Muslims For Nader/Camejo

A blog on the Nader/Camejo 2004 Presidential campaigen - exposing the racket of the two corporate parties - with a special focus on issues of concerns for Muslims. This blog is UNOFFICIAL and is NOT endorsed by the official Nader for 2004 presidential campaigen. Blog update daily and several times a day - come back often! Contact: muslimfornader@yahoo.com

Saturday, October 30, 2004

Chose your poison (or you can always vote for Nader/Camejo!)

Ahmed Amr writes in Media Monitors (excerpts)

If the polls are anywhere near the mark, George Bush has an even chance of polluting the White House for four more years. Given his record, the only reason Dubya remains a viable candidate is John Kerry.

Kerry was nominated because he was not Howard Dean. To be more precise, Dean was pushed aside when he assaulted the Holy of Holies and described the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) as the “Republican wing of the Democratic Party”.

The DLC promotes a philosophy they call ‘progressive internationalism’ – a slight variation of neo-con ideology. In the run up to Iraq war, the DLC launched a campaign to enlist Democrats in Bush’s march to war. Will Marshall, The President of the Progressive Policy Institute, the DLC’s think tank, led the charge. In an article titled ‘Making the Case On Iraq’, he laid out the ‘progressive internationalist’ position on the war.

Here is what he wrote more recently in a Blueprint article published on January 8, 2004.

What the United States needs now is not an exit strategy but a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy. The key elements of such a strategy are more supple military tactics, more money, and more allies. But that requires more troops, not fewer, and it means deploying them in ways that could raise the risk of U.S. casualties. The administration has rightly made the democratic transformation of the greater Middle East the grand American project of the 21st century. ..."

As a Senator, Kerry never had the option to resist the DLC ‘guidance’ to vote for an invasion of Iraq. Now that he is the DLC anointed candidate, Kerry will is obliged to support escalating Bush’s ‘preemptive’ war.

The sad truth is that the Democratic Party’s foreign policy has been auctioned off to the Israeli Lobby. There is nothing Bush Lite about the DLC. A vote for Kerry is a vote for Haim Saban and the DLC. This coming Tuesday, you will be invited to choose your neo-con poison. In the next four years, we will all discover that diluted neo-con Kool Aid is just as toxic.

Read complete article here

Red States For Nader

red_states2.jpg

20 Reasons to Vote for Ralph Nader!

http://www.votenader.com http://www.writeinnader.org



20 reasons to vote for Ralph Nader on November 2

Nader is not for sale.

If you believe that big business’ money is corrupting American politics, vote for the only Presidential candidate who practices campaign finance reform. Ralph Nader is accepting no PAC money, no corporate contributions and no soft money and no support from 527 groups. The other candidates just talk and look for the loophole of the moment. Nader walks the campaign finance reform walk while he advocates public funding and an end to political advantage for sale to the highest bidder.

Nader’s 40-year record of fighting for Americans is well known.

He’s brought us safer cars, a cleaner environment and more open and accountable government. Everyone knows that politics is broken for the average guy and works smoothly for the rich and powerful. The only candidate capable of reforming the system is Ralph Nader because he knows what is broken, why it is broken, and how to fix it.

Nader is the most effective candidate in the race.

In his 40 year career in Washington, he has been the driving forced behind such landmark pieces of legislation as the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Acts, The Clean Water Act, Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Freedom of Information Act. Nader knows more about the workings of government than the other two candidates. He is also honest when he finds policies and agencies beyond reform without surgical removal of corporate controls.

Nader would never allow activist conservative judges onto federal benches.

Ralph Nader vigorously fought the confirmation of the Supreme Court justices Antonion Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The Democrats held the Senate during the confirmation votes for both justices: they voted 50-0 in favor of Scalia; later, 11 Democrats put Thomas over the top. A vote for Ralph Nader is a vote to fight for impartial, fair Supreme Court justices.

A vote for Nader is a vote for the end of politics as usual.

With your vote, Ralph Nader will lay the foundation for a new American political movement that will begin taking political power back from the elites. It will shift the power away from the corporations, their K Street lobbyists, and their attorneys and back to the citizens—as the Constitution intended.

Nader is the only candidate demanding health care for all.

Forty-six million Americans have no health insurance-nearly a 30% increase since 1992. Ours is the only industrial democracy without healthcare for everyone. Our current system is also incredibly wasteful; we spend enough to provide universal coverage, but private administrative costs amount to a whopping one-quarter of all health care expenditures.

Nader fights to save America’s family farms.

Our small rural communities are the backbone of this country. The other candidates have accepted large contributions from huge agribusiness corporations’ intent on displacing small farmers.

Ralph Nader is against the death penalty.

John Kerry and George W. Bush are for it.

Nader stands against racial discrimination.

Ralph Nader has always been a strong supporter of affirmative action. He has fought bank red lining. He calls for an overhaul of the criminal justice system, decriminalization of drug offenses and community policing. Racial discrimination pervades America, from the workplace to the courtroom, from the banks to the police beats. To realize needed reforms, Nader argues we must redistribute power in this country without regard to race, creed, age, sex, or sexual preference.

Nader stands against Taft-Hartley

Ralph Nader is the only candidate who has called for the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, the “chokehold on American labor.” Only Nader has a record of fighting vigorously for working Americans—by first opposing the WTO and NAFTA and now calling for their repeal and reform, to uphold worker’s rights worldwide and to save jobs at home.

Nader stands against the bloated Defense budget.

Only Ralph Nader has the courage and resolve to rethink our military budget now that the Cold War is over. We must cut the egregious waste and pork barrel weapons projects and improve the conditions our fighting men and women live under. We must not throw money away on a clearly unworkable missile defense system. We must work to abolish nuclear weapons.

Nader stands against discrimination based on sexual preference.

Ralph Nader is the only candidate who supports equal rights for gays and lesbians—in the military, in civil unions, and on the job. As he says, “We will look back years from now at our current treatment of gays and lesbians as medieval.”

Nader opposes genetically modified foods.

Ralph Nader is the only candidate in the race who agrees with the ninety percent of Americans who want genetically engineered food to be labeled so they can decide whether or not to eat it. Kerry and Bush are against labeling.

Nader supports a living wage.

Ralph Nader is not content that only the top 15-20% of the people in this country is doing well financially. He pushes for reversing 24 years of wage stagnation for the majority of Americans. Nader calls for the raising the minimum wage to its 1960 buying power, or about $10/hr.

Nader supports a crackdown on corporate crime.

Ralph Nader thinks it’s high time the law be enforced against corporate crime and violence, which kills more people and causes more economic losses, by far, than street crime.

Nader opposes corporate welfare.

Ralph Nader is the only candidate who calls for an end to such corporate welfare and redistribution of the proceeds to rebuild the national infrastructure. Hundreds of billions of your tax dollars are spent annually on subsidies and giveaways to large corporations in the United States every year.

Ralph Nader will fight for the abolition of child poverty in America.

Nader supports fair taxation.

Ralph Nader believes taxes should apply first to behavior and conditions we least favor, such as the clearly addictive industries (alcohol and tobacco), pollution, stock speculation, gambling, extreme luxuries, instead of the 5% to 8.5% sales tax on food, furniture, clothing or books.

Nader Supports the Protection of our National Forests

Ralph Nader is the only candidate who would end all logging in our National Forests and use the 1.2 billion to restore those forests. The Federal Government subsidizes the logging of our National Forests to the tune of 1.2 billion dollars annually, yielding just 3% of the national timber harvest.

A vote for Nader is a vote of conscience.

If you agree that Ralph Nader is the only Presidential candidate in the race capable of reforming politics so that the power rests once more with the people of America, instead of with big business, will you vote for Ralph in November? Do you expect your members of Congress to vote their consciences? Then shouldn’t you?

Power Concedes Nothing Without A Demand!

“Ours is a long-term struggle to restore the human future to human control of the corporate/government complex. The great lesson to be learned from Kerry's wobbly and fearful campaign to date is that we will not prevail in the historic struggle against imperial corporate power by yielding to it. Unconditional surrender to the "least worst" candidate is an intellectual dead-end, an endless retreat. One need look no further than Kerry's recent endorsement of Bush's plans to reconquer the southern cities and towns of Iraq to recognize that failure to resist is complicity. Remember the immortal words of Frederick Douglass, the great abolitionist: "Power concedes nothing without a demand."" -Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader’s quote of Frederick Douglass is no accident, he is recalling another critical struggle in American history - the one against slavery. It was the growth of a dissenting minority that finally saw the end of this institution in the US . What we face today is not only of concern internal to the US - but very importantly about how the US relates to other nations, and especially with regards to countries with Muslim majority populations.

Read more here

Friday, October 29, 2004

The Ralph Nader Index!

Ralph’s Index

Number of Americans living in poverty: 35.9 million

Percentage of the U.S. population living in poverty: 12.5%

Number of Americans without health insurance: 45 million

Number of children uninsured in the United States: 27 million

Percentage of all children in the United States who lack insurance: 36.7%

Number of Americans who die annually because they do not have health insurance: 18,000

The only industrialized country that does not provide universal health care: United States of America U.S. ranking in overall quality of health care it provides: 37th

U.S. world ranking in national expenditures on health care: 1

Number of infants born poor in the United States: 1 in 3

Number of years Bush has presided over an increase in child poverty without sounding an alarm: 3 years in a row

Number of full-time workers earning less than $8.75 per hour before payroll taxes: 1 in every 4

Comparison of average CEO pay to average worker pay in America in 1965: 26 times more

Comparison of average CEO pay to average worker pay in America in 1982: 42 times more

Comparison of average CEO pay to average worker pay in America today: 300 to 500 times more

Median CEO pay at large companies in the U.S.: $6,600 per hour

Amount the minimum wage would be if it had increased in tandem with CEO pay since 1990: $15.71

Percentage of the federal budget going to the military: 50%

Number of U.S. soldiers who have died to date in the illegal war and occupation in Iraq: Over 1,000

Number of Iraqi civilians the U.S. has killed in the illegal war and occupation in Iraq: Over 15,000

Percentage of Americans an AP poll found would consider voting for Ralph Nader if they thought he had a chance to win: 33%

Number of presidential candidates standing up to corporate power: 1

Name of the presidential candidate standing up to corporate power: Ralph Nader

Your job on Nov. 2: Vote Nader!

Thursday, October 28, 2004

Ralph Nader's open letter

I was saddened to read your open letter urging people to vote for John Kerry in 2004. Saddened, not because of the impact on my vote but because it signals more of the same surrender of some liberal thinkers.

Senator Kerry made it clear in the three debates with President Bush that he has no intention of getting out of the illegal occupation of Iraq. He is going to fight the war to win it and will send more troops if needed. He also showed that rather than challenging the military industrial complex he intends to expand the military by 40,000 more troops. How can any peace activist support a candidate who holds those views? Even without the voice of the peace movement, about half the American public wants the U.S. out of Iraq. If the peace movement had stood for ending the Iraq occupation and demanding that their candidate do so then we would have had a very different debate in 2004. Now, no matter how the election turns out, we are likely to see a bloody offensive after the war and a quagmire that will become a civil war with the U.S. on the side of our puppet government against the Iraqi people.

Regrettably, the same is true for other popular progressive issues. Two-thirds of the public supports health care for all now, yet Senator Kerry has put forward a plan that leaves 20 million without health care. The American public believes that full-time workers should make a wage that they and their families can live on. Yet, John Kerry only advocates raising the minimum wage to $7 an hour by 2007 – this will keep wages at the equivalent of pre-1960 earnings – at a time when some CEO’s are now earning $7,000 per hour. And, even on the environment, in the debates John Kerry made it clear he did not support the Kyoto Treaty – despite the clear evidence of global climate change and its ruinous impact on the environment. The women’s movement has been told that Kerry will consider anti-choice judges and that he is proud of his vote for Justice Scalia. African Americans have been ignored, taken for granted and their issues not even discussed.

If the liberal leadership had not surrendered to the Anybody But Bush mentality and demanded John Kerry support these issues they would have accomplished two important things. First, they would have made John Kerry a better candidate – rather than allowed him to become an echo of George Bush’s policies. Second, they would have advanced the progressive agenda, rather than allowed this popular agenda to be ignored in a presidential election year.

Those of you who were asked to sign this petition by Robert Brandon, a Democratic Party operative, should know that he misled you with his false statement, claiming that Nader/Camejo are supported by “right-wing campaign donors.” The Center for Responsive Politics found that only 4% of Nader/Camejo donations came from Republican donors, many from classmates who I have worked on various social justice issues. Indeed, the Center found that the Democratic candidate, John Kerry, has taken more than $10 million from Republican donors – 100 times more than Nader/Camejo has received. You should not confuse the conclusion of the letter with its deceptive predicates. You should have done your homework.

Finally, what have you said about the anti-democratic dirty tricks, political bigotry, harassment and intimidation by the Democratic Party and the Kerry/Edwards campaign? We would welcome hearing from you if you want to join us in condemning these gross violations of civil liberties and Nader/Camejo and the millions of voters who are denied the candidate of their choice.

I plan to continue to fight for justice – there should be no holiday from that struggle no matter how this election turns out. We hope the scared liberal leaders who abandoned their principles in 2004 will find a way to find the courage of their convictions in the future and rejoin this effort.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

The War and ABBites!

Alexander Cockburn writes (excerpts)

From where we sit, here at mission control, CounterPunch hq, (currently a facility known as the Claremont Inn off Interstate 10 east of LA, where Jeffrey St Clair is watching three inches of rain sluicing down on the San Gabriel mountains) voting for John Kerry now is like voting for LBJ in 1964 with full precognition of what he was going to do in Vietnam for the next four years. By all means vote for the guy if you think your ballot will really count in keeping Ralph Nader out of the White House, but don’t do so with the notion that all along John Kerry has been holding a secret withdrawal plan close to his chest and that his first three months in office will see the US Marines haul down the colors from the US embassy in Baghdad, scoop Ambassador Negroponte off the roof and head for home.

No deed or slur is too dirty for the Kerrycrats, in their frenzy to have a Democrat back in the White House. In years to come the list of liberals and leftists renouncing their support of Nader in 2000 and urging support this time for Kerry even in safe states will, I think, be correctly brandished as a shameful advertisement of political hysteria and even prostitution (often enforced by big foundations threatening to cut funding from any outfit not bending the knee to Kerry.) Until this year I don’t think I’d ever fully understood the inner psycho-political dynamic of the cold-war liberals, eagerly signing on to, and often leading, the witch-hunts of the late 1940s and 1950s.

Seeing the ABB-ers and Kerrycrats in action now, I am a wiser man.

Read complete article here


Not the final word!

First, those of you voting in states that do not have Ralph Nader on the ballot due to the Democratic Party's undermining of democracy - visit Write In Nader for more info. on how you can vote for Nader/Camejo!

The Kerry/Bush people would like this election to be "the final word" and allow their respective candidates to get away with all kinds of half truths and lies. But the reality is that this election is only the beginning, and regardless of which of these duopolists gets into the white house - our struggle against wars, for civil rights, and justice for all - will continue.

The Kerrycats supporting Kerry don't bother to mention the Patriot Act in their list of issues - well, as we all know by now, Kerry "believes in the Patriot Act."

Back in 1998, when Clinton was intent on bombing Iraq - Kerry also believed in sending in ground troops. And, of-course, he voted for the war - and is on record stating:

Click here to read on

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Write In Nader (WIN)

Early voting has already begun - if you live in a state that does not have Ralph Nader on the ballot (because of the Democratic Party interfering with democracy) - you can Write In Nader!

Click here for instructions!

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Does that mean ground troops?

I got to say this and I’ve said this to everybody here who's been asking me about the war. One thing I do know about Kerry, he will not invade a country like George W. Bush did. (applause) "- Michael Moore, July 27th, 2004.

Not in the least. I think we have to be in
Iraq. What have I flipped on? I just think we ought
to do it right! - John Kerry, July 22nd 2004

John Kerry, interviewed on ABC's This week Febuary 22nd, 1998.

Kerry: I think that there is a disconnect between the depth of the threat that Saddam Hussen represents to the world and what we are at the moment talking about doing... (i.e. bombing Iraq).

we have to be prepared to go the full distance to do everythng possible to disrupt his regime and to encourage the forces of democracy

Q: does that mean ground troops in iraq?

Click here to Read on


Demanding nothing off Kerry

The Nader-Camejo campaign has concluded that support for Kerry – 

including those who actively support the orchestrated slander and
anti-ballot attack against Nader by United Progressives – was
unconditional except, perhaps, to be someone other than Bush – the
mantra being – Anybody But Bush, leave Kerry alone, do not make any
demands on him.

“The failure of progressives to demand something of Senator Kerry has
made John Kerry a weaker candidate. Rather than being pulled in the
direction of issues supported by the American public – like a full-time
workers earning a wage they and their families can live on, health care
for all now, a responsible withdrawal from Iraq and making corporations
clean-up their environmental mess – the Kerry-Edwards campaign has only
been pulled in the direction of big business interests,” said Nader.
“Kerry has become a weaker candidate because of the unconditional
surrender of progressives to pulling him away from corporate
interests.”


The Boss goes ABB... (excerpts)

Alexander Billet writes:

With the elections mere days away, John Kerry has been darting back and forth across the country like a rabbit on speed, proffering little in the way of a different future with his obscenely "I'm more like Bush than Bush" rhetoric (and policies to match). His anthem of choice? "No Surrender" by Bruce Springsteen.

Kerry, of course, is for the same war as Bush. He's for tax cuts for the rich, just like Bush. He's for the
Patriot Act His voting record on health care is shoddy at best, as is his record of union support.

So my question is what will Bruce (who hasn't voted since 1976) say to his working class fan-base if and when Kerry gets in? What will he say to the young man in "Born in the USA"? The poor youth who has a rifle shoved into his hands (this time to go and kill the Arab man) the same way Bush is now. What will he say when the young man comes home and tries to get a job at the local refinery only to be met with a hiring man who says "son, if it were up to me"? What will he say when the kid goes to a VA hospital shut down by a budget hamstrung by Bush's (and now Kerry's) war?

The fact is that Kerry is cut from the same cloth as the rest of the American ruling class who are so good at perpetuating the cycle of poverty and disenfranchisement that the Boss articulates so well.

Read more here

Ralph Nader responds! (excerpts)

Some seventy lights of the liberal intelligentsia--some my long-time friends and political associates--recently signed a petition calling upon voters in contested states to vote for John Kerry, despite their "strong disagreement with Kerry on Iraq and other issues." These distinguished academics, artists, and writers together are at the core of America's liberal intelligentsia. We share much the same political analysis. Together we have shared podiums, rallies, and dreams, though they deigned any mention of the Nader-Camejo candidacy even in the "safe states." Yet I must conclude that they have lost their nerve.

Their petition is simply the latest chapter in the operational and political collapse of an intellectual elite paralyzed by the specter of a second term for George Bush. This rush to unconditional surrender began in February of this year when the liberal flagship, The Nation, proclaimed in an editorial, "Ralph, Don't Run," meaning don't speak inside the electoral arena.

The American people know the truth about Iraq, that occupation creates resistance. The resistance will only end when we announce that an exit deadline with internationally supervised elections, after which we will leave Iraq to the Iraqis. On Iraq, as on so many issues, those who should be pressuring Kerry--especially the recent anti-war groups--choose instead to apologize for him.

Ours is a long-term struggle to restore the human future to human control of the corporate/government complex. The great lesson to be learned from Kerry's wobbly and fearful campaign to date is that we will not prevail in the historic struggle against imperial corporate power by yielding to it. Unconditional surrender to the "least worst" candidate is an intellectual dead-end, an endless retreat. One need look no further than Kerry's recent endorsement of Bush's plans to reconquer the southern cities and towns of Iraq to recognize that failure to resist is complicity. Remember the immortal words of Frederick Douglass, the great abolitionist: "Power concedes nothing without a demand."

Read complete article here

Sunday, October 24, 2004

John Kerry will make anti-war ABBites look like fools!

There are many anybuddy butt bushites who think Kerry is their "anti-war" candidate - this , as most Nader/Camejo supporters are well aware, is a serious delusion:

Edward Luttwak writes in the Telegraph: (excerpts)

One of the more amusing spectacles of these less-than- amusing times is the emergence of a Kerry fan club among European anti-war enthusiasts. The letter-writing campaign of The Guardian to the voters of Clark County, Ohio, is especially silly, but is only one of many examples.

In the televised debates, when President Bush spoke of "defeating terrorism", Kerry invariably spoke of "killing the terrorists". This was not just an electoral pose: the words accurately reflect the character of the man. He is a fighter, a two-fisted brawler. In all his past electoral campaigns, successful or otherwise, he was always the more aggressive candidate, ready to make wild accusations he knew to be false in the hope that some voters would believe even the incredible.

As all the world knows by now, he won a Silver Star by beaching the boat he commanded, to jump off in pursuit of a Viet Cong guerrilla, whom he shot dead. He did not have to be in Vietnam, he could have been at home; he did not have to beach the boat - the standard tactic would have been to pull back from the shore all guns firing, not ram the prow into the mud. And as commander of the boat, he did not have to chase the guerrilla himself.

He did it all simply because he is a fighter, and a ferocious one. I am quite certain that if Kerry had been president on September 11 he would have reacted more violently than Bush, sending bombers into Afghanistan, not just Special Forces scouts, and demanding immediate co-operation - or else - from Saudi Arabia, not just Pakistan. European anti-militarists have really picked the wrong guy as their hero.

The only difference - and here is the greatest irony - is that Kerry would almost certainly disengage more slowly than Bush simply as a matter of political positioning: he is the one more vulnerable to accusations of abandoning Iraq to Islamic fanatics, warlord-priests and Saddam loyalists.

It is not just over Iraq that the hawkish Kerry will confound European liberals. He has harshly criticised Bush for not being tough enough with Iran - another irony, because it implies a preference for unilateral action rather than the multilateral diplomacy he supposedly espouses.

Unless Kerry really does ask Congress for the money to add two Army divisions, one will need a microscope to tell the difference in military policy if Kerry wins the election. Perhaps The Guardian and its readers should take a close look at those pictures of Kerry with his shotgun after last week's goose shoot: there goes a genuine American hawk, red in tooth and policy.

Read article here


Ralph Nader debates Bush/Kerry



Click here for the Vote Nader store!