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.