Not One More!

Mr. Nader's Parting Words

2008-11-17T10:59:00.000-08:00

I have always enjoyed Mr. Nader's words. They are to the point, and illuminate issues and their solutions. This is an excerpt.

To staff, volunteers, supporters, donors, and voters

Authoritative public sentiments have always been there, have they not? From the Declaration of Independence’s majestic prose to the preamble of our Constitution which begins with "We the People of the United States …" to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address "toward a new birth of freedom … for a government of the people, by the people and for the people" to the last words of the pledge of allegiance — "with liberty and justice for all."

Sentiments remain mere words; heralding hopes, wishes and poignant nods. Unless they are grounded in reality, behavior, respect, attitude, and renewal, they become the words of controlling processes, pacifying the resigned, fortifying the concentrators of abusive power, and ever manipulating the trusting populace by the latest politicians climbing up the electoral hills.

The Nader/Gonzalez independent ticket set standards for presidential campaigns that were authentic, honest, factual, far-seeing, and committed to a deliberate, deep democracy that creates high expectations and dedicated actions from the people themselves. Democracy is revered all over the world because it brings the best out of people. But the people have to want it, to work for it, and to use it daily in its many splendid varieties.

Elections are a temptation for abstraction, soaring rhetoric without roots in the daily experience of those who are impoverished, ailing, defrauded, and indebted. The vast majority of citizens are marginalized and excluded from the freedom to participate in power — to paraphrase Marcus Cicero.

Our campaign started with the realities of our country on the ground where the people live, work, and raise their families. Politics must never be an abstraction. For if allowed to be such, it will be a mirage that stokes the hopeful emotions while detaching people from a critical recognition that they and only they — individually and organized — can make their representatives truly their representatives, dutifully producing more leaders. Leaders who cannot betray the trust of the people, and that of their children and grandchildren, know from whence they came.

It is with these thoughts that all of us at the Nader/Gonzalez campaign headquarters tender our gratitude to all who stood with us. We thank your enlightened self-interest, your awareness of the necessity for enlightened communities from the neighborhoods and workplaces all the way to our national government. We must make this government a tribune of peace, justice and freedom throughout this tormented world of ours.

While I was campaigning in Syracuse, New York this October in a city beset with hard times, a middle-aged blue-collar worker with calloused hands approached me after our discussion and said, "I’m voting for myself, which is why I’m voting for you." I took that declaration as a serious trusteeship and later on the campaign trail turned it into a basic question: "Isn’t it about time that we all voted for ourselves?" Isn’t it about time that we planned our futures rather than ceding that essential function of citizenship to giant rootless corporations?

What follows is a summary of what we achieved together through the Presidential campaign of 2008, despite being obstructed by the Democrats’ and Republicans’ ballot access hurdles and traps, despite being excluded from speaking to tens of millions of Americans through the Presidential debates (polls repeatedly showed the people wanted us — by name — included), and despite being willfully ignored by the national television and national newspaper/magazine media. These achievements represent persistence, stamina, and the willpower to penetrate this political bigotry so as to give choice to those voters who knew we were running.

Read the whole article at: http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/11/11/what-we-accomplished-together/

ELECTION OVER, but is it over?

2008-11-17T10:28:00.000-08:00

Have to admit that the better outcome for this election (realistically speaking) would have been with Obama winning, but with 10-20% of the vote going to third party candidates like Nader or the Green Party. But people voted out of fear again, and we'll have to see if there will be fundamental change in the balance that the corporate elite hold over public interests.

While no one ever said that Obama is as bad as McCain, what some of us felt is that Obama didn't meet the minimum requirements of a just and fair candidate that would put the public's concerns first and foremost, over the interests of the corporate elite.

One hope is that the 'progressives' who supported Obama without demanding critical changes in his policies (universal health care, expanding militarism, corporate bailouts etc) will somehow manage to have influence over him in the coming weeks and years. It is doubtful, but we will leave that up to the democratic party. However, that is unlikely. Historically, change has never come without demanding it.

Maybe the answer is in the Green Party though they would have to make significant changes in their organization and structure to become a consideration in the next election.

This election was not going to provide all the answers to the problems that we face. Unfortunately it may be a step back as the democratic supporters have now been put into a position that they can't really complain when Obama carries out many of the same policies that Bush did in terms of the war and protecting the corporate elite's interests.

As Vonnegut stated, be careful of what you wish for, it may come true. With the election of Obama, many voters have hope that he will change from his previous voting record, and move the country forward. But most will think that their civic duty ended when they pulled the lever to vote. That is not how it works. Now the real work begins, but most won't be there until the next election comes around and they are again forced to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Please read Mr. Nader's post election statement - http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/11/11/what-we-accomplished-together/

There is no peace without justice, and no justice if it is based on lies.

Still Time to reconsider...

2008-10-31T00:40:00.000-07:00

You can either cut to the chase and vote for Nader; or you can beat around the bush (or Bush?) and assure yourself that if your top issues are: War in Iraq (and a military based foreign policy), Universal Health Care, Corporation corruption (which means protecting the corporate elite assets), that your concerns won't be addressed with Obama.

If the above statement seems to be too far 'left' to support, then you are rightfully voting for Obama. But if you believe in the importance of those concerns, then this could be the year that you stop giving your tacit support to the corporate democratic party.

It seems that a fundamental shift in social consciousness may not happen this year, but it could with your vote. All it means is that if you have disdain Clinton and Bush, a path to consider is NOT voting for the lesser of two evils, and vote for a third Party candidate.

You need to remove your power that you are giving to the corporate elite every time you are voting for the lesser of two evils.

Give money to Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Cindy Sheehan. Show your support with your money.

www.voteNader.org

Third Party Debate Sunday October 23rd - Update

2008-10-15T22:26:00.000-07:00

HTML clipboard

NEWS Flash: Third Party Debate

UPDATE - The Debate was rescheduled to Thursday, October 23rd.

The Free and Equal Elections Coalition (FREE) and the Columbia Political Union are pleased to announce that a Presidential debate (originally scheduled Sunday, October 19th, 2008) will be held October 23rd. Details will be announced Tuesday, October 21.

ALL SIX of the Presidential candidates who appear on enough state ballots to acquire the 270 Electoral Votes needed to become President are invited. They are as follows (listed in alphabetical order by affiliation):

Constitution Party Candidate: Chuck Baldwin

Democratic Party Candidate: Barack Obama

Green Party Candidate: Cynthia McKinney

Independent Candidate: Ralph Nader

Libertarian Party Candidate: Bob Barr

Republican Party Can John McCain

More info at: http://www.freeandequal.org

America’s Political Cannibalism

2008-10-13T22:47:00.000-07:00

By Chris Hedges

It is no longer our economy but our democracy that is in peril. It was the economic meltdown of Yugoslavia that gave us Slobodan Milosevic. It was the collapse of the Weimar Republic that vomited up Adolf Hitler. And it was the breakdown in czarist Russia that opened the door for Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Financial collapses lead to political extremism. The rage bubbling up from our impoverished and disenfranchised working class, glimpsed at John McCain rallies, presages a looming and dangerous right-wing backlash.

[...]

This is a defining moment in American history. The next few weeks and months will see us stabilize and weather this crisis or descend into a terrifying dystopia. I place no hope in Obama or the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a pathetic example of liberal, bourgeois impotence, hypocrisy and complacency. It has been bought off. I will vote, if only as a form of protest against our corporate state and an homage to Polanyi’s brilliance, for Ralph Nader. I would like to offer hope, but it is more important to be a realist. No ethic or act of resistance is worth anything if it is not based on the real. And the real, I am afraid, does not look good.

The complete article is a must read if you find the mainstream corporate candidates unpalatable. To read the whole article go to: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081013_americas_political_cannibalism/

Hey, at least 'they' allow someone to say the truth as he sees it, and it gets read by at least a small group of people who are on their path of social enlightenment. And exactly how many of you who agree with Hedges on the issues took notice that he stated he's voting for Nader.

Lesser of Two Evils

2008-09-27T00:57:00.000-07:00

Interviewed by Gregg LaGambina in A.V. Club
September 25th, 2008

AVC: By your own admission, the Bush administration is one of the worst in recent memory. Going by what you've said in the past about how the lesser of two evils is still evil, do you see McCain and Obama as indistinguishable? If you agree that McCain would be an extension of Bush's policy, wouldn't Obama be at least a smidgen less evil? And isn't that reason enough to vote for him?

RN: Let's accept your premise. Here's my response. The lesser of two evils, or the least of the worst, is not good enough for the American people anymore. They've both gone down below the flunk bar. When you consider Democrats today compared to Democrats in the '60s—ha! Democrats today are overwhelmed with what might be called, indelicately, anal flutter.

AVC: Anal flutter? That's a new one.

RN: In other words, they have no political fortitude. They're always trying to engage in protective imitation of the Republicans—"More soldiers in Iraq" or "I'm John Kerry and I'm ready for duty." [Adopts tough-guy voice.] "We wouldn't have pulled out of Fallujah!" he says to Bush in the first debate. So, after the election, Bush blew Fallujah apart. Obama swings back and forth—hope, change, hope, change—like a metronome, inducing hypnosis. And McCain is the candidate of perpetual war and omnipresent military bases.
[for rest of article, go to http://www.avclub.com/content/interview/ralph_nader/1]

There are lots of reasons to support third parties, especially as we've seen in the last few presidential elections that the democrats are not really offering a viable choice for progressives and pro-peace voters.

The question of 'lesser of two evils' often comes up. For some, it is justification to vote for Obama while holding their noses as they pull the lever. After all, we don't want to get that evil McCain.

But for others, Obama does not meet the minimum standards of acceptable leadership values. Obama doesn't support total withdrawal from Iraq. universal health care, reduced military; yet will support 'clean' coal, the FISA bill, and the list goes on. Voting for the lesser of two evils still leaves you with evil. It would be like saying if you would vote for Hitler if he killed half as many people as he did because then is would be lesser of two evils.

The people who allow themselves to support the 'lesser of two evils' should review how social change has occurred historically. Change has never occurred without pressure to the status quo.

“If there is no struggle, there is no progress,” declared Frederick Douglass in 1857, in response to those who suggested that the great abolitionist was pushing too hard for an end to human bondage. “Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”

www.NotOneMore.US

Ron Paul say Vote Third Party

2008-09-10T23:46:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul urges third-party vote

Texas Congressman Ron Paul has urged voters to reject Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain and vote for a third-party US candidate instead.
Dr Paul said a former senior McCain adviser had asked him this week to endorse Mr McCain - but he had refused.
He is backing independent Ralph Nader, Libertarian Bob Barr and Green Party and Constitution Party candidates.
Dr Paul, who dropped his own bid for the Republican nomination earlier this year, has a strong internet following.

He told a news conference in Washington he had been contacted by ex-McCain adviser Phil Gramm, who was dropped from the campaign after he said the US was a "nation of whiners" over the economy.
Dr Paul said Mr Gramm told him: "You need to endorse McCain." He refused.
"The idea was that he would do less harm than the other candidate," Dr Paul added, quoted by the Associated Press news agency.
'Realignment'
Dr Paul said the majority of Americans were unhappy with the choice on offer from the mainstream parties and urged the third-party candidates to bring their supporters together to vote against the "establishment candidates".
Mr Nader, Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney, a former Democratic congresswoman for Georgia, and Constitution Party hopeful Chuck Baldwin were among those to attend the news conference.
However, Mr Barr turned down the invitation, saying at his own news conference later that he had done so because Dr Paul failed to endorse one specific candidate.
Ahead of Dr Paul's event, Mr Nader was quoted by AP as saying it would "raise the eyebrows" of commentators sceptical about their chances in November's presidential election.
"This is the beginning of the realignment of American politics," he said.
Mr Nader won 0.3% of the vote in 2004, when he ran as an independent. In 2000, when he stood as a Green Party candidate, he was blamed by Democrats for taking votes from Al Gore that might have prevented George W Bush's narrow election win.
Thousands of people attended a protest rally held by the libertarian-leaning Dr Paul - who opposes the Iraq war - near the Republican National Convention in Minnesota, last week.
He won no contests in his party's primary election season but raised large amounts of money and support online.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7608500.stm

Published: 2008/09/10 18:45:10 GMT

Well, at least there is one voice (and this is from the conservative side) saying vote third party. Republican Ron Paul, known for his anti-war stance, conservative views, and a presidential candidate for the republican party before he withdrew, refused to endorse McCain. Instead he urged his supporters to vote third party.

Cynthia McKinney, Green Party

2008-09-09T23:59:00.000-07:00

Wednesday, 10 September 2008

by Cynthia McKinney

At what point do the American people say, "No"? When the Pentagon admits it "lost" $2.3 trillion? "Yet both the Democratic and Republican nominees plan to increase the Pentagon's budget, continue to add countries to Dick Cheney's list of 60 against which the United States must be prepared to go to war," says Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney. Executive impunity is the order of the day. "Torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity, lying to and spying on the American people, and crimes against the peace are all hallmarks of our country today, and yet impeachment has been taken off the table!"
Read rest of article at: Say No to Lying, Spying and Torture

The Green Party offers what many progressives are looking for. They have a pro-peace platform, promote justice for all, and an intention of creating a sustainable society. What it offers is a viable alternative to the two corporate candidates.

Check them out: http://www.gp.org/index.php

Ralph Nader Answers Questions

2008-09-09T23:45:00.000-07:00

Karen Kilroy of the Nader/Gonzalez web team is posting video of recent Question & Answer sessions at the "Open the Debates" rallies in Minneapolis and Columbus, Ohio.

You'll find this all new and thought-provoking footage in our Issues Playlist at YouTube.

Bookmark the page and keep checking back, because there's more video on the way.

Also available online is a transcript of Ralph's remarks at the August 27 Denver Super Rally. Our sincere thanks to Swan's Commentary and Jan Baughman, co-editor, who prepared the transcript.

For more Nader information, go to: http://www.votenader.org/

Ralph Nader is offering viable solutions to age old concerns. You will either buy in to the argument that we are a two party systems, and vote for the candidate while holding your nose.

Or you can try to move the discussion to issues that are of concern to the general public, yet aren't being discussed by the two mainstream candidates, or the mainstream press.

You cannot have a corrupted government without having a corrupted press.

The Good Old USA

2008-09-09T23:04:00.000-07:00

Tyranny on Display at the Republican Convention

Posted on Sep 8, 2008

By Chris Hedges

St. Paul is a window into our future. It is a future where, as one protester told me by phone, “people have been pepper-gassed, thrown on the ground by police who had drawn their weapons, had their documents seized and their tattoos photographed before being taken away to jail.” It is a future where illegal house raids are carried out. It is a future where vans containing heavily armed paramilitary units circle and film protesters. It is a future where, as the protester said, “people have been pulled from cars because their license plates were on a database and handcuffed, thrown in the back of a squad car and then watched as their vehicles were ransacked and their personal possessions from computers to literature seized.” It is a future where constitutional rights mean nothing and where lawful dissent is branded a form of terrorism.
Read the rest of the article: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080908_tyranny_on_display_at_the_republican_convention/

Good article by Chris Hedges. Amy Goodman, and two of her producers were arrested in St. Paul, along with some 300 protesters.

Of course, there were similar police actions meant to intimidate and quell any public protests at the the Democratic Convention at Denver, and I don't recall any major democratic party leader speaking against that either. It is only our rights and free speech that are under attack.

This is another example of how closed off the general public is to the political process. The political leadership doesn't want to hear from us, and certainly don't want to act on our behalf. And yet, loyal 'democrats' will continue to support Obama in spite of the fact that he hasn't suggested one policy change that would benefit them, especially in terms of war.

Oh yeah, now Obama has two reasons for you to vote for him, McCain and Palin. Sorry, no sale. As bad as McCain and Palin are, that is not enough reason to vote for someone who is a lesser of two evils.

Last note, while Obama's choice for VP (Biden) was a better choice than Gore's (Lieberman who spoke at the Republican Convention knocking the democrats), the democrats still don't meet the minimum criteria for a candidate that will put peace and justice ahead of corporate profits.

2008-08-31T10:58:00.000-07:00

More Protesters Arrested in the Twin Cities
By: Jane Hamsher Saturday August 30, 2008 3:23 pm
We're now hearing that "snatch squads" are picking up random people off the streets in the Twin Cities, and someone from Democracy Now has been detained.
See Star Tribune Article here
See the link here for The Campaign Silo

The police are taking action against potential protesters of the Republican National Convention in a series of preemptive arrests and intimidation of protest groups by invading homes and residences and arrests on the streets.

On Saturday afternoon, law agents surrounded 951 Iglehart Av. in St. Paul where members of I-Witness Video, a New York-based group that monitors police conduct during protests, were staying. They were detained and handcuffed but eventually freed without charges.

I guess if they could do it at the Democratic Convention without any comments of concern by the democratic party leadership, it's okay to do preemptive arrests at the Republican Convention.

so it goes..

Illusions of Hope

2008-08-31T00:44:00.000-07:00

Ira Chernus writes in Common Dream s: I had done all my thinking and decided that small steps forward are much better than a huge step backward. That's why I am doing my bit to get Obama elected, with no illusions.

But Ira is suffering from illusions, or a lack of clear vision as to what should be the minimum necessary values for a presidential candidate. It is not a step forward. Obama is a blindsided step backwards. Some people are hoping that it won't happen, just like some hope that the tide won't come in.

Not only does McCain fail the smell test, but so does Obama.

As long as Obama supporters continue to think that Obama's limitations are 'practical' (whatever that means), it means that the progressive positions have to be put on hold yet again.

We have to be practical and accept the lesser of two evils from now to infinity (or until the end of the human race (which is coming sooner and sooner with each 'winnable' candidate the country selects).

The democratic party, like any totalitarian party, doesn't want to hear dissent, will break any law or ethics (never mind plain common decency) not to hear it. Shoving dissent to free speech prisons is the new political response among the mainstream political parties.

Honest discussion requires that all sides of the argument are heard. The democratic party is not honest.

Vote Green Party, Vote Third Party. Don't throw away your vote on a corporate candidate.

Where's the Party?

2008-08-26T01:41:00.000-07:00

I don't have a reasonable expectation that McKinney or Nader will win. The purpose of my vote for them is twofold: first, they support the policies and solutions to important issues that I share whereas the democratic party does not (Iraq war, impeachment, death penalty, universal health care, corporate corruption, military industrial complex etc).

Secondly, I would rather make my vote 'count' for something that I believe in. It is not just wishful thinking. It is moving in the direction that I want to go in. I'm not sure what percentage of people would have to vote third party for the democratic party to notice, but I'm going to add my voice to that process.

Why vote third party? Where do you go shopping? Do you go to the store that has rotten produce and spoiled meat; or do you go to the store that has fresh meat and organic produce. You are making a choice as to where you spend your dollar, and if you spend it in the store that has fresh meat you are supporting and allowing that store to remain in business.

But if you spend your dollar in the first store, even though you believe that the second store is better, you are going against your own interests by spending your money at the first store and keeping it in business while allowing the second store to fail. Some people might give you reasons to go to the first store like 'everyone goes there'; but that wouldn't make me go there.

Same thing applies to voting. If you vote for a candidate based on 'who is winnable' rather than the quality of the candidate, then you are working against your own best interests and it will come back to bite you in the ass.

so it goes

To Hope? The audacity...

2008-08-20T14:00:00.000-07:00

An article regarding Mr. Obama, and his dependence upon 'hope' was published in the Black Agenda Report. Mr. Obama will be giving a major speech at the Democratic convention on what will be Martin Luther King's 45th anniversary of his 'I Have A Dream' speech.

Denver 2008: Hope is for the Weak

by BAR Managing Editor Bruce Dixon

You know you're addicted to a drug when you need it just to feel normal. By that standard, African Americans have been addicted to hope for a long, long time. Nothing wrong with that. As Robert Jensen of the University of Texas, from whom the title of this piece is borrowed points out, hope is seductive, it's attractive, and when times are hard, hope is absolutely necessary. We're all quite naturally attracted to those full of hope, while we pity or shun those without it. But if hope is much like a drug, it's also a lot like capital. Hope can be invested, wisely based on facts and a sober analysis of the forces in play, or it can be squandered foolishly, based on wishful thinking and outright lies. The air in Denver the last week of August will be full of hope. And full of lies.

Since hope is a limited thing, and sometimes all that we have, Jensen suggests that we ought to be realistic and tough-minded about where we invest it and how. The nomination of the Democratic party's first black candidate is an historic occasion, to be sure. But what is there in Denver to invest our hopes in?

[to read the complete article, click here]

My comments.

I value hope, but it ranks far below reasoned thought, hard work, not blindly accepting the status quo, standing up for principles, and the list goes on. And hope shouldn't be confused with wishful thinking.

Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party candidate, has concrete actions to support her positions. She isn't just hoping for change, she is willing to be the change that she wants to see happen.

I'm also a Ralph Nader supporter, but will be voting Green Party this year to help the party become a viable alternative to the corporate democratic and republican parties.

I think that the highest priority is to support peace and justice that is inclusive of all people (basic human rights for all).

My desire is not to get the first black person or female elected, my goal is to get a candidate that supports peace and justice elected.

The word 'HOPE' is used to justify the lack of attention given to the most fragile of our society-- the underclass, the poor, the weak.

Halliburton doesn't use 'hope' to get the Iraq contracts. Nor do politicians say that the corporate structure should hope for more profits. They work diligently to make that happen. The poor get hope, the corporate elite get taxpaper supported bailouts.

My view of Obama is that he is just another corporate shill that will be used to justify the corporate elite's continued attack on the basic rights of the common people, but with a different color. Hillary would have been a different gender. But in either case, the corporate agenda would be unchallenged.

The status quo has got to go, and I can't support either of the corporate parties. This is the year to vote third party, the Green Party.

Don't support either of the two corporate parties if you value peace and justice. They don't.

What is the real Joke, Jon Stewart or Mainstream Media?

2008-08-20T00:44:00.000-07:00

There was an article about Jon Stewart on Common Dreams, You Can’t Be Serious: How a Comedian Became the most Influential Voice in American Politics by Leonard Doyle

Jon Stewart, a TV celebrity with a faux news show, is known to be more forthcoming about reporting 'news' than the mainstream media, especially regarding the Iraq war and the presidential election..

As a reader of Common Dreams, I find that they have gone the path of Move-on, that other supposedly progressive organization that can't seem to support progressive candidates, claiming that they aren't 'viable,' so they support the democratic party leadership corporate candidate. First Gore, then Kerry, now Obama. Is there a 'democratic' candidate that these supposed progressive organizations won't support? Especially when they are democratic in name only, not in policies they support.

The joke is that mainstream news is even more of a joke than Jon Stewart.

NPR? A joke.

Common Dreams? A joke. Did they publish articles supporting Kucinich or progressive issues in a serious manner? No. Another move-on type of organization ultimately supporting the democratic party leadership over progressive issues when push came to shove.

I’m not even going to mention the New York Times.

Many liberal democrats don’t even know about Mike Gravel, another progressive democrat who was shut out of the presidential debates. Did Common Dreams run a series of articles supporting the argument that Kucinich or Gravel be included in the debates? No.

I’m not talking about one or two throw away fluff pieces they published, I’m talking about in depth rational articles as to why the democratic process continues to be squashed by the democratic party.

The reason why third parties aren’t mainstream is because mainstream media and political parties work very hard at marginalizing third parties like the Green Party or Ralph Nader. Including Common Dreams. Including Jon Stewart.

Don’t get me wrong, Jon Stewart is very funny and probably the source of more information that never makes it into the mainstream media. But the news he does provide is just below anything that would actually make a change. Conservatives always get to plug their books on the show that makes them even more money atop of the atrocities that they support (like the Iraq War / Occupation).

Not that third parties are perfect, but closer to my goal when I use the same measuring stick that I use with Obama (or Hillary, Kerry, or Gore, or Bill Clinton). All of them sold out to corporate interests at the expense of public, all while they were in public office.

Wake up, how many more times will the people be taken in. I can’t think of a time more important than now to stop supporting the corporate elite and their parties, the democrats and republicans.

I’m voting green, I’m not holding my nose when I vote, and even if McCain wins, I hold the democratic party responsible for not impeaching the president; for excluding candidates from the debate; for excluding Ralph Nader’s issues; for not supporting universal health care; for not challenging corporate corruption; for not reeling in an out of control military policy; for not limiting a publicly armed, but privately controlled mercenary force (Blackwater etc); and the list goes on.

The biggest joke is going to be Obama’s vice presidential choice. It will be fun to see the Obama apologists explain that one away. I can’t wait.

A UTube video of a Ralph Nader supporter explaining why she supports Nader. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPbJY2rs0QI

http://www.NotOneMore.US

Why is Tom Hayden Surprised?

2008-08-15T23:56:00.000-07:00

The Defunding of the Peace Movement -Grassroots ‘One Million Doors for Peace’ Push Begins Instead
by Tom Hayden [The Nation, August 15, 2008)
Last December I wrote an optimistic cover story for The Nation predicting that “peace advocates will likely have the best funded antiwar message in history” during the coming election year, as “tens of millions of dollars will be raised for voter education and registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns through the 527 committees which disseminate election messages independent of partisan candidates. ...”

...It was downhill from that point, for reasons that may never be explained.

Contrary to what Mr. Hayden may imply, it is obvious why money being sent to peace movements has fallen off. When people gave money to peace and social organizations that supposedly supported an end to the war, and when those organizations (like moveon and common dreams) turned that money over to support and promote the corporate democratic candidates without ever getting a concession, that is when I stopped supporting them. They never supported Kucinich, much less Nader or Green Party McKinney. Why is that? Are they beholden in some way to not upsetting the corporate status quo?

Has Tom Hayden ever supported a progressive candidate in the past 20 years, other than occasional lip service?

He never really gave Kucinich and Mike Gravel, much less Nader and Green Party McKinney, a voice. Those are the candidates that spoke on issues that the peace movement wanted to hear. And they were silenced and excluded from the debate. I didn’t see Hayden speak of the outrage of that action (or Obama or Hillary for that matter). Why? They don’t care about protecting the democratic process when it gets in the way of their victory.

Just think, if Tom Hayden has supported Kucinich (or Nader or McKinney) and allowed any of them to carry forward the peace message, there would have been a different conversation going on today. It would have given the peace movement an important step up in the pubic eye. It is not too late.

Tom Hayden, are you listening? Please support any true progressive candidate. Are you telling me that you can't find anyone among them who share the same important values as you? Can you tell me what values you share with Obama on the important issues? Other then you think he might be 'electable?' Oh, that is the main reason? Now I feel better.

"I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don't want and get it." Eugene Debs

Why consider third party candidates?

2008-07-28T23:10:00.000-07:00

Published on Monday, July 28, 2008 by Reuters
Security Becomes Main Cost In GMO Crop Trials
LONDON - Security has become by far the largest cost for field trials of genetically modified crops in Britain as researchers seek to protect sites against vandalism, a scientist said on Monday.

Howard Atkinson of Leeds University, who has been running a field trial on GMO potatoes, said the trial itself cost 25,000 pounds but there was a “six figure” bill for security around it.

What position do the mainstream corporate presidential candidates take on this issue? I haven't heard them talk about is in any substantial discussion.

McCain and Obama are currently in a race to the bottom to see who can carry a bigger stick and build a bigger military. Of course, having a bigger military is all for the corporations profit line while lessening our national security. Does anybody feel safer since the Iraqi invasion and occupation? Maybe the corporate elite with their private armies and tax supported police departments.

Yes, people in Europe are demanding an end to the GMO field trials because they know that once their crops become tainted with the GMO strains, it will be very hard to turn back the onslaught. It is like trying to stuff the feathers back into the pillow after having a pillow fight.

We Americans have already accepted that GMO foods are here to stay. Oh, we need the GMO corn for our biofuel. That is a laugh, create 3 pounds of harm for one ounce of good. And who gets the money? The corporate agriculture business entity.

If you eat at a fast food restaurant, you are likely supporting GMO food, as well as the inhumane treatment of animals. While I respect vegetarians (I am not one yet?), I do try to at least eat food that is ethically treated.

If you buy cheap food, ie- cheap chicken, beef, vegetables, you know that someone or something was treated unjustly just to get on your table so cheaply.

Spend your money in what you believe. Unfortunately, corporate interests in the organic market are trying to bring down those standards, but not if we don't let them.

And what is Obama's main concern? Increasing our military presence in Afghanistan. Makes perfect sense. When you support a corporate candidate, corporations will be protected.

It is all connected. Support the status quo which is slowly bringing about our demise, and it will occur even sooner. Don't support the status quo, support third party candidates. Ask your candidate what their position is on GMOs.

Vote Third Party, the status quo has got to go.

There is no peace without justice, and no justice if it is based on lies.

Welcome

2008-07-23T00:58:00.000-07:00

Greetings,

This is the first posting. The website is at http://www.NotOneMore.US and dedicated to promoting and supporting peace and justice.

Primarily, the purpose was to select presidential candidates in the 2008 election that supported ending the Iraq war. It also tried to encourage voters to only support those candidates that actively would bring and end to the illegal and immoral war. The effort failed as the mainstream candidates, Obama and McCain, both support a continued US military presence in the Middle East to protect the corporate oil interests that lay under their sand.

And the majority of the voters are now lining up behind either of the two corporate candidates, even though the majority say that they support ending the war. A contradiction, yet they can rationalize it in their minds.

Yes, there is the Green Party with Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader is running as well. They support the peace and justice principles that are necessary to evolve into a more just society. So there is someone to vote for that won't make you hold your nose as you step into the voting booth.

I read Common Dreams frequently, but grow tired of the people who are only voting for Obama because they don't want McCain. On the other side you have people who are voting for McCain only because they don't want a democrat.

How can our country sink so low that people are only voting for the lessor of two evils? Well, it has always been that way. Is it worse now? I can't really say but I do feel we are moving closer and closer to the tipping point from which we can't safely recover, one where we are destroying our environment, creating a war based economy that kills civilians indiscriminately, and without concern that a life of a person has been taken.

They say that when you mention a problem you should always offer a solution. But I don't see a solution unless there is a fundamental change in the common consciousness. Yes, there are, and always have been, small groups of people who have actually made a difference by creating change that benefited many more people than just themselves. These unselfish acts go mostly unnoticed by mainstream media as the focus is on the latest movie star to get pregnant, get drunk, get divorced, or whatever else will sell the newspaper.

Look at the miserable job the mainstream media did with they lying and deceit before the start of the Iraq War. And once we got in people didn't want hold the responsible people (like Bush and Company) accountable. So impeachment was taken off the table by the Democratic Leadership. It is a disgrace to basic principles of liberty and justice. Meanwhile innocent civilians die, US soldiers die, and oil companies record record profits.

But I guess more about that later.

Whenever I hear John Lennon's Imagine, it makes me feel a little better that there others out there who understand what we have to overcome if we will ever make the change necessary for humans to live a full and aware life. Imagine is the first step. Doing it is the next.

peace,
AG
www.NotOneMore.US