I spent my time on July Fourth in several different places. I was at a farmer's market in the morning and left from there to my office to finish up some bookkeeping. I rode my motorcycle up to Lake George and put in an appearance at a gathering in Usher's Park that my friend Dave had invited me to. There were about twenty people there eating and talking and I hung out for a while.
At one point, I walked over to another gazebo to catch up with a hockey friend spending the day with his family. When I returned, there was a vaguely familiar gentleman holding court with a small group who seemed attuned to his every word. It hit me that this was, "tax protester" and "Obama citizenship guy", Bob Schultz. I had read stories about him and seen his picture in the papers before. I had also seen more than a few interviews with him, most notably the one in Aaron Russo's brave film, "From Freedom to Fascism". I have no problem with the taxing of my income to aid the collective but I share many of Mr. Schultz's assertions that the way in which it is done is unconstitutional (at best).
Lately, I see much convergence between Libertarian and Green ideals; the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, the Federal Reserve, Ballot Access. We sound so much alike on so many issues of which Schultz has clearly been a fighter and a spearhead. His efforts to dump the Patriot Act, end foreign wars entirely and provide a proper audit of the Federal Reserve are legend.
Many Americans do not realize that the "Federal Reserve" is actually a privately-owned bank from which our government borrows its money (with interest) to pay for 100% of our federal programs. So, every cent of your federal tax dollar is actually paying off debt to bankers, not funding programs. Also, during the Bush/Obama nightmare, roughly 2 trillion dollars has gone missing and is totally unaccounted for. I know plenty of people from all sides of the political spectrum who want to know where the hell it went!
Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich have sponsored a bill (HR 1207) demanding a proper audit of the Fed and 55% of congresspeople have signed on. Bernie Sanders has introduced a companion bill in the Senate called the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act (S 6o4), as well. I recently got to ask my district's new Congressman, Scott Murphy, whether he would support HR 1207. He maintained that he felt the GAO (General Accounting Office) was taking care of it and that the Fed was already being audited by an "independent firm like Price-Waterhouse" but he also said that he would not be against more oversight.
I have kept abreast of some of Bob Schultz's many activities since he ran for Governor on the Libertarian ticket in 1994 and while I may not agree with everything he does, I have always thought him someone who seems dreadfully misunderstood (and vilified) by the corporate media. They are so quick to ridicule him for his legal challenges against the IRS and other entities that have so obviously taken on powers which most Americans agree are beyond their right. Many would agree with Schultz that these entities are, in fact, unconstitutional. I wanted to speak with him and measure him up for myself. He, and his wife, Judy, were very gracious with their time. We spoke for about two hours. I learned a lot.
Bob explained that most of his activities through his foundations (We The People Foundation, We The People Congress) are geared toward preserving a person's right to petition for redress of grievances. This right was first conveyed by King John as outlined in the Magna Carta and (more recently) in the United States Constitution.
The First Amendment to our Constitution clearly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now, what good would a "petition for redress of grievances" be if it was to go unanswered? Schultz explained that he has, for over 20 years, been documenting all of the "unanswered petitions" he and others have made to members of our government asking them to explain behaviors, procedures, institutions and decisions that are clearly not constitutional. It should be noted that, in the Magna Carta, the King only had 40 days to respond to such a petition before he was assumed a tyrant and could be stripped of all his belongings (with the noted exception of his life). If our government has not responded to literally 100's of Bob's requests over two decades what should they have to give up?
He told me about the Constitutional Congress he has planned for this fall. Delegates from around the country will meet to decide what to do about our tyrants and their lack of response. I'm considering going.
Unfortunately, I enjoyed my conversation with Schultz so much that I forgot to talk to him about the whole embarrassing issue of the Obama "citizenship campaign". I couldn't believe that he was really the guy behind what was so obviously a frivolous (maybe even a racist) campaign. As I was riding home, I thought to myself that there had to be more to it.
I remember speaking with Ralph Nader after the Democrats took over the house in 2006. He was on the warpath at the time, pushing for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney for their war crimes. Pelosi and Conyers had just, insanely, stated that impeachment was "off the table". I asked Ralph if he really thought that the Democrats would show any stomach for prosecuting these war criminals when their party was so on board with both resource wars and all the lies that led to them?
I remember his reply well. He said that this went far beyond the sad farce of corporate politics. "We, as citizens cannot let this go unanswered. It is of vital importance that we set an example of Bush and Cheney so that their predecessors will not continue degrading the rule of law. They have to know that there will be very severe consequences for violating our Constitution and that we, the citizenry, will hold them accountable!"
I understood where Ralph was coming from then (and I still await some substantive action from the Democrats - ha ha ha). On my motorcycle ride home, I began to see this whole Obama citizenship thing as important for exactly the same reason (constitutional precedent).
Now, there is no question that I am not personally a fan of Mr. Obama's. In fact, I see him as nothing more than the newest "Sales Rep" for the military-industrial-congressional complex and I think his cowardly stance on most majoritarian issues proves me correct in this. He is quite obviously beholden to a different set of corporate vultures than his predecessor but it seems this set wants basically the same things the previous one did.
In my heart of hearts, I probably don't agree with our constitution's "natural born" citizen requirement. I think the country of one's birth should be irrelevant in judging who is best to govern (it wouldn't even be on a list of things that matter to me) but Schultz, like Nader, seems pretty concerned about this casual setting of an unconstitutional precedent and I can agree fully with that thought process. I decided, based on my face-to-face assessment of Schultz, that he must have some reasonably solid basis for this citizenship accusation and decided to spend some time reading his propaganda on the matter upon my return home.
Now, I would ask that you be as open-minded as you can about this question I will ask.
Would it be all right if Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for President even though we all KNOW that he is not a "natural born citizen"?
I can see the lines splitting along the fake ideological divide already.
I like to think that most independently-minded folk would say that he obviously could not run for president because he is not a natural-born citizen.
Some Republicans might find a way to rationalize a YES answer but I think that most would say the answer is NO.
Democrats will have likely have a tougher job with their answer. To say, "NO, of course Arnold can't run", is to legitimize a discussion of whether or not Obama is actually a citizen by birth and if he's not ... well, he has no business being President, right?
I can only say that our Constitution is not a popularity poll. It is our law and there is a mechanism to amend or alter it. Unless it is actually properly changed, my opinion about it, and yours, are totally irrelevant. We are simply to observe the law as it is written until it is amended.
Having read what Bob has posted about Obama's birthplace and what Salon has to say and Snopes and the Washington Post and the NY Times and Keith Olbermann and too many others to mention, I would say there are legitimate grounds for concern. The law, as it currently stands, says very clearly that you must be a "natural-born citizen" to become president and it does seem that Obama (who has consistently refused to release the same documentation any American would need to secure something as routine as a passport or a driver's license) may not be a "natural-born" citizen.
The most compelling evidence is that he would only allow Hawaii to release a copy of a "Certification of Live Birth" (which is a computer-generated piece of paper and not an original document). He has refused to release a copy of his actual "Birth Certificate" that would clear up this whole mess instantly. Is that because it is easy to forge a document that is merely printed out of a computer database today, but would be much harder to forge a document, like a proper Birth Certificate, that experts could easily look at and test the age and authenticity of? Is it not being "released" because it does not, in fact, exist at all? I mean, let face it. If the man was born in Hawaii, where is the birth certificate to back it up and why is he being sketchy about it?
A "Birth Certificate" is what you or I would need to use as proof of identification in any practical application. It has hospital name, full information about parents, occupations, addresses, a raised seal from the state in question and the attending physician's signature, among others.
The "Certification of Birth" Obama has released is a whole different animal. It would not be usable as an original piece of ID by any of us. Anyone who has traveled between even just the US and Canada knows the difference between these two documents. How is it possible that our standards of ID are so much lower than for someone who has access to the "big red phone"?
An American parent may certainly confer status to his or her child but immigration law at that time makes it clear that there is a gray area where Obama's mother was concerned. She was 18 when he was born and may not have lived there long enough to qualify as someone able to confer "natural-born" status to Barack.
Anecdotally, to compound all of this, there is a transcript of an interview with Obama's paternal grandmother which has her saying that she was present when Barack was born ... in Kenya. The woman is apparently still alive and I have to wonder if we, in fact, live in a free country, where the corporate media interview is in which they follow up with her to clarify her misstatement? Have you seen that interview? Neither have I.
So, maybe, Bob Schultz isn't just some crazy, xenophobic, white guy trying to implement a racist (or Republican) agenda. Maybe he is, instead, an uber-concerned citizen incensed at the constant degradation of our Constitution.
Read through his arguments for yourself. Most of those I read label Schultz a "conspiracy theorist" because the courts have all been very quick to dismiss the many cases brought before them concerning Obama's citizenship. What I find very interesting is that I did not come across a single case that was dismissed for lack of merit or evidence. They were all dismissed because the citizen bringing the suit was not seen as being "personally injured" by Obama's natural-born status (or lack thereof). That throws up some red flags for me as well.
It reminded me of all those crazy conspiracy theorists back in 2000 who were so enraged when the Supreme Court decided not to allow a recount and anointed King George. Should we be any more trusting of the judges who so casually dismiss the discussion of Obama's citizenship? Let me know what you think.
When you're done checking out the Obama situation, you might want to check this out for balance. John McCain was more definitely unqualified to run as he was born in the Panama Canal Zone a full year before the law that would allow his parents to confer "natural-born" status to him.
Does this mean that Ralph Nader was actually the winner? He did come in third. ;-) That would certainly be cool! Man, I would sleep so much better at night knowing that we were really getting out of Iraq AND Afghanistan, that we were burning the Patriot Act, ending extraordinary rendition and torture, re-instituting Habeus Corpus, asking the world to forgive us for letting everything get so damn crazy after WWII, ending corporate personhood, instituting fair federal ballot access rules and public campaign finance for ALL candidates, proportional representation, an end to the electoral college, funding of real clean energy and the incentivizing of electric cars, solar panels, wind and hydro power, setting up single-payer health care just like our veterans have ... I could go on all day but that's all just a dream.
We would have to actually want those things to vote for them. Eugene V. Debs was once asked if he had any regrets and he answered thusly; "The Constitution of this country pretty much guarantees the people that they can have almost anything that they want. But they don't seem to really want much of anything at all, do they?"
Showing posts with label ralph nader. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ralph nader. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Who Should The Next Supreme Court Justice Be?
Intellectuals seem to view each national horse race as important for many reasons but the one most often cited would have to be the possibility that a new president will be in a position to nominate justices to the Supreme Court.
People suffering from “two-party-itis” regularly tell deluded, independent, naifs like myself, that we simply must choose between Democrat and Republican because our single vote may well decide Roe v. Wade all over again!
Electoral college and safe states arguments aside, this discussion would almost be funny. If people could just lift themselves out of their illogical reveries and hover for a moment of quiet reflection, they might see what I see. I always relish the expression on an insistent Democrat’s face when I ask if they know how many Senators opposed Antonin Scalia’s appointment to the court? Scalia was, and is, seen widely as one of the most conservative justices we have had. Many thought that his appointment to the bench could signal the end of abortion rights as we know them.
The answer, in case you’re not aware of it, is none. Not a single Senator stepped forward to oppose Scalia’s confirmation. Not one single Democrat came out swinging or said, “Hey! That’s not a good idea!” Scalia was confirmed 98-0 by the U.S. Senate. Apparently, the same Democratic Party that insists we choose our presidents based on potential court picks were (unanimously) willing to risk overturning Roe v. Wade. Almost 25 years after Scalia’s appointment, abortion rights are still intact.
This should tell us at least two things.
One, that neither corporate political party is even slightly concerned about the Supreme Court changing our abortion laws.
Two, that Supreme Court justices often seem to change (or, at least, defy expectations) after their ascension to the bench.
Given that it really doesn’t seem to matter all that much who is picked for the court, perhaps, its also not so intelligent to make our presidential picks based on our fears about the Supreme Court?
I know it’s a pretty broad brush I’m painting with so, lets get to a finer point. There’s an issue beside abortion that all the justices seem to be on the same page about which, in the end, is probably far more important to us than any other single issue … corporate power.
Did you know that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has an office in D.C. which devotes much of its time to aiding Corporate America in its fight against the people of our country? It also spends a fair amount of its time vetting potential nominees to the court and lobbying for those who are most likely to support corporate interest and agenda.
Did you know that the single greatest trend on the court over the last several decades is that decisions in favor of actual human beings have become more and more infrequent every time corporate power is challenged? This tells me that the biggest concern workers and citizens should have when nominations are being made is the court’s continued subordination to corporate power. Like our government, the court seems to have become just one more hammer in the corporate toolbox. Just one more mechanism designed to represent those who need it least and to crush justice wherever profit is concerned.
There is a great piece on this very topic written by noted author and lawyer, Jeffrey Rosen, in the New York Times (March 2008). Its called “Supreme Court Inc” and every American who cares about justice and law and the little guy should give it a perusal.
President Obama has to come up with some appointees for the Chamber and the Senate to look at. I have a suggestion that seems politically expedient while also addressing the court’s demonstrably corporate bias.
One thing we all seem to be in agreement about is that Obama has made some absolutely terrible choices for his cabinet. He could now throw a bone to those of us in the working class to ensure that textbooks mark him as a president who (at least) tried to do one thing right. He has made it abundantly clear as he’s filled his cabinet that the interests he serves are not ours. Regardless of your political perspective, these appointments have been business as usual and show him to be every bit the sellout independents said he was all along.
In particular, if Obama wants to reverse the sting caused when he invited Tim “The Fox” Geithner to guard our economic hen-house, he needs to send Tim Geithner a clear message to those of us who work for a living that he really does want us to have a seat at the table. For those of who know that a Single-Payer health care system is the optimal replacement for our for-profit nightmare, an intelligent court pick could help remove the stinger Obama sets by refusing to even say the words, “single-payer”. Like the Clintons before him, Obama is totally in bed with the HMO’s and refuses to discuss the most rational solution.
Obama can keep being such a disappointment because, at the very least, he’s not George W. Bush. But, if he were to chose an American icon to serve on our nation’s highest court, it might go a long way towards redeeming his, so far, unimpressive (and similar) governance. It might help the many who feel betrayed to see a light at the end of the tunnel.
Where might we find someone truly principled who has always stuck up for the little guy? Someone who has always understood that deregulation is only beneficial to those seeking to rob and steal. Somebody who has fought the good fight all of his life.
The person I have in mind is a veteran, a lawyer, a professor, an author, a lecturer and a full-time American citizen. He is a graduate of Princeton and Harvard and he has left an indelible mark on populist politics in this era of big business and corporate power. For over forty years, he has been a tireless champion of every important social justice issue.
Here is an opportunity for Obama to prove that his “talk” has a little bit of “walk” in it, as well. The President could put a well-armed “hen” in our judicial “fox-house” and reassure us all that there is a tiny little piece of justice to be found somewhere in the halls of power in this beleaguered democracy of ours.
Supreme Court Justice Ralph Nader. Let that sink in.
Justice R. Nader
Just think about all the positives for a moment before your knee jerks …
Mainstream Democrats could all breathe a collective sigh of relief as Ralph would be unlikely to run in 2012. They could start to set aside their mathematically-challenged (and terribly misplaced) anger at Ralph for 2000 and start to set their own party back on a path that values democracy instead of thwarting and co-opting the growth of alternative parties. Thoughtful Democrats could finally admit in polite company that they agree with Nader on most every single issue without being excoriated.
Mainstream Republicans could rest assured that while Ralph is against corporate power, he’s also only one judge out of nine. How much damage to corporate control could he possibly do? Thoughtful Republicans could rest secure in the knowledge that very few people in our country have shown a more principled or consistent respect and defense of our laws and founding documents than Ralph Nader.
Workers and independents alike would be inspired. They could look to at least one nationally prominent figure who never forgets where he came from and who can always be counted on to do what is right in the face of enormous adversity.
What, if any, are the negatives?
People suffering from “two-party-itis” regularly tell deluded, independent, naifs like myself, that we simply must choose between Democrat and Republican because our single vote may well decide Roe v. Wade all over again!
Electoral college and safe states arguments aside, this discussion would almost be funny. If people could just lift themselves out of their illogical reveries and hover for a moment of quiet reflection, they might see what I see. I always relish the expression on an insistent Democrat’s face when I ask if they know how many Senators opposed Antonin Scalia’s appointment to the court? Scalia was, and is, seen widely as one of the most conservative justices we have had. Many thought that his appointment to the bench could signal the end of abortion rights as we know them.
The answer, in case you’re not aware of it, is none. Not a single Senator stepped forward to oppose Scalia’s confirmation. Not one single Democrat came out swinging or said, “Hey! That’s not a good idea!” Scalia was confirmed 98-0 by the U.S. Senate. Apparently, the same Democratic Party that insists we choose our presidents based on potential court picks were (unanimously) willing to risk overturning Roe v. Wade. Almost 25 years after Scalia’s appointment, abortion rights are still intact.
This should tell us at least two things.
One, that neither corporate political party is even slightly concerned about the Supreme Court changing our abortion laws.
Two, that Supreme Court justices often seem to change (or, at least, defy expectations) after their ascension to the bench.
Given that it really doesn’t seem to matter all that much who is picked for the court, perhaps, its also not so intelligent to make our presidential picks based on our fears about the Supreme Court?
I know it’s a pretty broad brush I’m painting with so, lets get to a finer point. There’s an issue beside abortion that all the justices seem to be on the same page about which, in the end, is probably far more important to us than any other single issue … corporate power.
Did you know that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has an office in D.C. which devotes much of its time to aiding Corporate America in its fight against the people of our country? It also spends a fair amount of its time vetting potential nominees to the court and lobbying for those who are most likely to support corporate interest and agenda.
Did you know that the single greatest trend on the court over the last several decades is that decisions in favor of actual human beings have become more and more infrequent every time corporate power is challenged? This tells me that the biggest concern workers and citizens should have when nominations are being made is the court’s continued subordination to corporate power. Like our government, the court seems to have become just one more hammer in the corporate toolbox. Just one more mechanism designed to represent those who need it least and to crush justice wherever profit is concerned.
There is a great piece on this very topic written by noted author and lawyer, Jeffrey Rosen, in the New York Times (March 2008). Its called “Supreme Court Inc” and every American who cares about justice and law and the little guy should give it a perusal.
President Obama has to come up with some appointees for the Chamber and the Senate to look at. I have a suggestion that seems politically expedient while also addressing the court’s demonstrably corporate bias.
One thing we all seem to be in agreement about is that Obama has made some absolutely terrible choices for his cabinet. He could now throw a bone to those of us in the working class to ensure that textbooks mark him as a president who (at least) tried to do one thing right. He has made it abundantly clear as he’s filled his cabinet that the interests he serves are not ours. Regardless of your political perspective, these appointments have been business as usual and show him to be every bit the sellout independents said he was all along.
In particular, if Obama wants to reverse the sting caused when he invited Tim “The Fox” Geithner to guard our economic hen-house, he needs to send Tim Geithner a clear message to those of us who work for a living that he really does want us to have a seat at the table. For those of who know that a Single-Payer health care system is the optimal replacement for our for-profit nightmare, an intelligent court pick could help remove the stinger Obama sets by refusing to even say the words, “single-payer”. Like the Clintons before him, Obama is totally in bed with the HMO’s and refuses to discuss the most rational solution.
Obama can keep being such a disappointment because, at the very least, he’s not George W. Bush. But, if he were to chose an American icon to serve on our nation’s highest court, it might go a long way towards redeeming his, so far, unimpressive (and similar) governance. It might help the many who feel betrayed to see a light at the end of the tunnel.
Where might we find someone truly principled who has always stuck up for the little guy? Someone who has always understood that deregulation is only beneficial to those seeking to rob and steal. Somebody who has fought the good fight all of his life.
The person I have in mind is a veteran, a lawyer, a professor, an author, a lecturer and a full-time American citizen. He is a graduate of Princeton and Harvard and he has left an indelible mark on populist politics in this era of big business and corporate power. For over forty years, he has been a tireless champion of every important social justice issue.
Here is an opportunity for Obama to prove that his “talk” has a little bit of “walk” in it, as well. The President could put a well-armed “hen” in our judicial “fox-house” and reassure us all that there is a tiny little piece of justice to be found somewhere in the halls of power in this beleaguered democracy of ours.
Supreme Court Justice Ralph Nader. Let that sink in.
Justice R. Nader
Just think about all the positives for a moment before your knee jerks …
Mainstream Democrats could all breathe a collective sigh of relief as Ralph would be unlikely to run in 2012. They could start to set aside their mathematically-challenged (and terribly misplaced) anger at Ralph for 2000 and start to set their own party back on a path that values democracy instead of thwarting and co-opting the growth of alternative parties. Thoughtful Democrats could finally admit in polite company that they agree with Nader on most every single issue without being excoriated.
Mainstream Republicans could rest assured that while Ralph is against corporate power, he’s also only one judge out of nine. How much damage to corporate control could he possibly do? Thoughtful Republicans could rest secure in the knowledge that very few people in our country have shown a more principled or consistent respect and defense of our laws and founding documents than Ralph Nader.
Workers and independents alike would be inspired. They could look to at least one nationally prominent figure who never forgets where he came from and who can always be counted on to do what is right in the face of enormous adversity.
What, if any, are the negatives?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Ken Starr's Law Firm is Evil. No, Wait. They're Good!. No, They're Evil Again!
A friend sent this out. While I fully sympathize with the gay community in their fight against Ken Starr and the moral majority, I am always amazed at the short memory Democrats seem to have. Read on.
From: Mary Beth Bolduc
Subject: FW: This video will break your heart
Have you heard that Ken Starr -- and the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund -- filed legal briefs defending the constitutionality of Prop 8 and attempting to forcibly divorce 18,000 same-sex couples that were married in California last year? The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this case on March 5, 2009, with a decision expected within the next 90 days.
The Courage Campaign has created a video called "Fidelity," with the permission of musician Regina Spektor, that puts a face to those 18,000 couples and all loving, committed couples seeking full equality under the law.
Please watch this heartbreaking video now. If you have the same reaction that I did, you can help spread the word by sharing it with your friends ASAP -- before the Valentine's Day deadline:
http://www.couragecampaign.org/Divorce
The more people who see this video, the more people will understand the pain caused by Prop 8 and Ken Starr's shameful legal proceeding.
After you watch the video, please join me and over 60,000 people who have signed a letter to the state Supreme Court, asking them to invalidate Prop 8 and reject Starr's case.
Thanks.
* MY RESPONSE *
Mary Beth,
I did see this and it is heartbreaking. In a way, though, the injustice of these actions is a major victory for gay rights. Anti-gay fervor always rouses progressives and, in this weird time, when everyone seems to be in a coma while Obama continues to manifest a virtually unchanged imperialist American foreign policy, it is vital that we roust up continued support for a truly progressive agenda. Perhaps Starr's firm should be thanked for getting people angry and active. No one else is doing it!
That said, something else broke my heart involving Starr and his thugs. About four years ago, Starr's firm was hired in Pennsylvania to sue Carl Romanelli and Ralph Nader and keep them off the ballot (in the senate and presidential races, respectively). Did you hear about that? These thugs came in and kicked them both off the ballot (even though they had collected twice the necessary signatures). They then sued them for legal fees and the crooked (Democrat appointed) judges awarded the firm $75,000 dollars in legal fees from each of the candidates!!
Carl and his family are still in very real danger of losing their home to these bastards. Ralph has since had his judgment reversed. Even though the court's original decision had been overturned by a higher court and even though a handful of the Democrat operatives responsible for this are now in jail, the decision to make Carl responsible for the Starr firm's fees has, thus far, stood! It is a travesty what these two-party fascist scum will do! I agree.
The Democrats want Greens and independents to work with them. I think that they first need to take a good look in the mirror (as Democrat-King Alan Chartok might say). To gain this sort of trust the Democrats would need to stop behaving just as badly as the Republicans, wouldn't they?! I have a long memory and the reason I don't work with either corporate party is terrible hypocrisy of exactly this sort. The Dems are now saying that Starr and his firm are evil bastards because they subvert democracy and squash minority rights ... but were they saying the same thing when they hired these scum to thwart our very democracy?
Peace,
Matt
From: Mary Beth Bolduc
Subject: FW: This video will break your heart
Have you heard that Ken Starr -- and the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund -- filed legal briefs defending the constitutionality of Prop 8 and attempting to forcibly divorce 18,000 same-sex couples that were married in California last year? The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this case on March 5, 2009, with a decision expected within the next 90 days.
The Courage Campaign has created a video called "Fidelity," with the permission of musician Regina Spektor, that puts a face to those 18,000 couples and all loving, committed couples seeking full equality under the law.
Please watch this heartbreaking video now. If you have the same reaction that I did, you can help spread the word by sharing it with your friends ASAP -- before the Valentine's Day deadline:
http://www.couragecampaign.org/Divorce
The more people who see this video, the more people will understand the pain caused by Prop 8 and Ken Starr's shameful legal proceeding.
After you watch the video, please join me and over 60,000 people who have signed a letter to the state Supreme Court, asking them to invalidate Prop 8 and reject Starr's case.
Thanks.
* MY RESPONSE *
Mary Beth,
I did see this and it is heartbreaking. In a way, though, the injustice of these actions is a major victory for gay rights. Anti-gay fervor always rouses progressives and, in this weird time, when everyone seems to be in a coma while Obama continues to manifest a virtually unchanged imperialist American foreign policy, it is vital that we roust up continued support for a truly progressive agenda. Perhaps Starr's firm should be thanked for getting people angry and active. No one else is doing it!
That said, something else broke my heart involving Starr and his thugs. About four years ago, Starr's firm was hired in Pennsylvania to sue Carl Romanelli and Ralph Nader and keep them off the ballot (in the senate and presidential races, respectively). Did you hear about that? These thugs came in and kicked them both off the ballot (even though they had collected twice the necessary signatures). They then sued them for legal fees and the crooked (Democrat appointed) judges awarded the firm $75,000 dollars in legal fees from each of the candidates!!
Carl and his family are still in very real danger of losing their home to these bastards. Ralph has since had his judgment reversed. Even though the court's original decision had been overturned by a higher court and even though a handful of the Democrat operatives responsible for this are now in jail, the decision to make Carl responsible for the Starr firm's fees has, thus far, stood! It is a travesty what these two-party fascist scum will do! I agree.
The Democrats want Greens and independents to work with them. I think that they first need to take a good look in the mirror (as Democrat-King Alan Chartok might say). To gain this sort of trust the Democrats would need to stop behaving just as badly as the Republicans, wouldn't they?! I have a long memory and the reason I don't work with either corporate party is terrible hypocrisy of exactly this sort. The Dems are now saying that Starr and his firm are evil bastards because they subvert democracy and squash minority rights ... but were they saying the same thing when they hired these scum to thwart our very democracy?
Peace,
Matt
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Yet Again, Lets Ignore The Plan That Makes Sense
Tax The Speculators by Ralph Nader
Let's start with a fairness point. Why should you pay a 5 to 6 percent sales tax for buying the necessities of life, when tomorrow, some speculator on Wall Street can buy $100 million worth of Exxon derivatives and not pay one penny in sales tax? Let's further add a point of common sense. The basic premise of taxation should be to first tax what society likes the least or dislikes the most, before it taxes honest labor or human needs.
In that way, revenues can be raised at the same time as the taxes discourage those activities which are least valued, such as the most speculative stock market trades, pollution (a carbon tax), gambling, and the addictive industries that sicken or destroy health and amass large costs.
So, your member of Congress, who is grappling these days with gigantic deficits on the backs of your children at the same time as that deep recession and tax cuts reduce revenues and increase torrents of red ink, should be championing such transaction taxes.
Yet apart from a small number of legislators, most notably Congressman Peter Welch (Dem. VT) and Peter DeFazio (Dem. OR), the biggest revenue producer of all - a tax on stock derivative transactions - essentially bets on bets - and other mystifying gambles by casino capitalism - is at best corridor talk on Capitol Hill.
There are differing estimates of how much such Wall Street transaction taxes can raise each year. A transaction tax would, however, certainly raise enough to make the Wall Street crooks and gamblers pay for their own Washington bailout. Lets scan some figures economists put forth.
The most discussed and popular one is a simple sales tax on currency trades across borders. Called the Tobin Tax after its originator, the late James Tobin, a Nobel laureate economist at Yale University, 10 to 25 cents per hundred dollars of the huge amounts of dollars traded each day across bordered would produce from $100 to $300 billion per year.
There are scores of civic, labor, environmental, development, poverty and law groups all over the world pressing for such laws in their countries. (see tobintaxcall.free.fr).
According the University of Massachusetts economist, Robert Pollin, various kinds of securities-trading taxes are on the books in about forty countries, including Japan, the UK and Brazil.
Pollin writes in the current issue of the estimable Boston Review: "A small tax on all financial-market transactions, comparable to a sales tax, would raise the costs on short-term speculative trading while having negligible effect on people who trade infrequently. It would thus discourage speculation and channel funds toward productive investment." He adds that after the 1987 stock market crash, securities-trading taxes "or similar measures" were endorsed by then Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole and even the first President Bush. Professor Pollin estimates that a one-half of one percent tax would raise about $350 billion a year. That seems conservative. The Wall Street Journal once mentioned about $500 trillion in derivatives trades alone in 2008-the most speculative of transactions. A one tenth of one percent tax would raise $500 billion dollars a year, assuming that level of trading.
Economist Dean Baker says a "modest financial transactions tax would be enough to "finance a 10% across-the-board reduction in the income tax on labor.
The stock transaction tax goes back a long way. A version helped fund the Civil War and the imperial Spanish-American War. The famous British economist, John Maynard Keynes, extolled in 1936 a securities transaction tax as having the effect of "mitigating the predominance of speculation over enterprise." The U.S. had some kind of transaction tax from 1914 to 1966.
The corporate history scholar (read his excellent book, Unequal Protection) Thom Hartmann, turned three-hour-a-day talk-show-host on Air America (airamerica.com/thomvision), had discussed the long evolution of what he calls a "securities turnover excise tax" to "tamp down toxic speculation, while encouraging healthy investment."
So, why don't we have such a mega-revenue generator and lighten the income tax load on today and tomorrow's American worker? (It was one of the most popular ideas I campaigned on last year. People got it.) Because American workers need to learn about this proposed tax policy and ram it through Congress. Tell your Senators and Representatives-no ifs, ands or buts. Otherwise, Wall Street will keep rampaging over people's pensions and mutual fund savings, destabilize their jobs and hand them the bailout bill, as is occurring now.
A few minutes spent lobbying members of Congress by millions of Americans (call, write or e-mail, visit or picket) will produce one big Change for the better. Contact your member of Congress. The current financial mess makes this the right time for action.
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions.
Let's start with a fairness point. Why should you pay a 5 to 6 percent sales tax for buying the necessities of life, when tomorrow, some speculator on Wall Street can buy $100 million worth of Exxon derivatives and not pay one penny in sales tax? Let's further add a point of common sense. The basic premise of taxation should be to first tax what society likes the least or dislikes the most, before it taxes honest labor or human needs.
In that way, revenues can be raised at the same time as the taxes discourage those activities which are least valued, such as the most speculative stock market trades, pollution (a carbon tax), gambling, and the addictive industries that sicken or destroy health and amass large costs.
So, your member of Congress, who is grappling these days with gigantic deficits on the backs of your children at the same time as that deep recession and tax cuts reduce revenues and increase torrents of red ink, should be championing such transaction taxes.
Yet apart from a small number of legislators, most notably Congressman Peter Welch (Dem. VT) and Peter DeFazio (Dem. OR), the biggest revenue producer of all - a tax on stock derivative transactions - essentially bets on bets - and other mystifying gambles by casino capitalism - is at best corridor talk on Capitol Hill.
There are differing estimates of how much such Wall Street transaction taxes can raise each year. A transaction tax would, however, certainly raise enough to make the Wall Street crooks and gamblers pay for their own Washington bailout. Lets scan some figures economists put forth.
The most discussed and popular one is a simple sales tax on currency trades across borders. Called the Tobin Tax after its originator, the late James Tobin, a Nobel laureate economist at Yale University, 10 to 25 cents per hundred dollars of the huge amounts of dollars traded each day across bordered would produce from $100 to $300 billion per year.
There are scores of civic, labor, environmental, development, poverty and law groups all over the world pressing for such laws in their countries. (see tobintaxcall.free.fr).
According the University of Massachusetts economist, Robert Pollin, various kinds of securities-trading taxes are on the books in about forty countries, including Japan, the UK and Brazil.
Pollin writes in the current issue of the estimable Boston Review: "A small tax on all financial-market transactions, comparable to a sales tax, would raise the costs on short-term speculative trading while having negligible effect on people who trade infrequently. It would thus discourage speculation and channel funds toward productive investment." He adds that after the 1987 stock market crash, securities-trading taxes "or similar measures" were endorsed by then Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole and even the first President Bush. Professor Pollin estimates that a one-half of one percent tax would raise about $350 billion a year. That seems conservative. The Wall Street Journal once mentioned about $500 trillion in derivatives trades alone in 2008-the most speculative of transactions. A one tenth of one percent tax would raise $500 billion dollars a year, assuming that level of trading.
Economist Dean Baker says a "modest financial transactions tax would be enough to "finance a 10% across-the-board reduction in the income tax on labor.
The stock transaction tax goes back a long way. A version helped fund the Civil War and the imperial Spanish-American War. The famous British economist, John Maynard Keynes, extolled in 1936 a securities transaction tax as having the effect of "mitigating the predominance of speculation over enterprise." The U.S. had some kind of transaction tax from 1914 to 1966.
The corporate history scholar (read his excellent book, Unequal Protection) Thom Hartmann, turned three-hour-a-day talk-show-host on Air America (airamerica.com/thomvision), had discussed the long evolution of what he calls a "securities turnover excise tax" to "tamp down toxic speculation, while encouraging healthy investment."
So, why don't we have such a mega-revenue generator and lighten the income tax load on today and tomorrow's American worker? (It was one of the most popular ideas I campaigned on last year. People got it.) Because American workers need to learn about this proposed tax policy and ram it through Congress. Tell your Senators and Representatives-no ifs, ands or buts. Otherwise, Wall Street will keep rampaging over people's pensions and mutual fund savings, destabilize their jobs and hand them the bailout bill, as is occurring now.
A few minutes spent lobbying members of Congress by millions of Americans (call, write or e-mail, visit or picket) will produce one big Change for the better. Contact your member of Congress. The current financial mess makes this the right time for action.
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions.
Monday, February 2, 2009
That's My Girl! (An Essay On the Two-Party System by My Daughter)
The Two-Party System in the United States
There are many things about the United States government that are easily criticized; the healthcare system, war, and taxation are all very good examples of controversial issues in political society today. Although each of these topics exemplifies what is wrong with the government, the two-party system is the apex of a failing political machine. This machine is corrupt and misleading and has made the American people ignorant. The two-party Democrat and Republican system is wrong because it is destructive to the democratic ideals that the United States was built on and neglects the welfare of the citizens. The two-party system employs candidates who are driven primarily by special interest groups and lobbyists, smothers all possibilities for other parties in the voting process, and will eventually lead to a dictatorship-like one party system, all of which will demolish democracy in the U.S.
The primary negative characteristic of the two-party arrangement is that it has evolved into a system that exists solely to support special interest groups and lobbyists who do not hold the welfare of the people in high regard. The Republican and Democrat Parties are well-known for choosing big business and oil companies over the American people in congressional history. The Bush administration repeatedly turned down proposals to tax the oil companies during a time of petroleum prosperity, while Bill Clinton sold out to the healthcare industry multiple times at the expense of the American people during the nineties. No t to say that a candidate running for office should not have certain motives and groups of interest that they support; the real issue is whether or not they are going to support the groups that employ the best standards for American success and well-being. Wal-Mart and Exxon-Mobil are not the types of businesses that support these ideals but are very popular throughout the two-party Congress. The two parties nominate candidates who are unconcerned with serving the people; unless, of course, those people are signing the checks every month to ensure that their corporate stocks are strong.
Barack Obama, presidential hopeful for the 2008 campaign, has reportedly received large campaign funds and endorsements from major insurance companies who recently faced a cataclysmic economic crash that had the country in a panic. Coincidentally, Obama voted for a federally funded corporate bailout of these companies. Giving billions of dollars to agencies that already receive ludicrous tax breaks and federal monetary support would seem a little insane to the average human. After recognizing that Obama was funded by these companies, it makes perfect sense that he would bail them out. One might ask why a company that already receives special federal treatment deserves a bailout when there are several other important issues that need funding. Major corporations do not deserve the money and the American people do not deserve this type of mistreatment. These decisions are being made by chosen officials from one of the two parties and the relationships that those officials have with big business and major corporations. However, it is the American people who elect these officials into office and therefore are contributing to the country's demise.
The second damaging characteristic of the two-party system is that the Democrat and Republican parties have monopolized the voting process and make it impossible for other parties/candidates with a wider range of views to have a stand in the elections. Many Americans believe that either a Democrat or Republican will win the presidency or seat in the Senate regardless of any other party's candidates. If one does not believe in either of the two candidates, he or she is practically forced to withdraw from voting because there simply is no other option. In reality, this is not true and there are several other parties in addition to the two previously stated that are trying to make themselves known in society today. The U.S. was built on democratic ideals that give the power to the people in a free electoral system. One can infer that a free electoral system would allow for the voters to be fully exposed to all options made available to them in every single election. Anything that compromises this privilege to the citizens of the United States is violating the constitutional values that used to make this country so respectable.
Why is it that Ralph Nader, candidate for President from the Independent Party, has been denied entry several times into the political debates despite the fact that he is on the voting ballots in forty-five states? The Republican and Democrat parties do not want the citizens knowing that they have other options in addition to the salt and pepper standards that have been handed to them. A little paprika would not hurt anyone and is almost guaranteed to make the citizens happy (remember Perot?). If the American people were even aware that they could actually vote for someone who held the same values as they do, they would be shocked at how the principles of democracy have been sacrificed for corruption. This lack of knowledge just further empowers the damaging capabilities of the two-party system.
Finally if one of the two parties becomes weaker than the other, there is the potential for the American government becoming one-party dominant. This is essentially the same thing that happened when the Democrat and Republican parties overthrew the other parties over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The parties competing against the Republican and Democrats were not resorting to lobbyists or strong business corporations for monetary support and campaigning purposes and eventually lost the power to run in the elections. If the United States becomes a one-party dominant system, the country will have finally reached the zenith of governmental corruption. Congress, if it even exists anymore at that point, will most likely attempt to distract the citizens by holding elections between two candidates from the same party. Doing so would be completely ineffective and pointless, but if the American people can fall for this two-party system, then Congress can definitely divert the citizen's attention for a few more years. It is only a matter of time before one of the two parties surpasses the other in strength, money and ultimately, power.
Some might argue that the two-party system works because it is stable and predictable. Besides the fact that this statement is completely false and a product of the brainwashing mechanisms used by the current administration, predictability is not something the American people need. When the citizens become less ignorant and realize that they have been swindled into thinking that they are being fairly represented, there will no longer be any 'stability'. If the kind of stability these adversaries are talking about is the kind that is built upon lies and half-truths, then the elected dictatorship that exists now is more stable than anything before. In order to achieve stability, the people of the United States need to have their blindfolds removed and given the chance to explore other possibilities for the future of their country before the wobbly foundation they are standing on crumbles.
It is apparent that the system today is flawed beyond comprehension and is corrupt in several different ways. Perhaps the biggest issue with the 'Republicrat' regime today is that it is functioning at the expense of the hard-working people of the United States and is plainly doing them an injustice by not offering them what was promised: Democracy. The citizens do not realize that they could have more options that would provide for a strong government with ideals based on popular opinion instead of one-sided and selfish principles. The United States needs to lose two-party politics and open the door to the possibility of an elected president that is actually wanted by the people. Once this democracy has been restored, the country will flourish, the people will finally be satisfied, and the nation can move forward in a positive direction as one unit. The country simply cannot handle another president that was elected because the voter felt limited in their selection and made the decision based on the lesser of two evils.
There are many things about the United States government that are easily criticized; the healthcare system, war, and taxation are all very good examples of controversial issues in political society today. Although each of these topics exemplifies what is wrong with the government, the two-party system is the apex of a failing political machine. This machine is corrupt and misleading and has made the American people ignorant. The two-party Democrat and Republican system is wrong because it is destructive to the democratic ideals that the United States was built on and neglects the welfare of the citizens. The two-party system employs candidates who are driven primarily by special interest groups and lobbyists, smothers all possibilities for other parties in the voting process, and will eventually lead to a dictatorship-like one party system, all of which will demolish democracy in the U.S.
The primary negative characteristic of the two-party arrangement is that it has evolved into a system that exists solely to support special interest groups and lobbyists who do not hold the welfare of the people in high regard. The Republican and Democrat Parties are well-known for choosing big business and oil companies over the American people in congressional history. The Bush administration repeatedly turned down proposals to tax the oil companies during a time of petroleum prosperity, while Bill Clinton sold out to the healthcare industry multiple times at the expense of the American people during the nineties. No t to say that a candidate running for office should not have certain motives and groups of interest that they support; the real issue is whether or not they are going to support the groups that employ the best standards for American success and well-being. Wal-Mart and Exxon-Mobil are not the types of businesses that support these ideals but are very popular throughout the two-party Congress. The two parties nominate candidates who are unconcerned with serving the people; unless, of course, those people are signing the checks every month to ensure that their corporate stocks are strong.
Barack Obama, presidential hopeful for the 2008 campaign, has reportedly received large campaign funds and endorsements from major insurance companies who recently faced a cataclysmic economic crash that had the country in a panic. Coincidentally, Obama voted for a federally funded corporate bailout of these companies. Giving billions of dollars to agencies that already receive ludicrous tax breaks and federal monetary support would seem a little insane to the average human. After recognizing that Obama was funded by these companies, it makes perfect sense that he would bail them out. One might ask why a company that already receives special federal treatment deserves a bailout when there are several other important issues that need funding. Major corporations do not deserve the money and the American people do not deserve this type of mistreatment. These decisions are being made by chosen officials from one of the two parties and the relationships that those officials have with big business and major corporations. However, it is the American people who elect these officials into office and therefore are contributing to the country's demise.
The second damaging characteristic of the two-party system is that the Democrat and Republican parties have monopolized the voting process and make it impossible for other parties/candidates with a wider range of views to have a stand in the elections. Many Americans believe that either a Democrat or Republican will win the presidency or seat in the Senate regardless of any other party's candidates. If one does not believe in either of the two candidates, he or she is practically forced to withdraw from voting because there simply is no other option. In reality, this is not true and there are several other parties in addition to the two previously stated that are trying to make themselves known in society today. The U.S. was built on democratic ideals that give the power to the people in a free electoral system. One can infer that a free electoral system would allow for the voters to be fully exposed to all options made available to them in every single election. Anything that compromises this privilege to the citizens of the United States is violating the constitutional values that used to make this country so respectable.
Why is it that Ralph Nader, candidate for President from the Independent Party, has been denied entry several times into the political debates despite the fact that he is on the voting ballots in forty-five states? The Republican and Democrat parties do not want the citizens knowing that they have other options in addition to the salt and pepper standards that have been handed to them. A little paprika would not hurt anyone and is almost guaranteed to make the citizens happy (remember Perot?). If the American people were even aware that they could actually vote for someone who held the same values as they do, they would be shocked at how the principles of democracy have been sacrificed for corruption. This lack of knowledge just further empowers the damaging capabilities of the two-party system.
Finally if one of the two parties becomes weaker than the other, there is the potential for the American government becoming one-party dominant. This is essentially the same thing that happened when the Democrat and Republican parties overthrew the other parties over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The parties competing against the Republican and Democrats were not resorting to lobbyists or strong business corporations for monetary support and campaigning purposes and eventually lost the power to run in the elections. If the United States becomes a one-party dominant system, the country will have finally reached the zenith of governmental corruption. Congress, if it even exists anymore at that point, will most likely attempt to distract the citizens by holding elections between two candidates from the same party. Doing so would be completely ineffective and pointless, but if the American people can fall for this two-party system, then Congress can definitely divert the citizen's attention for a few more years. It is only a matter of time before one of the two parties surpasses the other in strength, money and ultimately, power.
Some might argue that the two-party system works because it is stable and predictable. Besides the fact that this statement is completely false and a product of the brainwashing mechanisms used by the current administration, predictability is not something the American people need. When the citizens become less ignorant and realize that they have been swindled into thinking that they are being fairly represented, there will no longer be any 'stability'. If the kind of stability these adversaries are talking about is the kind that is built upon lies and half-truths, then the elected dictatorship that exists now is more stable than anything before. In order to achieve stability, the people of the United States need to have their blindfolds removed and given the chance to explore other possibilities for the future of their country before the wobbly foundation they are standing on crumbles.
It is apparent that the system today is flawed beyond comprehension and is corrupt in several different ways. Perhaps the biggest issue with the 'Republicrat' regime today is that it is functioning at the expense of the hard-working people of the United States and is plainly doing them an injustice by not offering them what was promised: Democracy. The citizens do not realize that they could have more options that would provide for a strong government with ideals based on popular opinion instead of one-sided and selfish principles. The United States needs to lose two-party politics and open the door to the possibility of an elected president that is actually wanted by the people. Once this democracy has been restored, the country will flourish, the people will finally be satisfied, and the nation can move forward in a positive direction as one unit. The country simply cannot handle another president that was elected because the voter felt limited in their selection and made the decision based on the lesser of two evils.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Someone Who Actually Should Have Hillary's Seat
The New York Times blog picked up our attempt to have a real representative replace Hillary rather than more ruling class celebrity carpet-baggers.
http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/heres-someone-gov-paterson-may-not-have-thought-of-for-hillarys-senate-seat/
http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/heres-someone-gov-paterson-may-not-have-thought-of-for-hillarys-senate-seat/
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Third-Party Blind Spot - John F. Kirch
Democracy suffers when the news media ignore long-shot candidates and the
ideas they espouse
While the news media did an effective job this year of covering the
presidential campaign between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John
McCain, the press still has a major blind spot when it comes to writing
about third-party contenders.
According to a basic LexisNexis database search of election coverage
from Aug. 5 to Nov. 5, The Washington Post and The New York Times
published a combined 3,576 news stories, editorials, op-eds,
photographs and letters to the editor about Mr. Obama and 3,205 items
about Mr. McCain. By contrast, the two dailies published only 36 items
about independent Ralph Nader, 22 about Libertarian Bob Barr, five
about Green Cynthia McKinney and three about the Constitution Party's
Chuck Baldwin.
The Baltimore Sun was not much better, publishing 384 news items about
Mr. Obama, 327 about Mr. McCain, eight about Mr. Nader, four on Mr.
Barr and two each for Ms. McKinney and Mr. Baldwin.
None of these candidates garnered more than 2 percent of the popular
vote on Election Day. But how third-party candidates are covered by the
news media is an important issue that should be taken more seriously,
given that we live in a democratic society that proclaims deference to
the First Amendment and honors the notion that we are all better off
when a wide range of proposals are aired.
The news media are allowing themselves to be co-opted by the Democrats
and Republicans into viewing campaigns solely through the prism of the
two-party system. This means that the major parties control which
issues are permitted into the debate, thus denying the public a chance
to hear proposals that might seem extreme today but could gain traction
in the future if only voters had an opportunity to consider them more
seriously. Remember, third parties have been the catalyst for many
reforms throughout American history, including the abolition of
slavery, tough child-labor laws, free public education, strong business
regulations, direct election of senators and women's suffrage.
By including more substantive coverage of third-party candidates, the
press could help open the door to innovative alternatives to old
issues. It might force the two major candidates to come off message
more often and eventually adopt the new ideas pushed by otherwise
marginalized candidates, much like the Republican Party did when it
absorbed some of Ross Perot's proposals after the 1992 election.
Part of the reason that the news media ignore most third-party
candidates is that most journalists tend to view campaigns almost
exclusively as a contest of winners and losers. The criteria by which
journalists judge candidates play to the strengths of the major parties
and set up a no-win situation for all other contenders: Third-party
candidates are not covered because they do not demonstrate public
support, but they cannot gain public support because they are not
covered by the news media.
In addition, viewing campaigns mostly as a "contest" is a mistake,
because numerous political science studies conducted over the past 50
years strongly suggest that campaigns actually have little impact on
election results.
Where campaigns really matter is in their ability to educate the public
about new ideas. Studies have shown that while voters don't always
remember the specific policy proposals of each candidate when they go
to the ballot box, they nevertheless learn enough during the course of
a campaign to make sound judgments about which path the country should
take.
What this tells us is that campaigns are about more than just the horse
race. They are a time in the nation's political life cycle when voters
consider the problems facing the country and look for a wide range of
solutions. Including minor-party candidates in this debate could infuse
new ways of looking at old issues, challenge basic political
assumptions and create avenues for new movements to challenge the
hegemony of the Democrats and Republicans.
John F. Kirch is an adjunct professor of journalism at Towson
University and the University of Maryland. His e-mail is
jfk909us@aol.com
ideas they espouse
While the news media did an effective job this year of covering the
presidential campaign between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John
McCain, the press still has a major blind spot when it comes to writing
about third-party contenders.
According to a basic LexisNexis database search of election coverage
from Aug. 5 to Nov. 5, The Washington Post and The New York Times
published a combined 3,576 news stories, editorials, op-eds,
photographs and letters to the editor about Mr. Obama and 3,205 items
about Mr. McCain. By contrast, the two dailies published only 36 items
about independent Ralph Nader, 22 about Libertarian Bob Barr, five
about Green Cynthia McKinney and three about the Constitution Party's
Chuck Baldwin.
The Baltimore Sun was not much better, publishing 384 news items about
Mr. Obama, 327 about Mr. McCain, eight about Mr. Nader, four on Mr.
Barr and two each for Ms. McKinney and Mr. Baldwin.
None of these candidates garnered more than 2 percent of the popular
vote on Election Day. But how third-party candidates are covered by the
news media is an important issue that should be taken more seriously,
given that we live in a democratic society that proclaims deference to
the First Amendment and honors the notion that we are all better off
when a wide range of proposals are aired.
The news media are allowing themselves to be co-opted by the Democrats
and Republicans into viewing campaigns solely through the prism of the
two-party system. This means that the major parties control which
issues are permitted into the debate, thus denying the public a chance
to hear proposals that might seem extreme today but could gain traction
in the future if only voters had an opportunity to consider them more
seriously. Remember, third parties have been the catalyst for many
reforms throughout American history, including the abolition of
slavery, tough child-labor laws, free public education, strong business
regulations, direct election of senators and women's suffrage.
By including more substantive coverage of third-party candidates, the
press could help open the door to innovative alternatives to old
issues. It might force the two major candidates to come off message
more often and eventually adopt the new ideas pushed by otherwise
marginalized candidates, much like the Republican Party did when it
absorbed some of Ross Perot's proposals after the 1992 election.
Part of the reason that the news media ignore most third-party
candidates is that most journalists tend to view campaigns almost
exclusively as a contest of winners and losers. The criteria by which
journalists judge candidates play to the strengths of the major parties
and set up a no-win situation for all other contenders: Third-party
candidates are not covered because they do not demonstrate public
support, but they cannot gain public support because they are not
covered by the news media.
In addition, viewing campaigns mostly as a "contest" is a mistake,
because numerous political science studies conducted over the past 50
years strongly suggest that campaigns actually have little impact on
election results.
Where campaigns really matter is in their ability to educate the public
about new ideas. Studies have shown that while voters don't always
remember the specific policy proposals of each candidate when they go
to the ballot box, they nevertheless learn enough during the course of
a campaign to make sound judgments about which path the country should
take.
What this tells us is that campaigns are about more than just the horse
race. They are a time in the nation's political life cycle when voters
consider the problems facing the country and look for a wide range of
solutions. Including minor-party candidates in this debate could infuse
new ways of looking at old issues, challenge basic political
assumptions and create avenues for new movements to challenge the
hegemony of the Democrats and Republicans.
John F. Kirch is an adjunct professor of journalism at Towson
University and the University of Maryland. His e-mail is
jfk909us@aol.com
Monday, November 10, 2008
A Response To Brian Mann
This entry is a response to Brian Mann, "Ralph Nader manages To Be Relevant Again, Sort Of"
http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/blogs/ballotbox/blogger.php
Brian, as always I find it very disturbing that much of your argument as a Democrat is simply based on the feeling that if I and others could not vote for Ralph Nader, we would vote for the Democrat's corporate prole instead.
Just in case there is any doubt in your mind, we would NEVER do so. Simply can't see the margin in it. I don't ever vote for the two war parties' candidates regardless of which side of the fake aisle they pretend they're on. Not ever.
I also take great umbrage at the constant labeling of "Naderites" as "fans". We are not "fans". We are SUPPORTERS. We support Ralph's platform. I came to see things in a very similar common sense way to Nader long before I really knew much about him or knew him which I do). That's something I find that most Nader SUPPORTERS have in common and do not share with our two-party brethren. We are not followers. We can all articulate our viewpoints and argue them. I resist the urge to call Democrats "Obamaniacs" (regardless of the temptation) so please give us a little more credit than that. I see far less substance on your chosen side of the aisle than on mine.
All that aside, part of the Democrats' mantra is that great damage can only be done by Republicans. This is patently ridiculous. Bill Clinton waged a daily bombing war against the civilian population of Iraq and starved a million children to death there. He destroyed our manufacturing base by pushing NAFTA through (a corporate Republican enslavement plan that the Reaganites couldn't get through congress even when they had a majority). He passed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and Workfare.
Clinton failed to get us meaningful health care (that's why he had is wife spearhead it, so the "failure" would be attached to her). Its no accident that she became the second highest recipient of HMO and Big Pharma money in history.
I could go on for days but the basic point is this; Obama is NOT different than the Clintons and Bush is not Satan. He's just another smarmy blue blood fleecing the public without style or grace. Democrats are no longer different than Republicans. Our new president ill simply take on the mantle of CEO of USA Inc.
He will keep us at war and occupation in the Middle East for the same reasons that we went in the first place, control of oil and the military industrial complex's need for bloodshed to feed its constantly gaping maw.
We will not have single payer health care. We will have mandatory HMO care at twice the price of any modern country.
We will see no living wage passed at the federal level.
We will see more socialism. Not the kind where Rush and the John Birchers run around screaming that "Obama is a commie" but the REAL kind where $700 billion is given to Wall Street speculators for no good reason anyone can think of at the expense of those who work for a living. Socialism for the rich. Capitalism for the poor.
Clean energy? Where was that during this campaign? Clean COAL? SAFE nukes? We will not see wind and solar developed along with a national energy job creation plan which is what we need NOW.
Democrats like to say that Bush is the devil and that Gore would have been better. You know Gore, the "environmental hero" who should be best known for never doing anything for the environment in his entire political career but who is instead known for his little enviro-movie (he should primarily be known as the guy who refused to fight for the rights of 57,000 disenfranchised black voters in Florida in 2000). We all know that Gore never would have gone to war in Iraq even though exactly the same conscienceless corporations run him that ran Bush. Says who?
Democrats love to say that John Kerry (the guy who had a draft on his 2004 campaign website and who voted for all the wars Bush has spearheaded) would have been a much better president and would have gotten us out of Iraq. From his Senate record, I see absolutely NO evidence of this at all.
My own feeling is that Democrats are happy to support COVERT fascism but like to stop short of those crazy Republicans and their OVERT fascism.
I am not any better off having an intellectual articulate a case for war than I am when a simpleton does it. Either way, it kills children. I do not choose either.
I choose common sense. I choose Nader. It is a matter of principle as you say BUT in NY, and in 39 other states, it is also the only position that makes ANY sense if one understands the electoral college. Why vote for either type of fascism in a SAFE STATE? Where's the margin in that? How is this a success? It is the poster child for throwing your vote away!
That said, Nader did NOT call Obama an "Uncle Tom". he said that Obama now had to choose between being an "Uncle Sam" for the American people or an "Uncle Tom" for the corporations that put him in office. Big difference but thats what you get for watching Fox News and taking things out of context.
Lets revisit this in a year when we're still in Iraq, we've seen another bailout and are still without health care. Lets talk about what kind of "Uncle" you think Obama is then. ;-)
Peace,
Matt
P.S. Remember Molly Ivins; "You gotta dance with those what brung ya". Obama received more money from Corporate America than any president in history. Who do you think he'll be dancing with?
http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/blogs/ballotbox/blogger.php
Brian, as always I find it very disturbing that much of your argument as a Democrat is simply based on the feeling that if I and others could not vote for Ralph Nader, we would vote for the Democrat's corporate prole instead.
Just in case there is any doubt in your mind, we would NEVER do so. Simply can't see the margin in it. I don't ever vote for the two war parties' candidates regardless of which side of the fake aisle they pretend they're on. Not ever.
I also take great umbrage at the constant labeling of "Naderites" as "fans". We are not "fans". We are SUPPORTERS. We support Ralph's platform. I came to see things in a very similar common sense way to Nader long before I really knew much about him or knew him which I do). That's something I find that most Nader SUPPORTERS have in common and do not share with our two-party brethren. We are not followers. We can all articulate our viewpoints and argue them. I resist the urge to call Democrats "Obamaniacs" (regardless of the temptation) so please give us a little more credit than that. I see far less substance on your chosen side of the aisle than on mine.
All that aside, part of the Democrats' mantra is that great damage can only be done by Republicans. This is patently ridiculous. Bill Clinton waged a daily bombing war against the civilian population of Iraq and starved a million children to death there. He destroyed our manufacturing base by pushing NAFTA through (a corporate Republican enslavement plan that the Reaganites couldn't get through congress even when they had a majority). He passed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and Workfare.
Clinton failed to get us meaningful health care (that's why he had is wife spearhead it, so the "failure" would be attached to her). Its no accident that she became the second highest recipient of HMO and Big Pharma money in history.
I could go on for days but the basic point is this; Obama is NOT different than the Clintons and Bush is not Satan. He's just another smarmy blue blood fleecing the public without style or grace. Democrats are no longer different than Republicans. Our new president ill simply take on the mantle of CEO of USA Inc.
He will keep us at war and occupation in the Middle East for the same reasons that we went in the first place, control of oil and the military industrial complex's need for bloodshed to feed its constantly gaping maw.
We will not have single payer health care. We will have mandatory HMO care at twice the price of any modern country.
We will see no living wage passed at the federal level.
We will see more socialism. Not the kind where Rush and the John Birchers run around screaming that "Obama is a commie" but the REAL kind where $700 billion is given to Wall Street speculators for no good reason anyone can think of at the expense of those who work for a living. Socialism for the rich. Capitalism for the poor.
Clean energy? Where was that during this campaign? Clean COAL? SAFE nukes? We will not see wind and solar developed along with a national energy job creation plan which is what we need NOW.
Democrats like to say that Bush is the devil and that Gore would have been better. You know Gore, the "environmental hero" who should be best known for never doing anything for the environment in his entire political career but who is instead known for his little enviro-movie (he should primarily be known as the guy who refused to fight for the rights of 57,000 disenfranchised black voters in Florida in 2000). We all know that Gore never would have gone to war in Iraq even though exactly the same conscienceless corporations run him that ran Bush. Says who?
Democrats love to say that John Kerry (the guy who had a draft on his 2004 campaign website and who voted for all the wars Bush has spearheaded) would have been a much better president and would have gotten us out of Iraq. From his Senate record, I see absolutely NO evidence of this at all.
My own feeling is that Democrats are happy to support COVERT fascism but like to stop short of those crazy Republicans and their OVERT fascism.
I am not any better off having an intellectual articulate a case for war than I am when a simpleton does it. Either way, it kills children. I do not choose either.
I choose common sense. I choose Nader. It is a matter of principle as you say BUT in NY, and in 39 other states, it is also the only position that makes ANY sense if one understands the electoral college. Why vote for either type of fascism in a SAFE STATE? Where's the margin in that? How is this a success? It is the poster child for throwing your vote away!
That said, Nader did NOT call Obama an "Uncle Tom". he said that Obama now had to choose between being an "Uncle Sam" for the American people or an "Uncle Tom" for the corporations that put him in office. Big difference but thats what you get for watching Fox News and taking things out of context.
Lets revisit this in a year when we're still in Iraq, we've seen another bailout and are still without health care. Lets talk about what kind of "Uncle" you think Obama is then. ;-)
Peace,
Matt
P.S. Remember Molly Ivins; "You gotta dance with those what brung ya". Obama received more money from Corporate America than any president in history. Who do you think he'll be dancing with?
Sunday, November 9, 2008
New York Times (like you've NEVER seen before)
This beautiful issue of the NY Times says it all to those who voted Obama and chose to "believe" that he will be markedly different than the death merchants from the other side of the aisle.
http://www.nytimes-se.com/
A million copies of this paper were printed and handed out on the streets of New York. It is believed to be the work of the Yes Men (from RPI, the people behind WhirlMart and some great pranks and hoaxes on mainstream media).
Warning: Reading this might make some people wish that instead of a visit to the "Church" of Obama to practice their faith, they had instead made a trip to the "Library" of Ralph Nader or Ron Paul in an attempt to practice their analytical skills!
http://www.nytimes-se.com/
A million copies of this paper were printed and handed out on the streets of New York. It is believed to be the work of the Yes Men (from RPI, the people behind WhirlMart and some great pranks and hoaxes on mainstream media).
Warning: Reading this might make some people wish that instead of a visit to the "Church" of Obama to practice their faith, they had instead made a trip to the "Library" of Ralph Nader or Ron Paul in an attempt to practice their analytical skills!
Thursday, October 9, 2008
He's not on TV! He's not in your local paper! See Ralph Nader live in Albany this Thursday!
Come see Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader live in Albany this coming Thursday!
Did you know there are SIX candidates on the NYS ballot November?
Lets not just accept the two choices corporate America is comfortable feeding us.
Nader was against the bailouts and is against corporate welfare!
He is absolutely in favor of Single Payer Health Care!
He will get us out of Iraq immediately!
He is for alternative and sustainable energy (like solar and wind)!
He's on the ballot in 45 states and is being virtually ignored by all corporate media (Fox, Clearchannel, NPR & the N.Y. Times alike)!
Nader has been shut out of the debates!
Celebrate democracy by coming to see the people's candidate speak live in Albany! See you there!
Thurs. Oct. 16th, 7:30pm
Nader/Gonzalez Rally
The Egg
Empire State Plaza (Albany NY)
Suggested Contribution: $10/$5 students
Nader/Gonzalez Rally
The Egg
Empire State Plaza (Albany NY)
Suggested Contribution: $10/$5 students
More info:
Matt Funiciello
518-793-0075
518-463-8653
Albanygreens@yahoo.com
Albanygreens@yahoo.com
Friday, August 15, 2008
Michael Moore - Hardly a Progressive Thinker
Michael Moore's most recent piece is "How the Democrats Can Blow It" (see it at "alternet.org" or at Moore's webiste). In it, he says that Dems should not demean McCain if they wish Obama to win. Moore calls Republican tactics like "swiftboating" a "cesspool" that "they swim in". At the end of this diatribe, he casually refers to Nader-supporters as "crazy".
How does Moore expect anyone to take him seriously? The attacks on Obama have been no better and no worse than what has been done to Nader by Moore's own precious party, the Demoncrats. Scurrilous attacks are scurrilous attacks regardless of where they come from.
Calling people who HAVE spines and who work for democracy, peace, single-payer health care and sustainable energy "crazy" people is not a particularly effective way to win them over.
Every time this porcine "progressive" speaks of his ex-patron in such disrespectful terms, I am saddened to see so many absorb his bilious effluent.
Moore's worst crime against the truth is his own "swift-boating" of Nader insofar as the 2000 election is concerned. He does it subtly at the end of this piece. This propaganda is every bit as bad as anything the right has thrown at Obama. In a way, its worse because Obama has access to corporate media to respond whereas Nader has no reasonable access.
Here are some facts about 2000 that people may use to better judge Moore's own "cesspool tactics":
1) There were TEN candidates on the ballot in Florida in 2000 (six other candidates beside Bush, Gore, Nader and Buchanan). They ALL exceeded the magic vote total of 537. Using Demologic, this makes them ALL "spoilers"! Can you name even one of these "bastards who gave us Bush"? Do you know one of these "egomaniacs who handed it to the neo-cons"? Have you thanked any of these candidates (besides Ralph) for "destroying our country"? Why was Ralph the ONLY one singled out by the corporate media and unprincipled Demoncrat operatives like Moore? Anyone who frightens the little sissies in the corporate media that much must be having quite an impact.
2) Gore refused to fight for 57,000 black voters who were illegally disenfranchised by the Bush machine in Florida. Thats roughly 106 times more votes than he would have needed to reverse the results of the election! In "Fahrenheit 9/11" we actually see Al Gore banging his little gavel, refusing to hear the pleas of black congressional reps fighting for their constituents. Is Al Gore a) a racist; b) a scumbag: or c) just a dumb f*ck?
3) Nationally, in 2000, EIGHT MILLION Democrats voted for GEORGE W BUSH! Only about 700,000 Dems pulled the lever for Ralph. Why don't these idiots clean up their own pro-war yard before yelling at us about ours?
4) I have a spine so I vote on principle. I understand those who SAY they vote for Democrats "strategically" (thats French for "without spine"). But, those who say this seem painfully unaware that there are 39 safe states, places where even sheep farmers from "Shane" would be voting independent or third party. A vote for either corporate puppet in these states is the poster child for "throwing your vote away".
Moore backed Nader without reservation in 2000, He has NEVER explained why he betrayed us and joined the fake left. He continues to suggest that Bush is Nader's fault. Bush is AMERICA'S fault. Michael, and it is high time you stop trying to pin it on a guy who has spent his entire life fighting battles on our behalf.
The 2006 "transition" shows us exactly what to expect when voters are dumb enough to trust the Democrats! Nothing. Nader supporters are not the crazy ones. We want democracy and we are willing to work at it for as long as it takes. We don't support candidates who accept corporate money. It may take several decades for the mainstream to grok this, but as long as we're out here fighting a TRULY principled battle, we will eventually win. Democrats lose ... even when their candidates win.
How does Moore expect anyone to take him seriously? The attacks on Obama have been no better and no worse than what has been done to Nader by Moore's own precious party, the Demoncrats. Scurrilous attacks are scurrilous attacks regardless of where they come from.
Calling people who HAVE spines and who work for democracy, peace, single-payer health care and sustainable energy "crazy" people is not a particularly effective way to win them over.
Every time this porcine "progressive" speaks of his ex-patron in such disrespectful terms, I am saddened to see so many absorb his bilious effluent.
Moore's worst crime against the truth is his own "swift-boating" of Nader insofar as the 2000 election is concerned. He does it subtly at the end of this piece. This propaganda is every bit as bad as anything the right has thrown at Obama. In a way, its worse because Obama has access to corporate media to respond whereas Nader has no reasonable access.
Here are some facts about 2000 that people may use to better judge Moore's own "cesspool tactics":
1) There were TEN candidates on the ballot in Florida in 2000 (six other candidates beside Bush, Gore, Nader and Buchanan). They ALL exceeded the magic vote total of 537. Using Demologic, this makes them ALL "spoilers"! Can you name even one of these "bastards who gave us Bush"? Do you know one of these "egomaniacs who handed it to the neo-cons"? Have you thanked any of these candidates (besides Ralph) for "destroying our country"? Why was Ralph the ONLY one singled out by the corporate media and unprincipled Demoncrat operatives like Moore? Anyone who frightens the little sissies in the corporate media that much must be having quite an impact.
2) Gore refused to fight for 57,000 black voters who were illegally disenfranchised by the Bush machine in Florida. Thats roughly 106 times more votes than he would have needed to reverse the results of the election! In "Fahrenheit 9/11" we actually see Al Gore banging his little gavel, refusing to hear the pleas of black congressional reps fighting for their constituents. Is Al Gore a) a racist; b) a scumbag: or c) just a dumb f*ck?
3) Nationally, in 2000, EIGHT MILLION Democrats voted for GEORGE W BUSH! Only about 700,000 Dems pulled the lever for Ralph. Why don't these idiots clean up their own pro-war yard before yelling at us about ours?
4) I have a spine so I vote on principle. I understand those who SAY they vote for Democrats "strategically" (thats French for "without spine"). But, those who say this seem painfully unaware that there are 39 safe states, places where even sheep farmers from "Shane" would be voting independent or third party. A vote for either corporate puppet in these states is the poster child for "throwing your vote away".
Moore backed Nader without reservation in 2000, He has NEVER explained why he betrayed us and joined the fake left. He continues to suggest that Bush is Nader's fault. Bush is AMERICA'S fault. Michael, and it is high time you stop trying to pin it on a guy who has spent his entire life fighting battles on our behalf.
The 2006 "transition" shows us exactly what to expect when voters are dumb enough to trust the Democrats! Nothing. Nader supporters are not the crazy ones. We want democracy and we are willing to work at it for as long as it takes. We don't support candidates who accept corporate money. It may take several decades for the mainstream to grok this, but as long as we're out here fighting a TRULY principled battle, we will eventually win. Democrats lose ... even when their candidates win.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Using Tax Money To Kill Democracy!
If you consider yourself knowledgeable about politics and you believe there is a special place in Hell for those who sabotage our elections, you just may want to read up on these lesser known culprits doing that evil work right next door in Pennsylvania. Not all "theft of democracy" occurs in Florida and Ohio and not all of it is sponsored by the Republicans. Interesting stuff!
Pa. Statehouse scandal cited in Sen. ballot case
PETER JACKSON
The Associated Press
The Philadelphia Inquirer, July 16, 2008
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/pennsylvania/20080716_ap_pastatehousescandalcitedinsenballotcase.html
HARRISBURG, Pa. - A former Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate on Wednesday asked the state's highest court to reopen his two-year-old ballot-access case because state legislative officials arrested last week on corruption charges were allegedly involved in the challenge that knocked him out of the race.
Carl Romanelli, once regarded as a threat to Democrat Bob Casey in the 2006 Senate race, and his lawyer, Lawrence Otter, want the case sent back to Commonwealth Court. There, they plan to ask a judge to dismiss a ruling requiring them to pay more than $80,000 in legal costs.
Romanelli and Otter cite grand jury allegations that state House Democratic caucus operatives directed as many as 30 taxpayer-paid employees to review signatures on Romanelli's petition in the ballot challenge that killed his candidacy.
"A democratic society can no longer function if the government is going to support candidates and suppress other candidates using its funds and resources," Samuel Stretton, the attorney for Romanelli and Otter, wrote in Wednesday's filing in the state Supreme Court.
Casey, a son of the late governor, won the election over Rick Santorum, then the third-ranking Republican in the Senate.
A Casey spokesman said the senator was not aware of any illegal activity surrounding the Romanelli ballot challenge.
"There was never any indication ... about anything like this going on," said the spokesman, Larry Smar.
In a similar challenge that prevented Ralph Nader from running in Pennsylvania as an independent presidential candidate in 2004, the grand jury alleged that as many as 50 House Democratic staffers invested "a staggering number of man-hours" in efforts to block his candidacy.
The state Supreme Court ordered Nader and running mate Peter Miguel Camejo to pay $81,000 in legal costs of the voters who challenged his signatures , a judgment that Nader is contesting in the District of Columbia courts.
Nader's lawyer, Oliver Hall, said he is weighing whether to raise the Pennsylvania corruption case in that litigation.
"We are going to aggressively pursue every avenue to oppose this judgment," Hall said. "It now appears to be clear that (the judgment) is the result of a criminal conspiracy."
State Attorney General Tom Corbett's office last week charged each of the 12 defendants with theft, conspiracy and conflicts of interest counts in an alleged wide-ranging scheme to use taxpayer-funded employees, equipment and other resources to advance their political interests.
The defendants include former Rep. Michael Veon of Beaver County, the No. 2 Democratic leader until he was ousted in the 2006 election; Mike Manzo, the former chief of staff to House Democratic Leader Bill DeWeese, who has not been charged; and one sitting legislator, Rep. Sean Ramaley, D-Beaver. All the defendants are free on bail. Veon, Manzo and Ramaley have said they are innocent.
The ballot challenges left Nader and Romanelli, a railroad consultant who had been making his first bid for statewide political office, thousands of signatures shy of the number needed to qualify for their respective ballots.
Eleven Commonwealth Court judges were involved in examining Nader's petitions. Nearly two-thirds of his signatures were declared invalid, and the presiding judge cited widespread evidence of fraud that "shocks the conscience."
Democratic strategists regarded both Romanelli and Nader as spoilers who would siphon votes from the Democrats in those races.
Smar noted that Santorum's supporters provided most of the financing for Romanelli's signature-gathering effort.
"Nothing changes the fact that his signatures were invalid," said Smar.
Part of the reason for the monetary judgment against Romanelli and his lawyer was that they lacked the resources to defend themselves against the ballot challenge, Stretton said.
For example, some days they failed to muster the nine representatives that the judge wanted from each side. The Democratic State Committee, which mounted the challenge, consistently had the requisite number, he said.
"If there are going to be any fines and costs, they should be reserved for those who misused government offices and taxpayer funds in mounting this challenge," he wrote in the latest filing.
Bumped off ballot, Green Party candidate goes to court
By Tracie Mauriello
Post-Gazette (Pittsburgh), July 17, 2008
http://www.post-gazette.com
HARRISBURG -- A third-party congressional candidate filed a court petition yesterday saying he had been bumped from the ballot based on illegal work done by Harrisburg Democratic staffers who were arrested last week on corruption charges.
Carl Romanelli, a Green Party candidate in the 2006 U.S. Senate race, is asking the state Supreme Court to dismiss a ruling requiring him to pay $80,408 in legal costs incurred during his fight to stay on the ballot. He was bumped from the ballot after numerous signatures on his nominating petitions were challenged as invalid.
A grand jury presentment last week included evidence that those signature challenges were based on work by dozens of Democratic House employees while they were on the clock and being paid with tax dollars.
The grand jury found that staffers were similarly involved in an effort to remove former presidential candidate Ralph Nader from the 2004 ballot.
"The use of government monies to sponsor or support a candidate and/or challenge another candidate is absolutely dreadful and impermissible and a total violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution," attorney Samuel C. Stretton wrote in the petition filed yesterday on behalf of Mr. Romanelli and Larry Otter, an attorney who had represented Mr. Romanelli during the petition challenges. "A Democratic society can no longer function if the government is going to support candidates and suppress other candidates using its funds and resources."
Mr. Romanelli had been viewed as a potential spoiler who could draw votes away from Democrat Bob Casey Jr. during his 2006 race against longtime Republican Sen. Rick Santorum.
Mr. Casey's spokesman Larry Smar said he was "absolutely unaware" that legislative staffers had been put to work challenging petition signatures on the senator's behalf.
"We absolutely had no idea any of this was going on," he said. "But, as far as the ballot challenge, the names on the Romanelli petitions were still invalid, no matter what took place."
Mr. Nader and running mate Peter Camejo were seen as potential spoilers in the 2004 presidential race. House Democratic staffers were involved in petition challenges that got them removed from the ballot and assessed $81,000 in court costs in Pennsylvania.
"It seems clear that the judgment [against Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo] was related to conduct set forth in the presentment and, for that reason, we think it is the ill-gotten fruit of a criminal conspiracy and cannot be enforced," said Nader attorney Oliver Hall. The presentment "clearly shows you have 50 state employees who are marshaled into service by a political party for the purpose of suppressing voter choice in a federal election by forcing a candidate off the ballot."
Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo have not yet paid the $81,000 and have not decided whether to ask the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to remand the case, as Mr. Romanelli has.
Among those charged in the grand jury investigation were former House Minority Whip Mike Veon, D-Beaver Falls; Rep. Sean Ramaley, D-Economy, and Michael Manzo, former chief of staff to Democratic Leader Bill DeWeese of Waynesburg.
Tracie Mauriello can be reached at tmauriello@post-gazette.com or 717-787-2141.
Letters: One Reader's View
Investigate sabotage of Nader efforts
Philadelphia Inquirer, July 17, 2008
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080717_Letters__One_Reader_s_View.html
It is unfortunate that Pennsylvania Democratic Party spokesman Abe Amoros used the criminal indictment of 12 prominent Pennsylvania Democrats as an occasion, once again, to defame 2004 independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader and 2006 Green Party senatorial candidate Carl Romanelli ("National tie to Pa. bonus scandal," July 15).
As Amoros should know, only a tiny number of signatures on the Nader petitions - 687 or 1.3 percent of the total - were counted as "forgeries" by their signers, and in the words of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Thomas Saylor, there is "no evidence" to support Democrats' claims that the Nader campaign was even aware of such signatures. Furthermore, no allegation of fraud was ever raised against Romanelli's petitions.
There is, however, evidence that the Nader petitions were the target of widespread and deliberate sabotage: specifically, petition circulators discovered and removed about 7,000 obviously fake signatures prior to submitting the petitions.
Attorney General Tom Corbett should make it a priority to discover who was behind this unlawful conduct, and to clarify the role of the law firm mentioned in the indictment, which helped perpetrate the miscarriage of justice that denied Pennsylvanians their free choice of candidates in the 2004 presidential election.
Oliver Hall
Counsel to Ralph Nader
Washington
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Rush Limbaugh's On Welfare!
You just gotta love this! Ralph Nader just wrote Rush Limbaugh asking why he doesn't offer to pay for his use of the public airwaves with which he generates millions in profits for himself every year giving nothing back to the people who make it possible. He asks, is this not "welfare", which "conservatives" purport to despise?
Friday, July 4, 2008
Death Row Journalist On Ralph Nader and Obama
Mumia Abu-Jamal talks about Nader and Obama and the "talk white" remarks from his journalistic pulpit on Death Row.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Obama Says He'll Debate Nader!
I was just driving to work and listening to WAMC. Senator Harry Reid was on talking about how healthy he felt the Democratic Party "debates" were for the country. He was also making all the usual excuses for why the Democrats weren't fighting for the agenda of those who elected them in 2006. I couldn't help but be disgusted. The "debates" have simply been he said/she said battles between the two Democratic Senators whose views are fairly similar. I want debates but I certainly don't want 21 photo-ops between two people who basically agree on everything and thats what I've seen thus far.
Am I wrong to want substantive criticism and discussion of each candidate's "health care" plan? Is it really weird that I want a moderator to ask these empty corporate heads why, in the name of God, they and their party don't support Single Payer Health Care? I want discussion of why universal health care that is half the price we currently pay isn't even on the table. Is it really so strange that I would like to hear an actual discussion of the subtle differences between staying in Iraq for "a few more years" or "until 2011" or "until the job is done". Whatever happened to the whole "I am against this war", "Lets get the Hell out right now!" position? Which one of these pro-war candidates has a plan for peace and which one will bomb Iran as soon as they can? I want to know why nuclear power and big coal support both candidates even though each one claims to support "alternative, sustainable" energy? ets have some details about their individual policies to resolve America's energy crisis and self-created carbon emission troubles. Lets have a debate where they each discuss the mechanics of HOW their plans (for anything) will work!
Obama settled my mind somewhat recently when he said that he would debate Ralph Nader. The Nader Campaign sent this (tongue in cheek) email out (I've posted it below and you can also check it out online at "votenader.org"). If Obama really would debate Ralph, I would send him a check and a letter supporting his democratic principle. I really would. I wonder, though, should Obama become the candidate in the general election and then refuse to make good on his promise (or even mention it) .... How many Obama supporters will see the light and send Ralph a check and a letter? ;-)
Friday, May 9, 2008
Nader and Gonzalez on WAMC
Saturday, May 3, 2008
The ComPost-Star Defends Its Two-Party Bias
Our "local" corporate paper is the Glens Falls Post-Star. Its owned by the publishing empire known as Lee Enterprises who currently own 51 dailies across the country. As with many small corporate papers, the Post-Star doesn't do a terrible job with local news and many good people (including some friends) work there. However, they have a monopoly in our little town and are widely hated for their bias and lack of integrity by most people I come across (regardless of their individual politics).
The P-S buried their recent advance story on Ralph Nader's April 26th visit to our little town. It was carefully placed on page B7 in Saturday's paper (which few people read). When I got them an actual interview with Ralph, hoping they would do something front page or at least, more substantive, they did do a tiny bit better, giving him a small right hand sidebar story on page B1 with a tiny photo. As for coverage of the actual event, they only came to the fundraising dinner and not to the public Wood Theater event. We had about 225 people come out to see him. There was a lengthy standing ovation and there were four TV stations there (the local Time Warner and NBC affiliates covered it). There were three other videographers and six print journalists there from different papers (indie and otherwise). The Post-Star printed a little story on the visit on Sunday and had their anonymous an cowardly sniper, Don Coyote ("Dumb Coyote"), tell us all on the front page, "No wonder way more people went to see Rachael Ray than Ralph Nader. He didn't even have an ice sculpture." (Rachael Ray was in Lake George, her hometown, that same night, at a annual fundraiser she holds at at her alma mater, Lake George High School.)
What would it be like if Ralph made a living hawking Dunkin Donuts on TV instead of working tirelessly on our behalf? Would he then warrant some substantive coverage in the Post-Star's
precious little pages? Is that what it really takes to get on their "radar" and to earn their respect? You've got to be on TV selling crap? I can easily imagine that Miley Cyrus is the editorial staff's favorite singer (they've likely never heard of KD Lang or Lyle Lovett or Blue Rodeo, those people aren't on TV often enough to be "relevant" singers). I bet McDonald's is their favorite restaurant ("Aw shucks, them burgers is on the tube all the time, dude!). These are not people one could accuse of being too bright and they control the mainstream's access to information!
Apparently, they have never heard of journalism or substance or truth. They are so caught up in their bullshit TV world, they have lost the ability to focus on things that actually matter.
Since then, their lack of coverage has caused the story on the dinner to be the "Most Commented" on their website. Check it out.
The editorial staff have also regularly responded to online criticisms of their biased coverage (or non-coverage in many cases) by attacking me or the others who make note of their criminal behavior. John Thomas had a great letter to the editor published about the Post Star's pathetic behavior (I've copied it below). They responded (as always, using anonymity) with an "Editor's Note" saying that they had given "ample" coverage to Ralph. They also said this to me in an anonymous editor's note ... "Just declaring yourself a presidential candidate doesn't automatically make you equal to the others. If McCain, Clinton or Obama came to Glens Falls, our readers would be expecting, and we would be giving them, much more coverage than Nader. That has nothing to do with the "corporate media" junk you keep throwing out. It's common sense. Any other paper, big or small, corporate or privately owned, would do the exact same thing."
Amazing! All I can think of is that old adage we have all heard many times over the millennia, "If little Mikey jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you do it, too?"
Apparently the Post Star management will follow their corporate media "leaders" right off the bridge. Their God, the mighty Boob Tube, can do no wrong. Sad little people ... all of them. If the many other media mechanisms we often think of as more "credible" didn't also cheer lead the war, water down the issues, ignore and marginalize candidates, promote big business and parrot wire stories, I would think the Post-Star was a truly evil mechanism. Knowing that they are just following the lead of NBC and PBS and Disney and the NY Times and the Washington Post makes me feel better. If they are just stupid and easily-led ... that means there is hope for them yet! ;-)
Friday, May 2, 2008
John Thomas Writes A Letter
This is a great letter published in the Post-Star concerning their terribly sparse coverage of Ralph Nader as he visited their "hometown". Thought you might get a kick out of it. You've got to love the editor's inane comment arguing that they gave him "ample" coverage. ;-)
Nader did not get the coverage he deserves
Editor:
Attendee's at the Wood Theatre were provoked by Mr. Nader to think about the situations in our nation. Mr. Nader is a seasoned Capitol Hill activist, the American people are his constituency.
Mr. Nader offers solutions to help us out of mire we've gotten into, solutions that cost only commitment and participation in the upcoming election.
Many people will not vote, some vote the party line, some will watch exit polls, vote for projected winners; projected winners have enough votes, we have to vote our conscience.
We do not have to vote for either of the two parties, and we do not have to vote to elect the lesser of two evils. It's time to take back our streets, schools, children, censor TV shows and hobble the Internet. We are distracted from government by mindless drivel; TV, movies, Internet, trash radio and biased news reporting.
Consider -- the economy is suffering, schools are suffering, huge energy issues, and Rachael Ray gets more press in the Sunday, April 27 paper than a viable, cogent, honest and altruistic presidential candidate; none of the current three popular presidential hopefuls on their best day can make any of those claims.
What have any of them done for the American people except spend tax dollars like they were on a game show. If any of the three popular hopefuls were coming to Glens Falls, I'm sure there would have been larger coverage in the paper.
I would like to see deeper and less opinionated coverage in media than we experience. The choice to run or not run a story is critical to the integrity of the paper. The editor has license. I believe the editor also has a greater and public responsibility to go with the power of that license.
JOHN THOMAS
Hartford
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Nader's visit got ample play in our publication, including a preview story last week on his upcoming visit that included a phone interview with the candidate.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
I know that some of you have been waiting for me to write something up about Ralph Nader's visit this past weekend. I'm too tired to do it any real justice but it was great. We sold out our fund raising dinner and we had about 225 people come out to the Wood Theater to hear him speak. Media coverage was, as always, a mixed bag. One of the things Ralph said that stuck with me as both amusing and inspirational ... he was asked how he manages to be so persistent in fighting the good fight and he remarked that "My closet does not contain a white flag. I have looked for one before and there just isn't one in there!"
I think its safe to say that a good time was had by all and that we were all greatly energized by his visit and his speaking truth to power. Many thanks are due to this tireless champion for democracy and regular folk! If you are one of those crazy people who might actually want more information, check out the links that I've posted below.
I think its safe to say that a good time was had by all and that we were all greatly energized by his visit and his speaking truth to power. Many thanks are due to this tireless champion for democracy and regular folk! If you are one of those crazy people who might actually want more information, check out the links that I've posted below.
The Glens Falls Post-Star covered it. Check out the comments! His visit made the "Most Commented Story" on their online forum. Not bad for an "irrelevant old guy", huh!?
http://www.poststar.com/articles/2008/04/27/news/local/13551380.txt
http://www.poststar.com/articles/2008/04/27/news/local/13551380.txt
WNYT (Albany's NBC): http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S425804.shtml
Time Warner News 9: http://capitalnews9.com/Default.aspx?ArID=114971
Mountain Lake PBS from Plattsburgh is doing a half hour show. I'll send it out when it's up on their site. Glens Falls TV 8 covered the event as well.
This is a podcast of Ralph and Matt Gonzalez on WAMC's Roundtable:
This is a wonderful Vox Pop that Brian Shields did with Ralph for WAMC. http://www.wamc.org/prog-voxpop-archive.html
Me on the Libertarian Show "Capitol Outsider" talking about Ralph, the Greens and activism.
For information directly from the man himself, check out:
Hudson-Mohawk Independent Media Center filmed the whole thing. Expect a DVD of the event in the near future, I'm sure. The Glens Falls Chronicle did a great advance piece but are not available on line. The Hill Country Observer will also cover it in May's edition. Watch for it.
If you're in the mood for a good laugh, check these articles out about Hillary running as an independent ("Hillary Is the New Ralph Nader").
http://uspolitics.einnews.com/article.php?nid=461158
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Nader On Vox Pop Thursday at 2pm
Thursday afternoon, whether you appreciate and support Ralph Nader's political battle or not, you will have an opportunity to engage him directly on WAMC's Vox Pop. There are still a few tickets left for the fundraising dinner in Glens Falls and there are also tickets left to see Ralph at the Wood Theater this weekend.
RALPH NADER WAMC's Vox Pop Thursday 2:00 - 3:00 pm Call-In # 800-348-2551
Fundraising Dinner With RALPH NADER, Independent Presidential Candidate Sat. April 26th 6:00 pm
Rock Hill Cafe Glens Falls $100 Contribution to Nader/Gonzalez 2008
Crusader, consumer advocate, professional citizen and presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, returns to Hometown USA to eat some great vegetarian food and share some wisdom. He is working to get on the ballot in every state and is the only candidate who will visit each state at least once during his campaign (the others focus on swing and battleground states and spend very little time with voters away in safe states far from their precious TV cameras). Nader is the only candidate who is for universal single-payer health care. He will end the war and bring our troops home now (not in five years, not in a hundred years, now). He is the only one who will fund meaningful and sustainable energy policy. He is the only one who will end corporate sponsorship of our totally corrupted electoral process. Here's your chance to meet a legendary figure as he inspires us to save our democracy from corporate takeover (before it is too late). Tickets available at Rock Hill Cafe in downtown Glens Falls or by phone (518) 793-0075. The minimum contribution per attendee is $100 and these tickets include seating at the Wood Theater event as well. All proceeds benefit Nader/Gonzalez 2008.
Crusader, consumer advocate, professional citizen and presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, returns to Hometown USA to eat some great vegetarian food and share some wisdom. He is working to get on the ballot in every state and is the only candidate who will visit each state at least once during his campaign (the others focus on swing and battleground states and spend very little time with voters away in safe states far from their precious TV cameras). Nader is the only candidate who is for universal single-payer health care. He will end the war and bring our troops home now (not in five years, not in a hundred years, now). He is the only one who will fund meaningful and sustainable energy policy. He is the only one who will end corporate sponsorship of our totally corrupted electoral process. Here's your chance to meet a legendary figure as he inspires us to save our democracy from corporate takeover (before it is too late). Tickets available at Rock Hill Cafe in downtown Glens Falls or by phone (518) 793-0075. The minimum contribution per attendee is $100 and these tickets include seating at the Wood Theater event as well. All proceeds benefit Nader/Gonzalez 2008.
RALPH NADER at the Wood Theater in Glens Falls Sat. April 26th 8:00 pm
C.R. Wood Theater 207 Glen Street Glens Falls $25 Contribution to Nader/Gonzalez 2008
Hudson Mohawk Independent Media Center has released a great new film, "Awake From Your Slumber". Their short film (28 minutes) shows footage of Patti Smith and Ralph Nader in Albany for the Democracy Rising tour (Smith's poetry and music mixed with Ralph's spoken word and still shots of the true cost of the war in Iraq make this a must-see). Ralph Nader will then speak for about an hour and there will be a question and answer session, as well. Tickets are available at Rock Hill Cafe in downtown Glens Falls or by phone (518) 793-0075. The minimum contribution is $25 per ticket with all proceeds to benefit Nader/Gonzalez 2008. Refreshments will be served in the lobby by Rock Hill Cafe with donations collected for the Sanctuary for Independent Media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
