-election in two years.
In the meantime, Nader continues to lecture and make appearances for his
causes, such as single-payer health care, and has just finished a 30-city
tour promoting his first work of fiction, "Only the Super Rich Can Save Us,"
published by Seven Stories Press .
The book uses real-life characters, such as Warren Buffett and Warren Beatty
, who use their power and money for the common good.
Nader's selling strategy was to sit in airport bookstores, where the
instantly recognizable consumer advocate immediately drew attention.
"I was in Vegas as the National Association of Realtors' convention let
out," he said. "I could have sat there for eight hours, signing books."
According to Ruth Weiner , a spokeswoman for the publisher, Nader's 733-page
book has sold "incredibly well" and is about two-thirds of the way through
its 30,000 printing.
--
*************************************************
Tim McKee -National Committee of the Green Party for the state of
Connecticut, New Britain,CT
(860)778-1304 Cell- best way to reach me
(860) 505-8454 (H)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From dbedellgreen at hotmail.com Sat Jan 9 22:22:38 2010
From: dbedellgreen at hotmail.com (David Bedell)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 03:22:38 +0000
Subject: {news} Courant: Green Party Still Wants Ralph Nader To Run For U.S.
Senate
Message-ID:
http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2010/01/green-party-still-wants-ralph.html
Green Party Still Wants Ralph Nader To Run For U.S. Senate; Original Target Was Chris Dodd
By Christopher Keating ?on January 7, 2010 7:20 AM
Connecticut's Green Party is still continuing its push for famed consumer advocate Ralph Nader to run for the U.S. Senate.
Party members have been asking?the 75-year-old Nader, who still
retains his voting address in Connecticut, to challenge U.S. Sen.
Christopher J. Dodd from the left. But even with Dodd's stunning
announcement Wednesday?that he is not seeking re-election, the Greens
have not changed their minds.
"Thousands of people are asking Nader to run and are willing to
commit to money and volunteer time if Nader seeks the Green Party
nomination,''?Tim McKee, a Green Party spokesman and longtime Nader
supporter said in a statement. "On social networking sites, such
Facebook and MySpace, over 2,000 people are asking Nader to run for the
Senate in just a few weeks.? This is still a national race with people
from all across the country saying they want to get involved."
Mike DeRosa, a former candidate for the state legislature and the party's
co-chairman, said,?"Blumenthal is still in federal court trying to
defend the state's unconstitutional campaign finance reform and would
not debate the Republican and Green Party candidates for Attorney
General in the last election. His stances on election reform and other
issues are very weak."
The Green Party's state co-chairman, Steve Fournier,?said, "With
Dodd out, nothing really changes. Where does a Richard Blumenthal stand
on Green Party issues such single-payer health care? Ending the wars?
Removing the influence of big money in politics? Only Nader and the
Greens are answering those questions, not the Democrat machine."
McKee added in?the statement that:?"This election was never about
Dodd and his corruption or the national machine of the Democrats
funding Blumenthal now. Drafting Nader is a grass roots effort by
thousands of people who are sick of slick party bosses. We are stepping
up our efforts to get Nader to run, raise $3 million?to $5 million?and
win the race. Local meetings for the Nader campaign will be announced
next week."
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/
From dbedellgreen at hotmail.com Sat Jan 23 21:53:02 2010
From: dbedellgreen at hotmail.com (David Bedell)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 02:53:02 +0000
Subject: {news} CT Green Party Listservs
Message-ID:
Due to technical problems with the ml.greens.org Mailing Lists (http://ml.greens.org/mailman/listinfo ), Tim McKee and I have created two new lists on Yahoo! Groups to replace the old lists. While it's possible we will get back to a Green Party-owned, non-commercial service on the national Green Party website (possibly at http://forum.greens.org/mailman/listinfo ), for the time being we can use these Yahoo! Groups.
These are the two new lists:
- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CTGREENPARTY is for news and announcements only, with limited traffic.
- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CTGP-forum is for open, unmoderated discussion.
I have tried to migrate all subscribers over to the new lists, keeping the same subscription options (daily digest vs. individual emails). However, you may want to check your subscription status on the new lists.
The old list archives are still accessible:
- http://ml.greens.org/pipermail/ctgp-news is the archived news list 2004-2010
- http://ml.greens.org/pipermail/ctgp-forum is the archived discussion list 2004-2010
- https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/ctgp has older archives 2002-2004
All listservs are indexed on the "Listservs" page of the CT Green Party website, http://www.ctgreens.org/listservs.shtml
Peace,
David Bedell
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390707/direct/01/
From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Wed Jan 27 11:15:34 2010
From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:15:34 -0500
Subject: {news} IC Draft Statement on Gaza affirmed by Steering Committee,
GPUS
Message-ID:
Dear CT Greens,
Last Sunday, members of the GPUS national Steering Committee, voted to affirm a "Draft Statement on Gaza Crisis and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict :A Call for boycott, Divestment, Sanctions Against Israel," which the IC drafted and approved last year in response to the 3-week assault on Gaza that began in December, 2008. This statement fulfills the directive to the IC by Proposition 190, passed by GPUS National Committee in 2005 calling for a boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. Specifically, Prop 190 calls on the IC "to work with our sister Green parties around the world in implementing an international boycott" against Israel.
(See GPUS Press release: http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_11_28.shtml).
The UK Greens have also called for BDS against Israel. We will be circulating this statement for endorsement by other international Green Parties.
Peace,
Justine
GPCT
Co-chair, International Committee
Green Party of US.
======================================================
DRAFT Green Party Statement On Gaza Crisis and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict:
A Call for Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions Against Israel
Although Green Parties represent different countries and regions of
the world, we share common principles essential 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 recent crisis in Gaza that
began on December 27, 2008 in which we condemn the killing of
civilians, condemn the excessive and disproportionate force used by
Israel, the Occupying Power in Gaza, call for a full and continuing
ceasefire between Israel and the Hamas government in Gaza, and a
complete withdrawal of all Israeli forces with the opening of all
border crossings in Gaza
As of January 18, 2009, the Gaza crisis resulted in displacement of
thousands of Palestine, the injury of more than 5,300, and the killing
of over 1,300, mostly civilians. It has also caused the destruction of
Gaza's infrastructure, including demolition of hundreds of homes and
attacks on UN schools and on the UNRWA warehouse, which is 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 . . . This number is 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
Contrast this with the Hamas rocket attacks, which during the same
period killed 3 Israelis civilians and 10 Israeli soldiers.
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 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.
As a consequence we call for a redirection of international attention
to the root causes of past and ongoing hostilities between Israelis
and Palestinians, i.e., Palestinian dispossession and ethnic cleansing
by Israel since 1948, and the establishment of an apartheid-like
system in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) that
discriminates against non-Jews.*
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; we believe that individual European Green Parties,
especially those with elected representatives in their governments,
and in the EU parliament in their capacity to influence the European
Union's relation to Israel, have a special duty to ensure that
Palestinians no longer bear the blame 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 in that
the Arms Export Control Act stipulates that US-supplied weapons be
used only for "legitimate self-defense" and that the US Foreign
Assistance Act prohibits military assistance to any country "which
engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally
recognized human rights" and that the 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 this conflict continues to have a devastating
ecological impact on Israel/Palestine, especially water sources,
thereby decreasing security for the whole region; and
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
can 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Wed Jan 27 11:18:47 2010
From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:18:47 -0500
Subject: {news} Members of Congress Ask Obama to End Gaza Blockade
Message-ID: <3A74CB0B84BC473C8207F97456AAFF08@JUSTINE>
FYI
For the first time, Connecticut has a Member of Congress supporting Palestinian human rights. Write to Rep. Jim Himes and thank him for signing-on to end the Israeli siege of Gaza at: CT04JHima at mail.house.gov
Washington DC Office
214 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5541
Fax: (202) 225-9629 Bridgeport CT Office
211 State Street, 2nd Floor
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Phone: (866) 453-0028
Fax: (203) 333-6655 Stamford CT Office
888 Washington Boulevard, 10th Floor
Stamford, CT 06901
Phone: (866) 453-0028
Fax: (203) 333-6655
__________________________________________________________
Members of U.S. Congress Ask President Obama to End the Blockade in Gaza
Washington, D.C. | January 26, 2010 | www.adc.org | Last Thursday, 54 Members of the House of Representatives led by Congressman Ellison of Minnesota and Congressman McDermott from Washington State signed a letter to President Obama asking his Administration to lift the blockade on Gaza. In the letter to President Obama, the 54 Members of Congress said "the unabated suffering of Gazan civilians highlights the urgency of reaching a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we ask you to press for immediate relief for the citizens of Gaza as an urgent component of your broader Middle East Peace." Click here to read the full letter.
http://adc.org/Gaza_letter_to_Obama.pdf
ADC President Mary Rose Oakar said "Now is the time to hold our elected Officials accountable to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. These 54 Members should be recognized for their courage in attempting to bring an end to the unfair treatment of the Palestinian people."
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) urges you to recognize and thank these 54 US House Representatives for exhibiting leadership by contacting them TODAY. Please see below for the list.
Raul Grijalva
AZ
(202) 225- 2435
Barbara Lee
CA
(202) 225- 2661
Bob Filner
CA
(202) 225- 8045
Diane Watson
CA
(202) 225- 7084
Fortney Pete Stark
CA
(202) 225- 5065
George Miller
CA
(202) 225- 2095
Jackie Speier
CA
(202) 225- 3531
Lois Capps
CA
(202) 225- 3601
Loretta Sanchez
CA
(202) 225- 2965
Lynn Woolsey
CA
(202) 225- 5161
Michael M. Honda
CA
(202) 225- 2631
Sam Farr
CA
(202) 225- 2861
Jim Himes
CT
(202) 225- 5541
Bruce D. Braley
IA
(202) 225- 2911
Andre Carson
IN
(202) 225- 4011
John A. Yarmuth
KY
(202) 225- 5401
James P. McGovern
MA
(202) 225- 6101
John Tierney
MA
(202) 225- 8020
John W. Oliver
MA
(202) 225- 5335
Michael E Capuano
MA
(202) 225- 5111
Stephen F. Lynch
MA
(202) 225- 8273
William D. Delahunt
MA
(202) 225- 3111
Donna F. Edwards
MD
(202) 225- 8699
Elijah E. Cummings
MD
(202) 225- 4741
Carolyn C. Kilpatrick
MI
(202) 225- 2261
John Conyers
MI
(202) 225- 5126
John D. Dingell
MI
(202) 225- 4071
Betty McCollum
MN
(202) 225- 6631
James L. Oberstar
MN
(202) 225- 6211
Keith Ellison
MN
(202) 225- 4755
David E. Price
NC
(202) 225- 1784
Bill Pascrell, Jr.
NJ
(202) 225- 5751
Donald M. Payne
NJ
(202) 225- 3436
Rush D. Holt
NJ
(202) 225- 5801
Eric Massa
NY
(202) 225- 3161
Maurice D. Hinchey
NY
(202) 225- 6335
Paul Tonko
NY
(202) 225- 5076
Yvette D. Clarke
NY
(202) 225- 6231
Marcy Kaptur
OH
(202) 225- 4146
Mary Jo Kilroy
OH
(202) 225- 2015
Earl Blumenauer
OR
(202) 225- 4811
Peter A. Defazio
OR
(202) 225- 6416
Chaka Fattah
PA
(202) 225- 4001
Joe Sestak
PA
(202) 225- 2011
Glenn C. Nye
VA
(202) 225- 4215
James P. Moran
VA
(202) 225- 4376
Peter Welch
VT
(202) 225- 4115
Adam Smith
WA
(202) 225- 8901
Brian Baird
WA
(202) 225- 3536
Jay Inslee
WA
(202) 225- 6311
Jim McDermott
WA
(202) 225- 3106
Gwen Moore
WI
(202) 225- 4572
Tammy Baldwin
WI
(202) 225- 2906
Nick J Rahall II
WV
(202) 225- 3452
###
NOTE TO EDITORS: The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), which is non sectarian and non partisan, is the largest Arab-American civil rights organization in the United States. It was founded in 1980, by former Senator James Abourezk to protect the civil rights of people of Arab descent in the United States and to promote the cultural heritage of the Arabs. ADC has 38 chapters nationwide, including chapters in every major city in the country, and members in all 50 states.
__________________________________________
Contact:Haythem Khalil, media at adc.org, 202-244-2990
__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
Visit Your Group Start a New Topic
=================================================================
Support Al-Awda, a Great Organization and Cause!
Become a Member Today:
http://al-awda.org/membership.html
Over 72,000 members have joined The Palestinian Refugees Right to Return - Al-Awda Cause on Facebook. Join us if you haven't by going to http://apps.facebook.com/causes/1752?m=81fdef5b
=================================================================
Unless indicated otherwise, all statements posted represent the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition.
=================================================================
MARKETPLACE
Going Green: Your Yahoo! Groups resource for green living
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use.
__,_._,___
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2647 - Release Date: 01/26/10 19:36:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Sun Jan 31 14:22:15 2010
From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:22:15 -0500
Subject: {news} Fw: Obama asks for better approach to health care reform,
docs arrested for replying (SinglePayerAction.org)
Message-ID:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott McLarty"
To: ;
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 2:09 PM
Subject: Obama asks for better approach to health care reform, docs arrested
for replying (SinglePayerAction.org)
Doctors Arrested Outside Baltimore Hotel
Single Payer Action, January 29, 2010
Filed under: News ? russell @ 3:36 pm
http://www.singlepayeraction.org/blog/?p=2064
Two single payer doctors were arrested this morning outside the Renaissance
Baltimore Harborplace Hotel where President Obama was scheduled to speak to
a retreat of House Republicans.
Dr. Margaret Flowers and Dr. Carol Paris were carrying a sign that said:
Just Letting You Know: Medicare for All.
?We were on the hotel property holding our sign,? Dr. Flowers said. ?The
Secret Service said we had to go across the street. We said we would go
across the street if our letter was delivered to the President. The Secret
Service said that wasn?t possible. They said if we didn?t go across the
street we would be arrested. We refused to leave because we didn?t want to
continue to be excluded, marginalized and ignored. And they arrested us.?
Flowers and Paris were taken to the Central Police headquarters.
They were separately questioned by the Secret Service.
The Baltimore Police charged them with trespass and they were released.
?Every time they said ? if you just go across the street, everything will be
fine,? Dr. Paris said. ?And we would respond ? that is the problem. We are
always asked to go across the street. And nothing changes. This is putting
into practice what Howard Zinn taught us. Go where you are not supposed to
be. And say what you are not supposed to say. And that?s what we were
doing.?
(See Bill Hughes video here.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53RbYauyv_8
Dr. Flowers went to the White House yesterday to deliver a letter to Obama
asking him to consider a single payer, Medicare for all health care system.
She was turned away at the gate and told that for security reasons, the
White House doesn?t accept hand delivered letters.
During his State of the Union speech on Wednesday, Obama said he wanted to
hear from people on a better approach to health care reform that will ?bring
down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen
Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses.?
?Let me know, let me know, let me know. I?m eager to see it,? Obama said.
Flowers, Paris and the majority of doctors and nurses in America believe
that approach is a single payer national health insurance system.
Obama himself, when he was a state Senator in Illinois in 2003, said single
payer was the way to go.
But last year, he cut deals with the pharmaceutical and health insurance
industries in a now failed attempt to get through tinkering reforms.