Showing posts with label mainstream media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mainstream media. Show all posts

June 30, 2008

Ralph Nader is now being attacked as a racist for pointing out the obvious - that Obamarama is NOT a populist at all. He is getting some lamestream media attention for stating the TRUTH.

Meanwhile, although Ralph, who has done enormous good for all people, is being called racist. They forget about his support of Winona LaDuke!

Many progressives in America who support the Bill of Rights, are now sending their dollars to Ralph! Go, Ralph, Go! (And Cynthia M., too !)

Hard to tell what will happen before the US elections, but you can be sure it will prove "interesting" !!

Veeger

June 30, 2008
www.votenader.org
www.officialnaderstore.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Chris Driscoll, 202-360-3273, chris@votenader.org
IL Contact: Christina Tobin: 312-320-4101

THE NADER/GONZALEZ CAMPAIGN DECLARES BALLOT VICTORY IN ILLINOIS

The Nader/Gonzalez independent presidential campaign will be on the Illinois ballot in the November election. The campaign submitted more than 50,000 signatures to the Illinois Board of Elections on Monday June 23, far surpassing the required 25,000. Under Illinois law, upon submitting signatures for ballot access, other parties have 1 week to challenge those signatures. That 1-week period has now passed and no party has challenged the Nader/Gonzalez signatures.

This is good news for voters who want more choice and the opportunity to vote for an anti-war candidate in November.

Illinois marks the third state where Nader/Gonzalez will be on the ballot in 2008, but did not qualify in 2004. Arizona and Hawaii are the other two. Presently, the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign has seven teams in seven states collecting signatures for ballot access. Sunday, on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Mr. Nader announced his campaign will be on the ballot in 45 states.

In 2004 the Democratic Party and their allies initiated frivolous lawsuits aimed at keeping the Nader/Camejo ticket off the ballots in 18 states, denying voters the choice of an Independent candidacy for President and Vice President. In 2008 the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign is cautioning the Democratic Party not to misuse the court system with baseless political challenges and to honor the will of the people for more choices on the ballot.

- End -

May 07, 2008

The Hill's report on the 2008 dem candidates as fo today

Backs turn on Clinton

Posted: 05/07/08 07:57 PM [ET]

The tide turned against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) on Capitol Hill Wednesday, as even some of her supporters said she should consider ending her White House bid.

Some uncommitted Democratic superdelegates refused to meet with the beleaguered candidate when her campaign approached them in the hope of wooing them. Reps. Brad Miller (N.C.) and Lincoln Davis (Tenn.) said they were invited to meet Clinton but declined to attend.



Nevertheless, Clinton’s campaign pushed back hard against growing sentiment that she cannot win the nomination.

The senator scheduled meetings to woo superdelegates and at least forestall them from endorsing Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Most pro-Clinton lawmakers clung to the disappearing hope that she could pull off a come-from-behind victory.
One, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), invoked the image of a quarterback with just enough time for a final 90-yard drive for the winning score, saying, “We’ve got to play the fourth quarter.”

But uncommitted superdelegates such as Miller say they now expect Obama to win the nomination.

The sense of inevitability led some Clinton backers to question her continued resistance.

Rep. Dale Kildee, a Clinton supporter from Michigan, which Clinton won with 55 percent of the vote, said she should halt her campaign and carefully consider whether it makes sense to keep going.

“I urge her to take the day off and think very seriously about doing what’s best for the country and best for the party,” said Kildee.

He added, “I got straight A’s in math,” implying that Obama’s delegate lead is impossible for Clinton to overcome in the few primaries left.

Clinton is expected to fall even further behind Obama in the delegate race after losing North Carolina by 14 percentage points and only just winning Indiana by a few points.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a prominent supporter from California, which Clinton also won, said Clinton needs to explain how the nomination remains within reach and why her presidential ambition has not now become damaging to the party.

“I, as you know, have great fondness and great respect for Sen. Clinton and I’m very loyal to her,” said Feinstein. “Having said that, I’d like to talk with her and [get] her view on the rest of the race and what the strategy is.

“I think the race is reaching the point now where there are negative dividends from it, in terms of strife within the party. I think we need to prevent that as much as we can.”

The next primary contest will take place May 13 in West Virginia, where senior advisers to Clinton say she will do very well. Kentucky and Oregon will follow with primaries on May 20; Puerto Rico votes on June 1; and Montana and South Dakota hold their primaries on June 3.

Feinstein said Clinton has not yet responded to a phone call to discuss the campaign.

Members of Congress supporting Obama seized on Tuesday’s primary results to call for Clinton to end her candidacy.

“It’s obvious that the nomination process is over,” said Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), who has endorsed Obama. “I hope that she and her campaign will move forward and wrap this up.”

Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.), another Obama backer, said, “I hope she is considering it. I think it’s time for us to stand together and start attacking the position that the Republican nominee has taken.”

But there was no unanimity among undeclared superdelegates, a bloc of lawmakers whose votes have become putatively crucial to the party’s choice.

Miller stopped short of advising Clinton to drop out. But he said Tuesday’s results convinced him that Obama will be the nominee: “I expect that more strongly today than yesterday.”

Obama’s growing delegate lead means Clinton needs an overwhelming majority among superdelegates — members of Congress and other party officials — to win the nomination. Obama aides estimate that Clinton will have to win the backing of more than two-thirds of pledged delegates and undeclared superdelegates, which would be difficult.

Clinton’s allies sought a meeting late Wednesday between the candidate and neutral Democrats such as Rep. John Spratt (S.C.) and Rep. Zack Space (Ohio). But other uncommitted superdelegates such as Reps. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) and John Olver (D-Mass.) were not aware of any effort by Clinton to contact them.
Prominent Clinton supporters who declined to call for her to re-evaluate her candidacy nevertheless acknowledge she faced a tough road to the nomination.

“It’s an uphill battle,” said Rep. John Murtha (Pa.), one of the most influential Democrats in the House.

“She has to win the popular vote to convince the superdelegates to vote for her,” said Murtha, who gave Clinton crucial support before Pennsylvania’s primary. “Superdelegates will decide on the popular vote.”

Obama leads Clinton nationwide by about 700,000 votes, not counting Michigan and Florida, according to RealClearPolitics.com , a website that tracks election results. National Democratic officials invalidated the results of the Michigan and Florida primaries because they held contests on dates that violated party rules.

Counting the results from Michigan and Florida, Clinton trails Obama by only 85,000 votes or so, giving her a chance of catching him in the remaining primaries.

Several Clinton supporters said that every state deserves to vote in the primary and that withdrawing from the race now would not provide much benefit to the party.

“We should allow these primaries to be held,” said Rep. Ed Pastor (D-Ariz.).

Several neutral superdelegates agreed with these Clinton allies.

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, an uncommitted Democrat from Ohio, said her constituents have urged her to let every state finish voting.

Crystal Strait, an uncommitted superdelegate who represents the Young Democrats of America for the Democratic National Committee, said she was not moved any closer to a decision Tuesday night because she has been encouraged by the level of Democratic participation she has seen in other states.

“I want to let it play out,” Strait said. “I don’t understand the people who say that this is a problem for the Democratic Party.”

Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) who was previously uncommitted, is backing Clinton because she won his district on Tuesday.

J.Taylor Rushing contributed to this report.

Hasn't this woman done enough damage to the planet yet? What's it gonna take?

Be gone, HiLIARy, be gone! The US electoral system sure does not work in this modern age!! The Mainstream media sure SUCKS.




March 17, 2008

New Documents Reveal North American Union PR Campaign

New Documents Reveal NAU PR Campaign

Category: NAU/NAFTA/EU

Journalist acquires memos detailing secretive group's efforts to counter critics
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
New documents have been uncovered that reveal how heads of state of the U.S., Mexico and Canada are beseeching business leaders they privately meet with to launch public relations campaigns in order to counter critics of the secretive Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).

The documents detail how corporate representatives have been urged to "humanize" North American integration, promote NAFTA success stories to employees and unions and evolve the harmonization agenda "without fueling protectionism".

The documentation consists of internal memos from Canada's Foreign Affairs and Internal Trade ministry, which were obtained by the World Net Daily reporter Jerome Corsi under an Access to Information Act request.

"The text of the undated memo is an internal government summary of the third SPP summit meeting held Aug. 20-21, 2007, in Montebello Quebec," writes Corsi.

The memo details the SPP's behind closed doors inaugural meeting with the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), an advisory Council Comprised of 30 senior private sector representatives of North American corporations that were selected by the American, Canadian and Mexican governments at the June 2006 trilateral meeting in Cancun, Mexico.

The "PR offensive", as Corsi puts it, is detailed in the several paragraphs of the memo, the author of which and the persons referred to within are unknown.

Excerpts of the memo read:

"Leaders had a successful meeting with the members of the NACC, which had been launched at the leader's meeting in Cancun in March 2006, to counsel governments on how they might enhance North American competitiveness,"

"He also urged NACC members to assist in confronting and refuting critics of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP)."

"In closing, all leaders expressed a desire for the NACC to play a role in articulating publicly the benefits of greater collaboration in North America."

"Leaders discussed some of the difficulties of the SPP, including the lack of popular support and the failure of the public to understand the competitive challenges confronting North America."

"Governments are faced with addressing the rapidly evolving competitive environment without fueling protectionism, when industry sectors face radical transformation."

"In terms of building public support, President Bush suggested engaging the support of those who had benefited from NAFTA and from North American integration (including small business owners) to tell their stories and humanize the impressive results."

"NACC members should have a role in communicating the merits of North American collaboration, including by engaging their employees and unions."

The NACC is expected to meet annually with SPP ministers and will engage with senior government officials on an ongoing basis.

The media and the public are not invited to participate in or observe the meetings and the minutes of the meetings are to be kept secret.

The memo highlights how those advancing the North American integration agenda are concerned about the exposure and subsequent public backlash they have encountered recently.

The initial Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement was signed by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005. It established working groups, under the North American Free Trade Agreement office.

Jerome Corsi brought attention to the SPP two years ago when he obtained SPP documents, under the freedom of information act, showing that a wide range of US administrative law is being re-written in stealth under a program to "integrate" and "harmonize" with administrative law in Mexico and Canada, just as has become commonplace within the EU.

The documents contained references to upwards of 13 working groups within an entire organized infrastructure that has drawn from officials within most areas of administrative government including U.S. departments of State, Homeland Security, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Transportation, Energy, Health and Human Services, and the office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

More recently representatives within Congress have petitioned the government on the secretiveness of the SPP and multiple states have introduced resolutions calling on their federal representatives to halt work on the so called "North American Union".


Related: Dear Deluded Mass Media, North American Union Agenda Exists


November 29, 2007

The Pen on the FCC

There is a massive bipartisan ground swell of public opposition
building against the attempt of the FCC chairman on accelerated
notice to sneak through the most devastating decimation of media
diversity ever. Multiple groups are mobilizing around this, including
more than 10,000 submissions to the FCC and your members of Congress
from our first alert on this last week.

Stop The FCC Action Page:
http://www.usalone.com/stop_media_consolidation.php

Facebook Action Page:
http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum738

Though deliberately been rushed through to try to evade critical
analysis, it is now clear that the proposed rule changes would affect
every city and hamlet in every market, not just the 20 biggest as
deceptively advertised. It's nothing but a giant cave in to the media
moguls who have already degraded the public discourse with systematic
propaganda masquerading as news.

But the good news is that members of both sides of the aisle in
Congress are acting to stop this last minute bum rush, by bringing
forward the Media Ownership Act of 2007, to tell the FCC in no
uncertain terms, "Whoa horsey!" Please submit the action page above
so we can turn the tide on this eminently winnable struggle, just as
we did in 2003, turning back virtually the same attack by then FCC
chairman Powell.

We need to really pour it on. We need every voice we can muster to
tell our members of Congress we stand behind them as one on this, and
to tell the FCC that we the people unanimously oppose our media being
sold out to those who have sold the public interest so short.

We only have until December 11, to make our voices heard. Please
bring the weight of your personal comments to bear at this pivotal
time for the future of our public media. You can submit either of the
action pages above, the second being the new Facebook alternate
option.

OpedNews Brings Their Numbers To Join The Fight

Coming through in a major way in this mobilization is the entire
contributing writer staff at OpedNews, who have submitted seven
pieces on this policy crisis in the last couple days alone. The
articles below contain much insightful analysis and information, for
example the fact that FCC Chairman Martin has been nothing but a Bush
political hatchet man since day one, including a stint as a Bush
campaign attorney.

Please read and promote these articles of truth as well, on any
networks you participate in like Digg, Reddit and so on, to get the
word out that it's time for the people to be heard again.

Censored: Media Consolidation Debate by Steve Fournier
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steve_fo_071127_censored_3a_media_cons.htm

Cross Ownership Proposal by Kenneth Briggs
http://www.opednews.com/articles/life_a_kenneth__071127_cross_ownership_prop.htm

Confronting the FCC Monolith by Kevin Gosztola
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_kevin_go_071127_confronting_the_fcc_.htm

The Bush Push To Take Control Of Our Media and What You Can Do About
It by Cliff Carson
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_cliff_ca_071127_the_bush_push_to_tak.htm

Stopping the FCC from Consolidating Media Ownership by Mike
Kuykendall
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_kuy_071127_stopping_the_fcc_fro.htm

When Fox News Brags.....and the FCC by Michael Shaw
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_michael__071126_when_fox_news_brags_.htm

Media for the Masses, not amassed media monopolization by Richard
Mathis
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_richard__071127_media_for_the_masses.htm

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed
to be ours, and forward this alert as widely as possible.

If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at
http://www.usalone.com/in.htm

Or if you want to cease receiving our messages, just use the function
at http://www.usalone.com/out.htm

usalone135b:56541

November 24, 2007

The Australian Election: A Hollow Victory?


Crosspost from:

The Progressive Economics Forum

Although my knowledge of Australia’s politics is limited, they always interest me. Not only is the country similar to Canada in many ways, but it also had among the most successful labour movements and Labor Parties in the English-speaking world. (The party changed its name from “Labour” to “Labor” in 1912, when it seemed that Australia would adopt American spelling.)

Things went off the rails in the 1980s and early 1990s, when the Labor governments of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating introduced massive privatization and deregulation. Since then, John Howard’s Liberal government has combined free-market economics with conservative social policy. (Howard’s son and I both survived the notorious 2001 World Universities Debating Championships.)

While today’s Labor victory is welcome news, there are serious questions about how progressive the new government will be. Yesterday’s Globe and Mail included the following commentary from the right-wing Hudson Institute:

. . . most political signs point to a victory for Labor Leader Kevin Rudd, a Mandarin-speaking former diplomat and a pro-American moderate in the mould of Tony Blair. He and his party have enjoyed a lead of about 10 per cent in the polls for most of 2007.

If Mr. Rudd is victorious, however, it will be a victory for continuity almost as much as for change. Australia’s consistent course of economic deregulation and free trade actually began two decades ago under Paul Keating’s Labor government.

. . .

There was already little to separate Mr. Howard from Mr. Rudd on economic policy. And Labor’s pledge to reduce Australia’s military presence in Iraq is so gradual it sounds like a pledge to remain.

Jim has made similar points regarding Labor’s stand on so-called “free trade” agreements.

Rudd’s statements today have been full of bumf about putting aside “old conflicts” and governing for all Australians. I suppose that those are the sorts of things people say after being elected, but they do not inspire much confidence.

I note that Rudd’s economic platform includes tax cuts. Although he considers himself fiscally conservative, his election pledge is only to “keep the Budget in surplus on average over the economic cycle.” This commitment allows the government far more flexibility than the Canadian expectation of no deficits, ever, under any circumstances. Indeed, one could pursue a strongly counter-cyclical fiscal policy and still end up with a surplus on average.

Prior to the election, Howard had tried to significantly rollback collective bargaining through WorkChoices. Rudd has promised to undo most of this program, but not to restore Australia’s former system of centralized industrial awards. He will also sign the Kyoto Protocol.

Rudd is undoubtedly better (or less bad) than Howard, but seems unlikely to implement much of a social democratic agenda. I welcome comments from people who know more about Australian politics.

November 23, 2007

Must Read: VOTER FRAUD in US now being documented!

Have a look ... this if from Jason Call.


And people wonder what Greg Palast was on about! and gets on about! and why people like Andrew Meyer get tasared?

There are questions to be ASKED and ANSWERED.


Paper balloting can so easily be accomplished with the will to do so.

But voting has been politicized and made PROFITABLE.


Here is what is happening on the ground as people fight back against electronic voting, the profit$, the scam$, the windfalls corrupt politicians made as this outrage took place in the US during the Presidential and the other important elections took place since at least the year 2000.

Determine for yourself how important it IS that people fight back.

Remember what Palast says -- when people fight back against voter fraud, they always win. Always. And bear in mind, that the estimate is that nearly 2 million votes are ALREADY caged for the next election.

Remember that BuZh and Co. actually want toxic HiLIARy in and running the martial law/FEMA camps, aided and assisted by Bil Clinton (Rockefeller) right at her side.

You've all been WARNED!!

Watch the videos and see what Bob Fitrakis has to say --

Friends,

I was supposed to meet with Robert Adams, Bernalillo Deputy County Clerk, on Wednesday to present him with the numbers that essentially show strong evidence that there was something wrong in the 2006 election between Wilson and Madrid. The data show that there were a lot of Democrats who voted for Bingaman in the Senatorial race, but also chose Wilson in the House race – a minute statistical probability in a very polarized election year. This information has been available for over a year, but no one has ever challenged the results or demanded an audit. Madrid never had the opportunity to officially contest the election because SoS Mary Herrera did not post the spread of the votes in time, or in an analyzable format, until it was too late to officially challenge.

I think it is appropriate to start questioning what happened in that race, now that we have electronic voting machine company ES&S, which supplies all of New Mexico’s vote tabulators, demanding that NM counties pay exorbitant maintenance contract fees for the $18 million worth of tabulators that NM purchased for the 2006 elections. ES&S has a long history of software and hardware failure all over the country. On top of this, ES&S essentially controls New Mexico elections from top to bottom, and has refused to have their M100 tabulators undergo hack testing. SoS Mary Herrera’s website is maintained by ES&S, and following the 2004 elections, Herrera blocked lawsuits filed by people who saw their votes switch on the touchscreen machines (which are no longer used). Other county clerks have blocked inspection of machine components, on the flimsy argument that such inspection would invalidate warranties on the machines. Something is very wrong here.

Deputy Clerk Adams was not in his office when I came by for our scheduled appointment. I will try to meet with him next week, and present him with all of the articles that point out ES&S failure, including the recent developments in California where both SoS Debra Bowen and San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera (no relation) are suing ES&S in separate cases for a variety of offenses, including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract.

Meanwhile, I have posted to YouTube a book talk given by Columbus Ohio Law Professor Bob Fitrakis, editor of www.FreePress.org (a fantastic investigative website). I attended this talk in late September, 2005 in Seattle, and got a copy of the video from a local journalist. Fitrakis wrote an 800-page manual titled “Did George W. Bush Steal America’s 2004 Election?” replete with affidavits and statistical evidence (that the mainstream media has completely ignored) that essentially prove the malfeasance in Ohio in 2004. Fitrakis knows more about this than just about anyone, and was one of only four individuals who filed suit to stop the certification of the Ohio vote based on massive and widespread disenfranchisement and other irregularities. This is an extremely informative video, and I would encourage everyone to familiarize yourself with this issue.

The video is not yet on my website, but I have all of the YouTube links below, in order from 1-11:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UOGEYMt0_I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyrGhlfAq94

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbx7QzGhCs4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duwoDBWZzkI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXgpPr0PrRI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm4FAK1Yw6I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSJFCSPeHTA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8enuVOg2ak

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x93RgsHS2zg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiXJjOsxDxs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIqTHOYiJVo

Sincerely, and in Peace

Jason Call

www.Call4Democracy.org

Candidate, US Congress, New Mexico CD 1


November 11, 2007

Address by Mayor Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson on October 27, 2007

Salt Lake City, Utah --

Today, as we come together once again in this great city, we raise our voices in unison to say to President Bush, to Vice President Cheney, to other members of the Bush Administration (past and present), to a majority of Congress, including Utah’s entire congressional delegation, and to much of the mainstream media: “You have failed us miserably and we won’t take it any more.”

“While we had every reason to expect far more of you, you have been pompous, greedy, cruel, and incompetent as you have led this great nation to a moral, military, and national security abyss.”

“You have breached trust with the American people in the most egregious ways. You have utterly failed in the performance of your jobs. You have undermined our Constitution, permitted the violation of the most fundamental treaty obligations, and betrayed the rule of law.”

“You have engaged in, or permitted, heinous human rights abuses of the sort never before countenanced in our nation’s history as a matter of official policy. You have sent American men and women to kill and be killed on the basis of lies, on the basis of shifting justifications, without competent leadership, and without even a coherent plan for this monumental blunder.”

“We are here to tell you: We won’t take it any more!”

“You have acted in direct contravention of values that we, as Americans who love our country, hold dear. You have deceived us in the most cynical, outrageous ways. You have undermined, or allowed the undermining of, our constitutional system of checks and balances among the three presumed co-equal branches of government. You have helped lead our nation to the brink of fascism, of a dictatorship contemptuous of our nation’s treaty obligations, federal statutory law, our Constitution, and the rule of law.”

“Because of you, and because of your jingoistic false ‘patriotism,’ our world is far more dangerous, our nation is far more despised, and the threat of terrorism is far greater than ever before.

It has been absolutely astounding how you have committed the most horrendous acts, causing such needless tragedy in the lives of millions of people, yet you wear your so-called religion on your sleeves, asserting your God-is-on-my-side nonsense – when what you have done flies in the face of any religious or humanitarian tradition. Your hypocrisy is mind-boggling – and disgraceful. What part of “Thou shalt not kill” do you not understand? What part of the “Golden rule” do you not understand? What part of “be honest,” “be responsible,” and “be accountable” don’t you understand? What part of “Blessed are the peacekeepers” do you not understand?

Because of you, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, many thousands of people have suffered horrendous lifetime injuries, and millions have been run off from their homes. For the sake of our nation, for the sake of our children, and for the sake of our brothers and sisters around the world, we are morally compelled to say, as loudly as we can, ‘We won’t take it any more!’ ”

“As United States agents kidnap, disappear, and torture human beings around the world, you justify, you deceive, and you cover up. We find what you have done to men, women and children, and to the good name and reputation of the United States, so appalling, so unconscionable, and so outrageous as to compel us to call upon you to step aside and allow other men and women who are competent, true to our nation’s values, and with high moral principles to stand in your places – for the good of our nation, for the good of our children, and for the good of our world.”

In the case of the President and Vice President, this means impeachment and removal from office, without any further delay from a complacent, complicit Congress, the Democratic majority of which cares more about political gain in 2008 than it does about the vindication of our Constitution, the rule of law, and democratic accountability.

It means the election of people as President and Vice President who, unlike most of the presidential candidates from both major parties, have not aided and abetted in the perpetration of the illegal, tragic, devastating invasion and occupation of Iraq. And it means the election of people as President and Vice President who will commit to return our nation to the moral and strategic imperative of refraining from torturing human beings.

In the case of the majority of Congress, it means electing people who are diligent enough to learn the facts, including reading available National Intelligence Estimates, before voting to go to war. It means electing to Congress men and women who will jealously guard Congress’s sole prerogative to declare war. It means electing to Congress men and women who will not submit like vapid lap dogs to presidential requests for blank checks to engage in so-called preemptive wars, for legislation permitting warrantless wiretapping of communications involving US citizens, and for dangerous, irresponsible, saber-rattling legislation like the recent Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

We must avoid the trap of focusing the blame solely upon President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. This is not just about a few people who have wronged our country – and the world. They were enabled by members of both parties in Congress, they were enabled by the pathetic mainstream news media, and, ultimately, they have been enabled by the American people – 40% of whom are so ill-informed they still think Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks – a people who know and care more about baseball statistics and which drunken starlets are wearing underwear than they know and care about the atrocities being committed every single day in our name by a government for which we need to take responsibility.

As loyal Americans, without regard to political partisanship -- as veterans, as teachers, as religious leaders, as working men and women, as students, as professionals, as businesspeople, as public servants, as retirees, as people of all ages, races, ethnic origins, sexual orientations, and faiths -- we are here to say to the Bush administration, to the majority of Congress, and to the mainstream media: “You have violated your solemn responsibilities. You have undermined our democracy, spat upon our Constitution, and engaged in outrageous, despicable acts. You have brought our nation to a point of immorality, inhumanity, and illegality of immense, tragic, unprecedented proportions.”

“But we will live up to our responsibilities as citizens, as brothers and sisters of those who have suffered as a result of the imperial bullying of the United States government, and as moral actors who must take a stand: And we will, and must, mean it when we say ‘We won’t take it any more.’”

If we want principled, courageous elected officials, we need to be principled, courageous, and tenacious ourselves. History has demonstrated that our elected officials are not the leaders – the leadership has to come from us. If we don’t insist, if we don’t persist, then we are not living up to our responsibilities as citizens in a democracy – and our responsibilities as moral human beings. If we remain silent, we signal to Congress and the Bush administration – and to candidates running for office – and to the world – that we support the status quo.

Silence is complicity. Only by standing up for what’s right and never letting down can we say we are doing our part.

Our government, on the basis of a campaign we now know was entirely fraudulent, attacked and militarily occupied a nation that posed no danger to the United States. Our government, acting in our name, has caused immense, unjustified death and destruction.

It all started five years ago, yet where have we, the American people, been? At this point, we are responsible. We get together once in a while at demonstrations and complain about Bush and Cheney, about Congress, and about the pathetic news media. We point fingers and yell a lot. Then most people politely go away until another demonstration a few months later.

How many people can honestly say they have spent as much time learning about and opposing the outrages of the Bush administration as they have spent watching sports or mindless television programs during the past five years? Escapist, time-sapping sports and insipid entertainment have indeed become the opiate of the masses.

Why is this country so sound asleep? Why do we abide what is happening to our nation, to our Constitution, to the cause of peace and international law and order? Why are we not doing all in our power to put an end to this madness?

We should be in the streets regularly and students should be raising hell on our campuses. We should be making it clear in every way possible that apologies or convoluted, disingenuous explanations just don’t cut it when presidential candidates and so many others voted to authorize George Bush and his neo-con buddies to send American men and women to attack and occupy Iraq.

Let’s awaken, and wake up the country by committing here and now to do all each of us can to take our nation back. Let them hear us across the country, as we ask others to join us: “We won’t take it any more!”

I implore you: Draw a line. Figure out exactly where your own moral breaking point is. How much will you put up with before you say “No more” and mean it?

I have drawn my line as a matter of simple personal morality: I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has voted to fund the atrocities in Iraq. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who will not commit to remove all US troops, as soon as possible, from Iraq. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has supported legislation that takes us one step closer to attacking Iran. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has not fought to stop the kidnapping, disappearances, and torture being carried on in our name.

If we expect our nation’s elected officials to take us seriously, let us send a powerful message they cannot misunderstand. Let them know we really do have our moral breaking point. Let them know we have drawn a bright line. Let them know they cannot take our support for granted – that, regardless of their party and regardless of other political considerations, they will not have our support if they cannot provide, and have not provided, principled leadership.

The people of this nation may have been far too quiet for five years, but let us pledge that we won’t let it go on one more day – that we will do all we can to put an end to the illegalities, the moral degradation, and the disintegration of our nation’s reputation in the world.

Let us be unified in drawing the line – in declaring that we do have a moral breaking point. Let us insist, together, in supporting our troops and in gratitude for the freedoms for which our veterans gave so much, that we bring our troops home from Iraq, that we return our government to a constitutional democracy, and that we commit to honoring the fundamental principles of human rights.

In defense of our country, in defense of our Constitution, in defense of our shared values as Americans – and as moral human beings – we declare today that we will fight in every way possible to stop the insanity, stop the continued military occupation of Iraq, and stop the moral depravity reflected by the kidnapping, disappearing, and torture of people around the world.

<<:>> <<:>> <<:>>

Rocky has endorsed Bill Richardson. Check out his position on Iraq, Iran and the Mukasey confirmation.

This link will give you an idea of who Bill Richardson is.

www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-bill-richardson/a-devastating-failure_b_71969.html

<<:>> <<:>> <<:>>

We are encouraging Rocky to move to CA and run for Dianne Feinstein's senate seat! PLLLLEEEEAAAAASSSSSEEEEEE Mayor Rocky!!!

"I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war of aggression, a public position in his or her campaign."
http://www.votersforpeace.us/


ShareThis