Muslims For Nader/Camejo

Ihsan

2004-12-15T23:32:00.000-08:00

Thought I might share this poem my 12 year old daughter wrote recently........peace

The meaning of War
By: Suhayla

When will this war end
Has it really even begun
Would there of been a finish
If there never was a start

Can you really tell me the explanation of this war
Was it because of saddam, bin laden, or neither nor
Could it just of been
Just because
Did Bush want to have it, just to have some fun

Was this the point of the war
To send troops over there
To torture people who had nothing to do with it and that weren’t treated fair
And the troops tortured them without a single care
But when you hear that one of them dies you kinda think it’s fair

It’s not their fault if one of our people die
What, you want us to fight them
And them not even touch a fly

If you really had common sense, then I think you should know
In a war, when it starts, you can’t just expect to go
And your opponents fighting against you
Not to put up an equal fight

What if you’d done nothing
And some people come bomb your home
Now you’re sitting outside, huddled all alone

Listening to people screaming, crying, and fighting
Listening to gun shots in the air
Now another one is firing

What would you do if it were your country and your national home
Now you must just sit there, watching it get destroyed

Do you still think that they really are the ones,
Who came over and killed everybody else
They didn’t wreck our whole country
And ruin the lives of all the little ones
I think we should be the very greatful ones

So they got saddam and ruined the whole country
So what are they still doing taking over families

I don’t know about you, but it makes me really sick
Seeing a soldier sleeping in a bed
Where a poor kid once did

Now the soldiers don’t seem as bad off to me,
As the kid that once lived
In the tiny little house that used to be called his

But now where has he gone
The soldiers have taken his house
Has he died or has he vanished,
And if he has, will the soldiers now also claim his house

Now that you have heard this
Is this really the meaning of war?

Ihsan

Rebuilding the anti-war movement!

2004-11-11T15:53:00.000-08:00

MEREDETH KOLODNER writes: (excerpts)

With Iraq under martial law and a full-scale assault on Fallujah under way, the anti-war movement is struggling to re-mobilize in response to this looming catastrophe. On a parallel track, the left continues to dissect and debate the meaning and reasons for Kerry's loss, but there are multiple lessons for the anti-war movement lurking within the election debacle. Two camps of explanation have emerged from the debris: one says that Kerry's loss shows just how conservative the church-going American heartland is, while the other argues that, even though they advocated a vote for him, Kerry's pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-NAFTA, pro-Patriot Act record alienated the "base" of the Democratic Party. The result, the second camp says, is that this Democratic Leadership Council controlled campaign resulted in mediocre turnout among young voters and people of color, as opposed to the enthusiastic rush to the polls of bigoted evangelical Christians.

The anti-war movement should not repeat this mistake. Rather than contorting ourselves for some imagined "Middle America," the anti-war movement needs to raise its demands with more force, vigor and confidence. Mobilizing our base is the first step in this process--even if you believe the lowest polls, over a third of US adults think the troops should come home now, and 70 million people is nothing to walk away from. From that base, we can make the case for immediate withdrawal, and win wider layers of people to that position. At the end of the day, we must convince people that it is the occupation itself which is making the country unsafe, unjust, and undemocratic. If we do not win this basic argument, the phased withdrawal will become an ever-receding goal in the future. What is to say the "security" situation will be different in 3 months? Won't the argument then be that the US needs to stay a little longer until things are stabilized? The lesson of the Kerry campaign is that if we don't fight for a position, we will never win it. And worse, by not fighting, we allow the political spectrum to slip further and further to the right (witness the disastrous passage of state gay marriage bans)

Read complete article here

Kerry's straight jacket

2004-11-08T23:40:00.000-08:00

Ahmed Amr writes: (excerpts)

John Kerry lost the White House because he played by the rules - The DLC rules. The Democratic Leadership Council appointed JFK as their standard bearer because they trusted him to contain the campaign within the red lines drawn by Joseph Lieberman and Haim Saban. As a starting point, Kerry willingly sold his soul to the DLC devils and set out to derail Howard Dean's insurgency. Beyond that, he was free to win or lose against Bush - so long as he accepted some basic DLC guidance on domestic and foreign policy.

In ignoring the anti-war movement, Kerry made a fatal choice. Because one of the unique characteristics of this generation of peace activists is that many of them are older, middle class and conservatives. This was the kind of peace movement where Pat Buchanan and George Soros were marching in solidarity with Alexander Cockburn and Michael Moore. Ex-CIA agents and ex-generals and state department veterans saw common cause with left coast peaceniks.

Kerry was fully aware that his sponsors at the DLC were heavily influenced by neo-con ideology. In fact, the DLC is an integral part of the war party. Whether out of conviction or opportunism, JFK willingly allowed them to have their way. He postured as Bush Heavy on the war and got licked fair and square on tangential domestic issues. The DLC convinced Kerry that he was 'Anybody' and that the election was just a referendum on Bush. Now that the results are in, it is clear that this election started out as a referendum against the war. When Kerry came out in favor of Bush's foreign policy - it became a beauty contest about who had 'leadership skills' and 'moral values'. Given Kerry's capitulation to the DLC, maybe the voters made a rational choice.

Read complete article here

Don't Say We Didn't Warn You

2004-11-06T23:10:00.000-08:00

Alexander Cockburn writes: (excerpts)

November 2, 2004, marks a terrible defeat for the liberal elites, whether represented by Paul Krugman in the New York Times, by Michael Moore in his baseball cap, by the New York Review, by that vast complex of delusion and self-aggrandizement known as the Democratic Party. Its establishment is truly in crisis now, from the labor leaders who squandered millions in vehement efforts to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot to the public interest groups have gave Kerry the green light to waffle on all the crucial issues, to the "strategists" who got their cut on the campaign ads and got it all wrong. I hadn't the heart to warn the weeping young thing that they'll be back in 2008, as wrong as ever and that mass movements have to build up momentum over years, not in the span of one election campaign and zeppelins of electronic hype.

A couple of days after the election I called Ralph Nader to see how he was doing. He was feisty.

"You will know within a week whether there'll be a turn around in the Democratic Party. There'd have to be a complete turnover of personnel; a clean out of the stables."

So you see, Mr Moore, you led a huge campaign, replete with disgusting vilification of Ralph Nader, which encouraged people to throw away their vote, on Kerry. What did the Kerry vote gain them? Nothing.

The same goes for the Labor movement, whose organizers spent untold hours and money challenging Nader's ballot efforts. Better that they had devoted more time to a far more troubling expression of disloyalty to the Democratic candidate at the head of the ticket. For every three union members who voted for Kerry, there were two more who voted for Bush. That's the problem, not Ralph Nader, who defied every variant of hysterical abuse in the necessary effort of describing what the problem was, and is. That if course is the job that also lies ahead for us.

Read complete article here

The Struggle Continues!

2004-11-04T22:20:00.000-08:00

Salaam all - thank you for visiting this blog - over the past three months - tens of thousands of individuals visited us - and thousands more have returned day after day - as we exposed the corrupt Republican/Democrat duopoly. Inshallah, we will continue our struggle - a new blog/website is in the works - and will soon be announced on these pages.

Meanwhile, we will continue updating this blog - so don't go away - lots of exciting news is happening. The duopoly won't be around forever - and sooner than later - we will have a progressive leadership in the United States!

In today's news - check out Donna J. Volatile's great article on the Kerrycats, she writes (excerpts)

It is now the morning after, the morning after, and Kerry supporters should be moving from mourning into anger as the ice cold splash of reality begins to settle in.

Your guy lost, plain and simple but was he really your guy to begin with?

Most of the people who got behind Kerry were people vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq and the use of pre-emptive strikes. Most of you are caring, thoughtful and intelligent people who truly wanted to make a difference. Yet, in mass you got behind a man who didn't represent your ideas and values, a man who couldn't define himself or differentiate himself from his opponent, a man who supported the invasion of Iraq and continued to do so throughout his campaign. Was Kerry really your guy?

THE OLIVE BRANCH AND THE SWORD

We invite all of you back into the fold but understand, we're not among those who want to reinvent the Democratic party. Those days are through. They have proved they aren't worth another minute of our time. Were inviting you into a new world, a better world. This is a place were we the people decide what we want for our country and who should lead us there. We do not accept the lack of choice that has been imposed on our society. We will create our own choices. We have the power to do that. Out with the old worn out two party system: De! mocrats and Republicans, which now clearly resembles the one party, no alternative debacle.

Read more here!

The moral values of this election

2004-11-03T20:10:00.000-08:00

Anis Memon writes (excerpts)

What do the Kerry supporters who masqueraded as progressives, boldly proclaiming that they opposed Kerry on most issues, but were nevertheless going to vote for him and encourage others to do the same, what do these people think? The Noam Chomskys and Howard Zinns and the guy I keep bumping into who regularly reads CounterPunch? They supported someone they didn't like, simply because he was a little less bad (and maybe not even) than Bush; someone who has been trying to hedge right and take over the policies of his opponent. Since the summer, their candidate has had numerous and growing opportunities to decimate Bush on both domestic and foreign policy issues, and he's passed them up; in the last weeks of the campaign, Bush was reduced to repeating like a wind-up doll the only thing he could still claim about his presidency: "I will protect us from the terrorists; I will win the war in Iraq". And Kerry still managed to lose worse than Al Gore, who basically had nothing going for him.

I see the sad, hanging faces of the Kerry crowd around me today, as if a bright future had suddenly been extinguished. Kerry was not the Messiah, and he got what he deserved in taking for granted the progressive vote. Nader and the Greens who didn't sell out, and all of the local and regional progressive groups (real labor?) with their disparate concerns, must continue to campaign, not only, or even primarily, for the next presidential election, but for the establishment of a network outside the mainstream that makes running for public office with an articulate and sensible platform feasible. And they must work, as they are already doing, to make democracy mean something more than simply standing in line for 2 hours every four years: unions, strikes, boycotts, demonstrations, local elections, or simply knowing the facts and refusing to be told lies. Especially that last thing.

Click here to read complete article (this is a good one)

Raimondo's Nader vote not counted!!!

2004-11-03T11:14:00.001-08:00

Well, I tried to vote for Ralph Nader, but not without some difficulty. He's absent from the ballot in California due to the very effective efforts of Democratic infiltrators in the Green Party, but our Electoral Overlords thoughtfully provided a blank space where I was free to write in the name of my chosen candidate, and this I did with enthusiasm and conviction: that'll teach those undemocratic Democrats to try to cheat me out of my choice! Except that when it came time to put the paper ballot in the electronic counting device, my efforts came to naught: the machine, which had been functioning smoothly up until that point, let out with a cacophonous gurgle instead of the contented click it had given off previously, and the ballot popped out – rejected! Read on...

Nader's Raid!

2004-11-03T11:14:00.000-08:00

Nader’s Raid
Todd Chretien
11-3-04

In 1859, John Brown intended to distribute the arsenal at Harpers Ferry to slaves and lead an armed abolitionist rebellion. Militarily, his raid was a failure and his band of activists were killed in battle or executed. Fredrick Douglass eulogized Brown saying,

“The true question is, Did John Brown draw his sword against slavery and thereby lose his life in vain? And to this I answer ten thousand times, No! No man fails, or can fail, who so grandly gives himself and all he has to a righteous cause. No man, who in his hour of extremest need, when on his way to meet an ignominious death, could so forget himself as to stop and kiss a little child, one of the hated race for whom he was about to die, could by any possibility fail.”

“Did John Brown fail? If John Brown did not end the war that ended slavery, he did at least begin the war that ended slavery. If we look over the dates, places and men for which this honor is claimed, we shall find that not Carolina, but Virginia, not Fort Sumter, but Harpers Ferry, and the arsenal, not Col. Anderson, but John Brown, began the war that ended American slavery and made this a free Republic. Until this blow was struck, the prospect for freedom was dim, shadowy and uncertain. The irrepressible conflict was one of words, votes and compromises.”

“When John Brown stretched forth his arm the sky was cleared. The time for compromises was gone – the armed hosts of freedom stood face to face over the chasm of a broken Union – and the clash of arms was at hand. “

Now, historical analogies should be treated skeptically, but Douglass’ words ought to frame our thinking about the results of this election and where we need to go from here.

Kerry threw the election to Bush by endorsing the occupation of Iraq, the Patriot Act, corporate tax breaks, the assault on abortion rights, bans on gay marriage and the death penalty. While Bush’s policies stoked anger against the administration, Kerry worked hard to defend those very actions. The ABB left’s theory was that Kerry was the thin blue line defending the world from Bush and therefore made no demands on him. Michael Moore led the way in slandering the Nader/Camejo campaign and did everything possible to quash the only well-known anti-war voice in the elections.

Nader told the ABBers that their uncritical support for Kerry would allow him to move to right, demoralize his base and that he would lose, just as Gore had done in 2000. He also argued that there was a tremendous opening to build a mass electoral campaign uniting the whole anti-war left in a full-on fight against the bi-partisan war parties. Unfortunately, Nader could only prove the case in the negative. That is, it is now painfully obvious that the ABBers were dead wrong, and that Nader was right about Kerry. However, the ABB wave was so powerful that it left the Nader/Camejo campaign relatively isolated and weak so it was not possible to really test the waters and see how many millions of people we could have gotten to vote against the war if even half of the well-known Nader supporters from 2000 had not gone over to Kerry. A good estimate perhaps would be Nader’s polling numbers from the spring, when he was around 5% in most polls. The roughly 500,000 votes Nader/Camejo got yesterday undoubtedly would have been nearly twice as high but for the fact that Nader was barred from the ballot in 15 states. But even this total shows that there is a base to work from.

We should look at the Nader/Camejo campaign as an electoral Harper’s Ferry, a raid on the two-party system. With all its faults, it lit up the corruption and rot at the heart of American democracy and it should give the left a yard stick with which to measure our future progress. There are two paths from which to choose now. Either we hang our heads and drift further away from the idea that we can ever challenge the two war parties for power, and we see our social movements as merely moral protests against things we can’t really hope to change. Or we redouble our efforts to study the fault lines in American history, mobilize our forces in the streets, the campuses and the picket lines, and build political organizations and parties that follow in the footsteps of the revolutionary Abolitionists. The Nader/Camejo campaign did not end the war against the corporate duopoly, but (hopefully) it did at least begin the war that will end it, and the racism, militarism and poverty that it defends so uncompromisingly. The choice is ours.

Todd Chretien was the California Field Coordinator for the Nader/Camejo campaign and is a frequent contributor to the International Socialist Review. He can be reached at ToddChretien@comcast.net

No Surrender!

2004-11-03T10:45:00.000-08:00

Let’s look at some facts - although Nader/Camejo barely got 1% of the vote in the States they were on the ballot - (over a 100,000 in New York) - millions of people who voted for Kerry (and even many Bush voters) have sound progressive, and anti-war values. Unfortunately, the peace movement suspended the struggle while they campaigned for Kerry’s pro-war stand (with some distant hope that Kerry would be “better”).

We have a few tasks in front of us:

We must not mourn - we have millions and millions of Americans on our side - who recognize the importance of ending the war, and a strong progressive agenda for the US. Howard Zinn correctly pointed out this morning on Democracy Now! that we have four years to organize a serious political movement in the US.

Click here to read more

Vote!

2004-11-01T21:43:00.000-08:00

Vote For Peace

Vote For Justice

Vote For Planet Earth

Vote For Ralph Nader And Peter Camejo!!!!!

click here to read more!

A Principled Vote for Nader Will Prove Muslims’ Real Voting Power

2004-11-01T01:20:00.000-08:00

Souheila Al-Jadda writes: (excerpts)

American Muslim groups made a mistake by backing the Democratic candidate Senator John Kerry for President this election.

“What does it mean for Muslim Americans if President Bush is re-elected? It means more constricting laws and policies to curtail the civil liberties of the Muslim Americans, and harsher foreign policies toward Muslim countries - in the name of combating terrorism.”

John Kerry agrees. He says that four more years of President Bush will be “more of the same.” But four years of Kerry will also be “more of the same” for Muslims since both candidates’ positions are virtually identical on the major issues that concern this community—civil liberties, Iraq and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

By supporting John Kerry, the Muslim political community in the United States has once again proven its naiveté about American politics. Kerry has only reluctantly reached out to American Muslim voters. He has not said anything that even remotely addresses their concerns.

American Muslims should not adopt the “anyone-but-Bush” strategy because in four years they may end up saying, “anyone-but-Kerry.”

Muslims should vote for Nader or write him in the ballot based on his principles and positions.

Nader directly addresses the major issues that concern Muslims. He opposes the Patriot Act, describing it as unconstitutional and calling for its repeal. He consistently opposes the war in Iraq, saying he would begin pulling out our troops immediately and bring in United Nations peacekeepers. Finally, rather than completely ignoring the Palestinian-Israeli conflict altogether, Ralph Nader says he opposes the separation wall and the building of illegal settlements.

Whether Bush or Kerry is elected President, American Muslims will have more of the same. But a strong show at the polls and a protest vote for Nader will show both parties that this segment of the voting population is significant and must not be sidelined.

Read complete artice here

Costner for Nader!

2004-10-31T21:57:00.000-08:00

"God bless Ralph Nader. I think he’s a true patriot."

The following remarks by Kevin Costner, in support of Ralph Nader, originally broadcast on Real Time with Bill Maher , Friday, October 29, HBO (please note that the points of ellipsis indicate not an omission but a pause or hesitation).

The panel members for the broadcast were as follows:

Richard Belzer

General Wesley Clark

Kevin Costner

Bill Maher

Costner: I would say this. The war is what it is. If John Kerry wants to separate himself from these two points that seemingly divide him on these imaginary polls that I think everybody is sick of—but there’s two points that somebody’s vying for. If he wants to leap past those two points he needs to talk to us just the same way that Ralph Nader talks to us. And God bless Ralph Nader. I think he’s a true patriot, and somehow he’s been rendered in a way that makes him seem foolish. He’s like Lincolnesque because he’s not the most handsome guy. I think this guy’s mesmerizing and I think he’s on target . . .

Belzer: Will you vote for him?

Costner: Would I vote for him? I might. If I have the balls I might vote for him, yeah.

Read Full...

The Muslim Predicament

2004-10-31T09:57:00.000-08:00

Courtesy of Khalil Bendib, all rights reserved.

http://bendib.com/

Choose dignity and Vote For Nader!

2004-10-31T07:15:00.000-08:00

Choose dignity and vote for Nader

By Ahmed Amr

Editor

NileMedia.com

October 31, 2004

The corporate media has many voters believing this a contest between Bush and Kerry. But there is a third candidate in this race, a man who does not bow to special interests - domestic or foreign. A man who is not reluctant to take controversial stands against the Iraq war or to speak up for the Palestinians.

That man is Ralph Nader.

All Americans should give some serious consideration to Nader - if only to deflate the power of the media barons and vandalize their political machines. But Arab-Americans and other minorities must be the first to line up behind Nader.

If he had a chance to win, Nader would put together an administration that would provide a healthy political environment in which all Americans, no matter their heritage, are encouraged to participate.

Even though Nader will lose, his support will not go unnoticed. A new party will be born - one that will welcome Arab-Americans and other ethnic minorities with open arms as the equals of every other Americans.

Nader has served us all well as a consumer advocate and as a champion of the environment. He is an unimpeachable civil libertarian. He is the only candidate who has the courage to distinguish between American national interests and Israel's interest. He promises campaign finance laws that will take the government out of the hands of the corporate elite and restore it to the people.

Nader is about serious change. He will pay attention to the middle class, the homeless and the vast underclass of working people who are not making a living wage. If you are searching for the most decent man in this race, you will find no better value for your vote. A little exposure to Nader clears the mind. He leaves a distinct impression as a man who has genuine concern for our country and our planet. He inspires us to believe that we can take back our government any time we want.

Every American should pay attention to foreign policy. But Arab-Americans should be the first to understand that our foreign policy effects our domestic well being. What the government decides to do to foreigners over there eventually ends up influencing our life and liberty as ethnic Americans over here.

If you want to understand how American foreign policy is constructed, pay a little attention to this election - because this is where politicians cook the poison they force feed to the people of the Middle East. This is where they decide whether Palestinians are tormented or Iraqis are invaded.

To gain votes and finance their campaigns, both Bush and Kerry have pledged their loyalty to Israel, right or wrong. Both have given unequivocal support to Sharon’s incessant assaults against the Palestinians. Both support escalating the war in Iraq. And both have recruited their foreign policy teams from the ranks of the Likudnik neo-cons. Only Nader has been willing to pay the political price of taking on the Israeli lobby.

As a result of their lethal policies – both major parties end up making America a target for terror. The whole country suffers the consequences. But Arab Americans are twice victimized. Like our fellow citizens, we pay the price of living in a permanent state of insecurity. We pay our fair share of the blood and treasure that is wasted in the Mess on Potamia. But we also get the additional bonus of being labeled suspect nationals.

Isn’t it amazing that Americans of Arab heritage are rarely counted among the ranks of Middle East ‘experts’? What could we possibly know compared to Bush - who has spent less than a week of his entire life in that troubled region? As an ethnic group, we are rarely invited to contribute our talents to shaping foreign policy. Is it not the cruelest of ironies that we end up paying the stiffest price for the consequences of the colossal mistakes of the State Department and the Likudnik neo-cons?

Arab-Americans should be wary of any illusions that the Republicans and Democrats will stop shunning us anytime soon. They have cast us aside and made us feel like stepchildren in our own country. We have been defamed in public and labeled unworthy of full civil rights. Both Democrats and Republicans meet our concerns and our aspirations with disdain. Only Nader stands for clean and accountable government that will not pander to one ethnic group and shun another.

At times like these, when our community is under political quarantine, the American dream fades a bit. It’s easy to feel let down and left out. We are definitely worse off than we were four years ago. And it’s not the economy, stupid. It’s the erosion of the quality of our citizenship.

We have been collectively demoted to second class nationals. When we cast our votes, that should be our number one concern. As a group and as individuals, we didn’t do a damn thing to deserve any of this Patriot Act nonsense. So, maybe this is a good opportunity to let our political aristocracy know that we are mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.

This election, we have been left with two choices. We can vote for Nader or not vote at all. We can let Bush and Kerry treat us as like outcasts or we can vote to cast them out. Tuesday is a great opportunity to snub both major parties and see how good it feels to be Americans again.

Wherever you are living in these United States of America, whatever your ethnicity, vote for a candidate who will make our country a better and stronger union - a union that does not have an ethnic underclass. A union in which all our children will be treated as equal and worthy citizens before the law and the lawmakers. We are all ethnic Americans, part of an unbelievable experience in the annals of human history. We Americans are children of every race and every culture. Let us vote for candidates who understand that Arab-Americans should not be treated as an orphan constituency.

This coming Tuesday, let our voices ring loud and clear for Nader. Let us join a movement that will revitalize this great democracy and make it truly inclusive. Let Arab-Americans and Muslim Americans join the millions of their fellow citizens who will vote for a political renaissance by laying the foundations of a sane third force on America’s political landscape.

Take a stand and honor America’s tradition of liberty. Be patriotic and vote for Nader and the dignity of your children. Now, more than ever, we need a government that answers to all and is accessible to all.

Vote early and vote often.

Ahmed Amr is the editor of NileMedia.com. This article can be published and distributed at will.

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

2004-10-30T23:13:00.000-07:00

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

2004-10-30T22:16:00.000-07:00

20 Reasons to Vote for Ralph Nader!

2004-10-30T19:18:00.000-07:00

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!

2004-10-30T01:44:00.000-07:00

“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

The Ralph Nader Index!

2004-10-29T11:45:00.000-07:00

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!

Ralph Nader's open letter

2004-10-28T22:58:00.000-07:00

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!

2004-10-28T22:52:00.000-07:00

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!

2004-10-28T10:16:00.000-07:00

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

Write In Nader (WIN)

2004-10-27T11:25:00.000-07:00

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!

Does that mean ground troops?

2004-10-26T21:53:00.000-07:00

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

2004-10-26T21:32:00.000-07:00

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.”