| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1011
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
And since Occupy has recently been discovered to be a U.S. Government-run operation via the person of Anonymous Sabu, it looks like all the equipment has been put together for a fishing operation to gather up activists, or anyone who would go against the Government. This is the establishment of America as a fascist "State," a power against "The People." Democracy is now officially a thing of the past.
| Global Research wrote: | The Criminalization of Protest: Say Goodbye To Free Speech in America
by Devon DB
Global Research, March 9, 2012
A new bill, HR 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, also known as the “Trespassing Bill,” is soon to be signed into law by President Obama. This bill effectively criminalizes protest and will hurt protest groups and movements such as Occupy quite hard.
The bill as states that anyone who knowingly “enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so” with the “intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in or [in] proximity to, any restricted building or grounds” or “impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions” will be punished with a fine or “or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both.” (emphasis added)
There are already many problems with the bill as it does not attempt to define what “imped[ing] or disrupt[ing] the orderly conduct of government business or official functions” is, nor does it specify what “government business” is or what an “official function” is. This vagueness will allow for the US government to effectively stifle protest and free speech, thus criminalizing such actions like the upcoming Occupy Chicago anti-NATO/G-8 protests. In addition to this, such a law will make it impossible for Americans to exercise their First Amendment rights when “government business” is being attended to or “official functions” are occurring.
Unsurprisingly, only three people voted against the measure: Paul Broun (R-GA-10), Justin Amash (R-MI-3) and Ron Paul (R-TX-14). This law would allow federal law enforcement “to bring these charges against Americans engaged in political protests anywhere in the country, and violators will face criminal penalties that include imprisonment for up to 10 years.” HR 347 will is ripe for abuse, as the NYPD has, as of recent, assumed the notion that taking photos and videotaping is a form of disorderly conduct.
The fact that only three people in the House, all Republicans oppose the bill and absolutely no Democrats (see the voting list here), only shows just how both parties are just two sides of the same coin.
This law comes at the heels of the US government having debated over whether or not to indefinitely detain US citizens and Attorney General Eric Holder- the Obama administration’s version of John Yoo, arguing that the President can assassinate US citizens without providing any evidence whatsoever to anyone.
Free speech may very well soon be nothing but a distant relic of the past.
Devon DB is a 20 year old writer and researcher. He is currently majoring in political science at Fairleigh Dickinson University.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1011
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Global Research wrote: | Cyber False Flag to Push for More Restrictive Laws?
LulzSec’s FBI Informant Leader Hinted at CIA Connection
by Kurt Nimmo
Global Research, March 9, 2012
Image: FBI informant Hector Xavier Monsegur, aka Sabu.
Prior to the takedown of the hacker group LulzSec, the group’s leader – who turned out to be an FBI operative – told a reporter from the Guardian he may or may not be connected to the CIA.
Last July, baited by an accusation that he worked for jihadist Muslims, he engaged in an internet chat with journalist James Ball.
Ball did not post excerpts from his conversation with Hector Xavier Monsegur, aka Sabu, the leader of LulzSec, until after members of the group were arrested for their hacking activities and it became known that he worked for the FBI.
“Sabu began by denouncing the Guardian’s publication of the vague allegations of the supposed Islamic links of the hacker community,” Ball writes. “Then he switched tack, asking why the paper hadn’t published rumors linking him to the CIA, arguing that would amount to an equivalent and equally inaccurate allegation. Given what we know now, the swerve is particularly noteworthy.”
After denying he worked for the CIA, Sabu told Ball it would make sense from a false flag perspective if “a rogue group of hackers suddenly began attacking national interests — spawning a massive overhaul of internet security, theoretically.”
Ball writes that “what’s interesting is Sabu’s internal reasoning for why – hypothetically at least – a compromised organization (as we know now LulzSec was) might be allowed to continue.”
LulzSec was allowed to continue precisely for the reason Sabu mentioned – to provide the propaganda narrative required for a government push for draconian cybersecurity legislation.
James Ball makes the argument for us. “From June to March this year, he – and his FBI handlers – were party to details, often in advance, of hacking attacks including the interception of an FBI conference call, and the seizure of 5m emails from the servers of UK intelligence firm Stratfor, which are currently being published by WikiLeaks.”
Cover story: Sabu was flipped by the FBI.
Sabu did not admit that he worked for the CIA. But it is interesting an FBI operative would tell a journalist that it makes sense for government to roll out a cyber false flag in order to push for more restrictive laws designed to control the internet.
It’s a classic example of Diocletian’s problem-reaction-solution.
Government creates a problem through a false flag event – taking down servers, stealing emails and passcodes, and taunting the authorities – and after eliciting public fear (for example, hackers may shut down the power grid) they devise a solution that basically kills the internet goose that laid the golden egg.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1011
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dprogram.net wrote: | Bust Reveals Government Runs Hacking Groups
March 7th, 2012
See Also: (Guardian) – LulzSec leader Sabu was working for us, says FBI – Read More Here http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/mar/06/lulzsec-sabu-working-for-us-fbi
Also: (IND) – Hackers arrested as their high-profile figurehead ‘turned informant’ – Read More Here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hackers-arrested-as-highprofile-figurehead-turns-informant-7542065.html
Editor’s Note: To those readers who are familiar with the term ‘controlled oposition’, a public figurehead of Anonymous and LulzSec has been revealed as a police informant who has apparently ratted out his other genuinely subversive hacker colleagues. One has to ask the question exactly how long were these groups infiltrated, or could they even been set-up to attract idealistic, highly skilled hackers – like bugs to a night-lite? Deception seems to fuel most modern paradigms which society is being presented in our 21st century media, increasing the importance of questioning everything.
(KurtNimmo) – The establishment media has characterized the leader of LulzSec ratting out his hacktivist comrades as betrayal, but the incident reveals something far more sinister – government is responsible for creating and unleashing computer hacker groups.
Hector Xavier Monsegur, said to be the leader of LulzSec, worked for the FBI, according to news reports. He was reportedly arrested in Puerto Rico last June, pleaded guilty to hacking charges, and then began working with the FBI – or so the cover story would have it.
Monsequr, aka Sabu, decided what targets to attack and who would participate in the attacks, more than likely at the direction of this FBI handlers. It is believed he participated in the Anonymous effort to hack HBGary, the security firm that works closely with the CIA, NSA, FBI, and the Pentagon.
Sabu’s Lulz Security, commonly abbreviated as LulzSec, claimed responsibility for taking the CIA website offline. It also attacked Fox News, PBS, Sony, and a number of gamer sites. LulzSec claims to have hacked local InfraGard chapter sites, the organization affiliated with the FBI, and released the emails and passwords of a number of users of senate.gov.
LulzSec and Anonymous attacks have provided the government with an excuse to push their cyber security agenda and propaganda campaign, including the proposal for a “kill switch” that would have allowed Obama to shut down the internet (due to public outrage, the proposal was dropped from a House bill in February).
Government and corporate groups cited LulzSec and Anonymous lawlessness last June to push the so-called Protect IP Act (known as PIPA). The introduction of a House version of the bill, dubbed SOPA (Stop Online Privacy Act), was met with public outrage and widespread activism that forced Congress to reconsider the legislation.
In October, Mother Jones revealed that the FBI is notorious for creating supposed terrorist groups from scratch and then framing patsies in order to claim the government is protecting the United States from terrorists and also breathe life into an otherwise moribund war on mostly nonexistent terrorism.
Sabu’s role as an FBI provocateur working inside LulzSec reveals the government is attempting to do the same in order to push its so-called cybersecurity agenda. The establishment is eager to pass a raft of legislation to closely regulate the internet, strip the medium of its anonymity, and close it down as an activism and alternative media tool.
Source: Infowars |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1011
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, Obama, Obama, Obama! What kind of government are you running?
Occupy Movement Wannabe Domestic Terror Groups Run by FBI
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1011
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You Got Played, by Charles Carreon wrote: | YOU GOT PLAYED
by Charles Carreon
{Sing to "Heart of Stone," by the Rolling Stones)
There’ve been so many
Voters I’ve known
Democrats are so dumb
Just like Republicans
Here comes the little girl,
Pushing her baby down the street
She’s all by herself,
Using food stamps get somethin’ to eat,
And I’ll promise change
Promise change
Promise CHANGE
And then forget…
I’ll go to Washington, but I’ll forget now.
Another election?
A fait acomplit ...
You could vote for that other guy,
Yeah, if you wanna die.
And you know you won’t
Know you won’t
Know you won’t
Know you won’t
Stand alone
You can’t stand alone, baby, need a man beside you.
You keep on hopin’ I’ll remember someday
And I’ll lead you on,
Yes on and on and on,
The bankers are my friends,
But ain’t I good to you?
Didn’t send you to Guantanamo,
Didn’t beat you black and blue,
So you’ll never leave,
Never leave,
Never leave,
You gotta come home,
You gotta come home to poppa babe.
You think you are different?
That you’ll “occupy”
But you just sat in your tent
Tryin’ to avoid the rent.
Couldn’t come up with no demands,
Playin’ your little anarchist games,
Hate to tell you baby,
You’re all pretty lame,
And some day you’ll see
Day you’ll see
Day you’ll see
Day you’ll see,
You just got played,
Played by me, yeah, I was the player
Played by me,
Yeah baby you just got played,
Played by me. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1011
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a rockin' dude.
| Wikipedia wrote: | Rocky Anderson
Anderson in 2009
Ross Carl "Rocky" Anderson (born September 9, 1951) served two terms as the 33rd mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, between 2000 and 2008.[2] He is the Executive Director of High Road for Human Rights.[3] Prior to serving as Mayor, he practiced law for 21 years in Salt Lake City, during which time he was listed in Best Lawyers in America, was rated A-V (highest rating) by Martindale-Hubbell, served as Chair of the Utah State Bar Litigation Section[4] and was Editor-in-Chief of, and a contributor to, Voir Dire legal journal.[5]
As mayor, Anderson rose to nationwide prominence as a champion of several national and international causes, including climate protection, immigration reform, restorative criminal justice, LGBT rights, and an end to the "war on drugs". Before and after the invasion by the U.S. of Iraq in 2003, Anderson was a leading opponent of the invasion and occupation of Iraq and related human rights abuses. Anderson was the only mayor of a major U.S. city who advocated for the impeachment of President George W. Bush, which he did in many venues throughout the United States.
Anderson's work and advocacy led to local, national, and international recognition in numerous spheres, including being named by Business Week as one of the top twenty activists in the world on climate change,[6] serving on the Newsweek Global Environmental Leadership Advisory Board,[7] and being recognised by the Human Rights Campaign as one of the top ten straight advocates in the United States for LGBT equality.[8] He has also received numerous awards for his work, including the EPA Climate Protection Award,[9] the Sierra Club Distinguished Service Award,[10] the Respect the Earth Planet Defender Award, the National Association of Hispanic Publications Presidential Award,[11] The Drug Policy Alliance Richard J. Dennis Drugpeace Award,[12] the Progressive Democrats of America Spine Award,[13] the League of United Latin American Citizens Profile in Courage Award,[14] the Bill of Rights Defense Committee Patriot Award,[15] the Code Pink (Salt Lake City) Pink Star honor, the Morehouse University Gandhi, King, Ikeda Award, and the World Leadership Award for environmental programs.[16]
Formerly a member of the Democratic Party, Anderson expressed his disappointment with that Party in 2011,[17] stating, “The Constitution has been eviscerated while Democrats have stood by with nary a whimper. It is a gutless, unprincipled party, bought and paid for by the same interests that buy and pay for the Republican Party."[18] Anderson announced his intention to run for President in 2012 as a candidate for the newly-formed Justice Party.[19]
Life before law and politics
Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson was born in Logan, Utah, one of three children of Roy and Grace Anderson.[20] His parents both worked at a local lumber yard, Anderson Lumber Company, founded by Rocky's great-grandfather, a Norwegian immigrant carpenter who had converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (also known as the Mormons).[20]
Anderson is not a Mormon, but was raised as a Mormon, and was a practicing member of that predominant religion in Logan,[21] but he has described his disagreement with certain doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ, particularly the denial, before 1978, of the priesthood and, therefore, temple ceremonies to men of black skin color (see Black people and Mormonism). Anderson also expresses disagreement with what he describes as the L.D.S. teaching of personal moral abdication through obedience to people in positions of authority.[22] Anderson deeply believes in the principle of personal conscience and individual accountability, and considers what he sees as a call for blind obedience as contrary thereto.[23]
Anderson studied ethics, political philosophy, and religious philosophy at the University of Utah.[24] He also explored theological issues in depth and determined that the best course for him was to intensely consider ethical choices, then set certain moral guideposts for his life, and focus on trying to live accordingly, without regard to the doctrines of any organized religion.[25]
While expressing the importance of some fundamental moral lessons he learned as a young member of the LDS Church, and while describing the value he places on his Mormon heritage,[26] Anderson has spoken out about the L.D.S. Church's alleged discrimination against gays and lesbians.[27] Anderson has written about his views on this issue[28] and appeared in the film, "8: A Mormon Proposition."[29]
During high school, Rocky played lead guitar in a rock and roll band, The Viscounts, and worked at a cabinet and roof truss plant. He also shingled roofs during his high school years. After graduating from Ogden High School,[30] Anderson attended the University of Utah, during which time he served as Treasurer for Sigma Chi Fraternity[31] and worked at various jobs, including as a truck driver, a roofer, and manager of a gas station.
Anderson received a bachelor's degree in Philosophy, graduating magna cum laude.[32] After reading existentialist literature and several works on ethics, religious philosophy, and political philosophy, he had a "powerful epiphany. We can't escape responsibility, there's no sitting out moral decisions, and whenever we refuse to stand up against wrongdoing we're actually supporting the status quo."[33]
After graduating from the University of Utah, Anderson worked at several jobs. He built buck fence at a ranch in Wyoming, tended bar in Salt Lake City, drove a cab, waited tables at a restaurant, worked at a methadone clinic, typed trucking bills, and worked at a construction job.[34] He started graduate school in Philosophy at the University of Utah, then travelled to Europe and lived and worked for a few months in Freiburg, Germany before returning to the United States to attend law school.[35]
In 1978 Anderson graduated, with honors, from The George Washington University Law School,[36] attaining a J.D. degree.
Legal career and activism while practicing law
Upon graduation, Anderson returned to Salt Lake City to practice law. He tried several jury trials in federal and state courts and handled appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, the Utah Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the District of Utah (in an appeal from Bankruptcy Court) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[37] Anderson had an extremely diverse legal practice and represented plaintiffs in dozens of major cases.[38] Anderson practiced law for twenty-one years in Salt Lake City, beginning as an associate with Berman & Giauque and serving as a shareholder in Berman & Anderson; Hansen & Anderson; Anderson & Watkins; and Anderson & Karrenberg. He specialized in civil litigation in several areas, including antitrust, securities fraud, commercial, products liability, professional malpractice, and civil rights law. In many instances, he represented individuals sueing corporations or government agents, including plaintiffs in the following cases:
Bradford v. Moench: A consumer rights lawsuit in which Anderson asserted a novel securities law theory and achieved, in a precedent-setting decision, broad protections for depositors in inadequately insured “thrift and loan” companies.[39]
Scott v. Hammock: A lawsuit in which Anderson represented a young woman who suffered from sex abuse perpetrated by her adoptive father. During the course of the case, Anderson challenged the secrecy claimed by the L.D.S Church regarding non-penitential communications by the defendant with his Mormon bishop.[40]
University of Utah Students Against Apartheid v. Peterson: A case in which plaintiffs successfully asserted their First Amendment rights to symbolic speech after the university administration ordered them to remove shanties used to protest the university's investments in South Africa. (Anderson filed an amicus brief for the A.C.L.U. in the case.)[41]
Armstrong v. McCotter: A civil rights case involving a young mentally ill man, Michael Valent, who, while incarcerated in prison, died from a pulmonary embolism after being strapped naked in a restraint chair for 16 hours solely because of conduct linked to his schizophrenia.[42]
Bott v. Deland: A civil rights case that established, for the first time, protections for the rights of incarcerated people under the Utah Constitution far broader than under the US Constitution. In that case, the Utah Supreme Court also agreed that financial damages, not limited by state statute, are available for violations of the protections provided for incarcerated people under the State Constitution.[43]
Regan v. Salt Lake County: A class action challenging invasive searches, including strip searches, of women held on minor violations at the Salt Lake County Jail.[44]
Prettyman v. Salt Lake City: A civil rights case involving the excessive use of force by police, resulting in the breaking of a rod in the plaintiff’s back.[45]
Hale v. Loader: A lawsuit involving sexual abuse of a female prison inmate by prison personnel.
Harding v. Walles: A civil rights case involving the sexual abuse of a male prison inmate by a prison guard.[46]
Anderson also helped spearhead reform of Utah’s child custody laws.[47] He worked to institute a program to help those who do not qualify for assistance through Legal Aid or Legal Services, but who are unable to afford to pay a full fee for legal representation.[48] Anderson served as Chair of the Litigation Section of the Utah State Bar Association[49] (when the Litigation Section was recognized by the Utah Bar Association as the Section of the Year[50]), and as President of Anderson and Karrenberg, a Salt Lake City law firm.[51]
When he was practicing law, Anderson was affiliated with several non-profit organizations dedicated to protecting civil rights, providing educational opportunities for economically-disadvantaged children, improving the penal and criminal justice systems, and strengthening legislative ethics. He served as president of the boards of the ACLU of Utah,[52] Guadalupe Schools,[53] and Citizens for Penal Reform, which he founded.[53] He also served as a board member of several other community-based, non-profit organizations, including Planned Parenthood Association of Utah[54] and Utah Common Cause.[55] On behalf of Common Cause, Anderson lobbied for stronger legislation pertaining to ethical conduct by elected officials and for campaign finance reform.
While he was practicing law, Anderson opposed the Reagan administration's efforts to overthrow the government in Nicaragua and other policies in Latin America. He organized two trips to Nicaragua for dozens of Utahns to see for themselves what was happening there.[56]
Moved by the tragedy experienced by friends and family members of several women who were murdered in the Salt Lake City area, and by the failure of Salt Lake City police detectives to solve the crimes, Anderson worked without charge for many months reviewing documents and locating and interviewing witnesses. His work, along with the efforts of other people, led to the eventual grand jury indictment and conviction of a man for one of the murders.[57]
Congressional campaign
After winning a contentious primary election against Kelly Atkinson by 11%,[58] Anderson ran for Congress as the Democratic nominee in Utah's Second Congressional District in 1996 against Republican Merrill Cook.[59] Without any financial help from the Democratic Party (some local Democratic leaders viewed Anderson as being too liberal because of his support of the ACLU, his opposition to U.S. policy toward Nicaragua in the 1980s, and his opposition to the death penalty[60]), he garnered over 100,000 votes in the district.[61] Anderson lost the 1996 race to Merrill Cook by 29,680 votes, with 42 percent of the ballots versus 55 percent for Cook.
Mayor of Salt Lake City
Anderson ran for Mayor of Salt Lake City in 1999, defeating 10 other candidates in the primary campaign, before winning 60% of the vote in the general election against opponent Stuart Reid.[62] He won re-election by a 7% margin against Frank Pignanelli in 2003.[63]
Anderson's two terms in office were extremely eventful, with Anderson playing a leading role in hosting the 2002 Winter Olympic Games;[64] He organized and co-hosted dozens of mayors for three consecutive years at the Sundance Summit.[65] He also founded the Salt Lake City International Jazz Festival, providing national and international leadership regarding climate protection, carrying on a successful national campaign to require that airports across the country screen all checked luggage,[66] expanding the area's light rail system,[67] significantly expanding protected open space,[68] implementing an innovative and highly successful Restorative justice program[69] and creating a city-wide after-school and summer youth program.[70] Many of Anderson's achievements were described in his State of the City addresses[71] and listed in a document provided to the public shortly before he left office.[72]
Anderson chose not to run for a third term so he could push for reforms of U.S. human rights policies and practices through grassroots organizing.[73]
Environmental/climate protection programs
Considered perhaps the "greenest" mayor in the United States,[74] Anderson gained international renown for his Salt Lake City Green Program[75] – a comprehensive effort to improve sustainability and reduce the City's environmental footprint – achieving a 31% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from municipal operations in 3 years. Elements of the program, which Anderson described as covering "everything from dog waste to nuclear waste,” included initiatives to improve the efficiency of the City’s fleet and use of electricity, measures to make Salt Lake City more bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly, and cogeneration plants at the City’s landfill and wastewater treatment facilities that recapture methane to generate electricity.[76]
As part of the Salt Lake City Green program, Anderson committed Salt Lake City to the Kyoto Protocol goals in 2002.[77] He mandated that all city buildings use energy-efficient light bulbs and replacing SUVs in the city fleet with high efficiency, alternative fuel vehicles.[78] Anderson almost doubled the city's recycling capacity in one year.[78] The City surpassed its Kyoto goals in 2006, seven years ahead of schedule.[76] In 2003, Anderson received the Climate Protection Award from the United States Environmental Protection Agency,[79] and the Sierra Club acknowledged his environmental work with its Distinguished Service Award.[10] In November 2005, the Salt Lake City Green program led to the receipt by Salt Lake City of the World Leadership Award for environmental programs, presented by the World Leadership Forum in London.[80]
Anderson exemplified "green living" by his personal example, including xeriscaping of his entire yard;[81] his installation of solar panels at his home; recycling all recyclable materials; and his use of cold water detergent, fluorescent bulbs, thermostat timers, and a natural gas car.[82]
While serving as mayor, Anderson informed and inspired other municipal officials about the importance of educating constituents about climate change and of taking measures to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[83] For three consecutive years, he organized and co-hosted with Robert Redford and ICLEI the "Sundance Summit: A Mayors Gathering on Climate Protection," attended by dozens of mayors from throughout the United States. At the Sundance Summit, mayors learned the science of climate change, how to communicate regarding the causes, consequences, and solutions to climate change, and best practices in cities implementing ground-breaking climate protection practices.[84]
Anderson also spoke on the subject of the climate crisis at side meetings at United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings in New Delhi, Buenos Aires, and Bali, and at conferences throughout the United States and in Sweden and Australia.[85]
During Anderson's tenure as mayor, he created the "e2 Business" program, recruiting local businesses to implement major sustainability practices[86] and led a national campaign against the environmentally and economically destructive use of plastic water bottles—what he has called "the greatest marketing scam of all time".[87]
Tobacco
Anderson is an ardent opponent of tobacco use and has supported legislative measures limiting smoking and taxing tobacco products.[88]
Ethnic minority issues communities
In December 2001, state and federal officials organized a raid at the Salt Lake City Airport that enforced immigration laws against undocumented employees, who were arrested, imprisoned, and lost their jobs.[89] In response, Anderson created the Family to Family program, which made it possible for Salt Lake City families to provide direct emotional and financial assistance to the airport workers and their families, while gaining a better understanding of the plight of immigrants.[14] Additionally, the Mayor spearheaded a challenge to English-only legislation in Utah in 2000,[90] and later spoke at large demonstrations for comprehensive immigration reform.[91]
Anderson received the League of United Latin American Citizens’s first-ever “Profile in Courage” award,[14] as well as the National Association of Hispanic Publications’ Presidential Award, in 2006.[92]
Anderson signed an executive order in 2000 implementing a full-fledged affirmative action program in City hiring.[93] This program led to historic levels of ethnic minority hiring and retention in City government.[94] The percentage of the City government's workforce from the ethnic minority community increased more than 30% in seven years and the number of City administrators, in higher paying positions, from the ethnic minority community increased more than 85% since 2000. Thirty-two percent of Anderson's appointments to City boards and commissions, and one-third of the staff in the Mayor's Office, were ethnic minorities.[93]
Along with Jon Huntsman, Sr., Anderson co-convened the Alliance for Unity, a non-partisan group of religious and community leaders working to build bridges between diverse people throughout Utah.[95]
2002 Winter Olympics
After working with Mitt Romney and leading Salt Lake City through the 2002 Winter Olympics, Anderson handed off the Olympic flag at the closing ceremonies of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.[96] One of Anderson’s key achievements was working effectively with the Utah State Legislature and Mitt Romney in making certain that public safety needs would be adequately financed. Romney later said, "I think a lot of people would look at (the Olympic funding deal) and say it was a minor miracle. [Rocky] was instrumental, key, in reaching a solution."[97]
Anderson endorsed Romney's subsequent 2002 gubernatorial bid in Massachusetts.[98] Romney later endorsed Anderson’s 2003 mayoral re-election campaign.[99] Anderson has criticized Romney's changes in positions on certain issues since he decided to run for president of the U.S.[100] “The Mitt Romney who ran for and served as governor of Massachusetts was a very different Mitt Romney than has been running for President of the United States… the real Mitt Romney — the Mitt Romney we all knew and [who] served as governor of Massachusetts — was very reasonable, very moderate — he felt that Roe versus Wade should be the end of the debate on choice; supporter of stem cell research — he was not the right-winger that he seemed to be when he decided he would run for President of the United States.”[101]
Crime and restorative criminal justice
Anderson was a member of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition,[102] a bi-partisan group with a stated goal of "making the public safer by getting illegal guns off the streets". The Coalition was co-chaired by Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.[103]
Anderson restructured Salt Lake City’s criminal justice system and, after reviewing the peer-reviewed literature indicating that DARE is ineffective in reducing drug use, discontinued the DARE program in Salt Lake City schools.[104] He supported implementation, instead, of programs—ATLAS and ATHENA—that have demonstrated success.[105] He called for an end to the failed "war on drugs" and for better drug prevention education, implementation of harm reduction policies, and the availability of substance abuse treatment on demand. He also successfully lobbied President Clinton to grant a commutation of a lengthy prison sentence imposed on a Salt Lake City man who had already served several years in a federal penitentiary for his first and only conviction for violation of drug laws.[106]
Instead of pushing for more minor offenders to be sent to jail or prison, Anderson built innovative restorative justice programs, which earned him a nomination for a second World Leadership Award.[107] He implemented reforms ensuring that mental health courts channelled mentally ill criminals into mandatory treatment programs rather than putting them behind bars. People arrested on drug charges, or for prostitution or soliciting prostitutes (as well as several other types of offenses), were sent through a comprehensive course of counselling rather than automatically being handed criminal convictions and sentences for incarceration. The results were better and the costs were far less than those entailed in pursuing the traditional retributive approach.[108]
Economy
As mayor, Anderson was a strong advocate for local businesses, saying, "Loyal, locally-owned businesses deserve our support. When we 'buy locally,' our economy is strengthened and our quality of life is enhanced. Consumer dollars are regenerated within our community and we help preserve the charm and uniqueness local businesses provide."[109]
Anderson promulgated an administrative rule providing that, in considering bids, the city would give preference to companies paying a living wage to their employees. One Republican legislator called it the "Rocky loophole" and was intent on closing it. The Utah Legislature then passed a statute prohibiting cities from giving such preference.[110]
Establishing a reputation as a fiscal conservative, during the period 1999 to 2007, Anderson increased Salt Lake City's general fund reserve balance by more than 62%, from $20.3 million to $32.6 million.[111]
Opposition to War in Iraq and human rights abuses
Called by Amy Goodman "one of the most outspoken critics of the Bush administration and the Iraq war,"[112] Anderson was a leading opponent of the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the U.S., both before and after the invasion, and was the only major city mayor advocating the impeachment of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney.[113]
He spoke often against the Iraq invasion and occupation, and for impeachment,[114] including at several large rallies and state and federal legislative hearings, in Salt Lake City;[115] Olympia, Washington;[116] New York;[117] and Washington, D.C.;[118] and on national television and radio programs hosted by Amy Goodman,[119] Bill O'Reilly,[120] Keith Olbermann,[121] and Tom Ashbrook.[122] He also engaged in a notorious live debate with Sean Hannity about Iraq and impeachment.[123]
Call for impeachment of President George W. Bush
Interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN after an anti-war rally marking the fourth anniversary of the invasion and initial occupation of Iraq, Anderson advocated the impeachment of President George Bush, saying:
This president, by engaging in such incredible abuses of power, breaches of trust with both the Congress and the American people, and misleading us into this tragic and unbelievable war, the violation of treaties, other international law, our constitution, our own domestic laws, and then his role in heinous human rights abuses; I think all of that together calls for impeachment.[124]
Anderson also did not spare criticism for the Democratic Party, saying:
The fact that anybody would say that impeachment is off the table when we have a president who has been so egregious in his violations of our constitution, a president who asserts a unitary executive power, that is absolutely chilling.[124]
In 2006, he expressed his view of the Democratic Party as follows:
But what do I have to say about the Democratic Party? I’m ashamed, really, of how little leadership there has been. There has been just tremendous timidity on the part of the party, generally, although there have been a handful of exceptions. But, you know, we had one member of the United States Senate vote against the PATRIOT Act, the blank check that was given by Congress to this president, I think in total abrogation of the role of Congress under separation of powers and under the power to make war, to declare war. They gave that away to a president that didn’t have his facts straight and, I think, was manipulating the intelligence to sell this war.[125]
Anderson researched, wrote, produced, and narrated a major multi-media piece on the Iraq invasion and occupation, as well as the case for impeachment.[126]
Human rights advocacy
Understanding that grassroots organizing and mobilizing is a source of tremendous power for positive social and economic change, Anderson decided after serving almost eight years as mayor of Salt Lake City that he would not run for re-election and, instead, devote himself to educating, motivating, and mobilizing people to push elected officials and others to take action to prevent or stop major human rights abuses.[127] Anderson has stressed the importance of people at the grassroots level advocating for progressive change, stating, “We keep expecting elected officials will do the right thing, and the fact is they never do unless they’re pushed.”[128]
In January 2008 he founded High Road for Human Rights, a non-profit organization formed to achieve major reforms of US human rights policies and practices through unique, coordinated, and sustained grassroots activism, complementing the work of other human rights organizations.[129] The principle underlying the organization is that politicians don’t do anything unless pushed. High Road is a bottom-up, grassroots based organization founded “to make it clear there will be short-term political costs for those who continue to ignore these kinds of problems… Every time a congressperson or senator comes home and they hold a meeting, there [should be] a group there pushing on the same issues”, according to Anderson.[130] High Road has a growing membership base and active local teams of people who meet and work together to bring about change.[131]
The organization has a broad-based membership, with an Advisory Committee composed of prominent human rights, environmental, and political activists, as well as artists, actors, and writers, including Ed Asner, Harry Belafonte, Lester Brown, Hillary Brown, Ben Cohen, Daniel Ellsberg, Ross Gelbspan, Susan Joy Hassol, Mark Hersgaard, Mimi Kennedy, Paul Rogat Loeb, Edward Mazria, Bill McKibben, Yoko Ono, Gus Speth, Winnie Singh, Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Elie Wiesel, and Terry Tempest Williams.[132] High Road for Human Rights primarily addresses five issues: torture and the undermining of the rule of law, genocide, slavery, the death penalty, and the human rights implications of the climate crisis.[133]
Anderson testified before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee during a hearing on September 25, 2008 concerning executive branch abuses of power[134] and spoke at rallies organized by High Road for Human Rights, calling for accountability for torture.[135] He has also researched, written, produced, and narrated two multi-media pieces on torture and the undermining of the rule of law.[136]
For his work on human rights matters during his tenure as Executive Director of High Road for Human Rights, Anderson received the Morehouse University Gandhi, King, Ikeda Award and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee's Patriot Award.[137]
Criticisms of President Obama and the Democratic Party
After President Obama’s election, Anderson was instantly critical of many of his policy positions and staff selections, such as Susan Rice, whom Obama appointed as United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Anderson faults Ms. Rice for “doing nothing” to stop the 1994 genocide in Rwanda as a staff member of the National Security Council.[130] (Rice is notorious for having been more concerned with the political repercussions in the upcoming congressional election than with ending the genocide in Rwanda, when she said to NSC colleagues, "If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November election?"[138]) Anderson was also critical of the appointment by Obama of John Brennan as his counterterrorism adviser because Brennan, as a member of the George W. Bush administration, publicly supported wiretapping, “enhanced interrogation,” and the “rendition” of war-on-terror suspects to offshore prisons beyond the reach of American law.[130] Anderson also pointed to Obama’s complete change of position after he received the Democratic nomination for president on the question of immunity for telecom companies that illegally cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Deeming himself to be “non-partisan” in his critiques of policy, Anderson has subsequently gone on to fiercely criticize the Obama administration in numerous areas, alleging that in certain spheres it has a worse record than the Bush administration. For instance, he has stated as follows:
“I don't know what people were expecting, all this hope and change nonsense.... There's no question that we're seeing a continuation [of the harm to], and even in some instances a worsening of our republic under this administration. The Obama Administration has contended that no documents stamped as secret by a government agent should ever be allowed into evidence by our courts. That even goes beyond what the Bush Administration did.”
Anderson has emphasized the discrepancy between Obama’s position as a candidate for the 2008 presidency, and the actions he has actually undertaken as President, stating that “President Obama has betrayed us in almost every single way from being a candidate to being the President of the United States.”[139] Anderson has pointed to Obama’s failure to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, refusing to prosecute what Anderson deems to be the “war criminals” of the Bush administration, continuing renditions, violating the War Power Clause of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution by committing military troops to Libya without congressional authorization, and continuing, and even expanding, the occupation in Afghanistan.[139] Anderson has stated that Obama is “the least deserving recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in the history of the Nobel Peace Prize.”[139] Concerning Obama's betrayal of the rule of law, Anderson has commented as follows:
"The complacency that has allowed wars of aggression, wars of choice, we weren't forced into them, they were totally illegal wars under international law, the kinds of war crimes that took place, with people just saying, even our current president, 'Oh, let's put that behind us. Let's not call people to account. Let's not enforce our laws… “If these people had robbed the gold buillon out of a government safe, would we just say, ‘Let bygones be bygones; forget the rule of law?"[140]
Anderson has pointedly criticized Obama for violating the Convention Against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, since every signatory to the convention is required to prosecute or extradite for prosecution those responsible for torture, something Obama refuses to do. Anderson has pointed out that, when the U.S. Senate ratified the Convention Against Torture, President Ronald Reagan stressed that the Convention requires prosecution or extradition of anyone responsible for torture.[141]
Anderson has stated that despite his earlier belief that the Bush Administration would be merely an “aberration” in the history of the US, “President Obama has institutionalized some of the worst abuses of the Bush Administration.”[139]
Controversies
State Senator Chris Buttars of West Jordan publicly denounced former Mayor Rocky Anderson for having "attracted the entire gay community to come and live in Salt Lake County" after a Dan Jones poll indicated strong support for allowing domestic partnerships. In the 2004 election, 63% of the city population voted against banning same-sex marriage, in agreement with Mayor Anderson.[142]
In 2000, Anderson asked the Salt Lake City Police Department to end its participation in the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program. He told DARE officials: "I think your organization has been an absolute fraud on the people of this country... For you to continue taking precious drug-prevention dollars when we have such a serious and, in some instances, growing addiction problem is unconscionable."[143] Critics charged Anderson with being insufficiently opposed to teen drug use and with failing to propose any alternatives.
In August 2005, Anderson violated Salt Lake City policy when he used $633.74 in public funds to purchase meals and alcoholic beverages on two occasions for musicians who performed at the Salt Lake City International Jazz Festival and for visiting mayors from throughout the country. The Deseret News published four consecutive front-page articles on the story, and portrayed the purchases as "bar tabs."[144]
When interviewed in September 2005 by the Deseret Morning News, Anderson stated that he disagreed with the policy, that providing hospitality to out-of-town visitors is an important mayoral function, and that exceptions to the policy had been made previously.[145] The policy was subsequently changed to allow appropriate purchases of food and alcohol when entertaining out-of-town guests. Mayor Anderson reimbursed the City with his private funds for expenditures incurred while entertaining visiting mayors.[146]
The Deseret Morning News soon created more controversy with its coverage of an interview Anderson gave to The Guardian newspaper in London. Leading with the headline, “LDS Church Not Taliban, Rocky says,” the paper noted that Anderson had compared life in Utah to life under the Taliban.[147] Anderson emphasized that the comment, intended to be light-hearted, was not directed toward the state or its residents, nor toward The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Rather, he said, the comment was directed toward local media, particularly the Deseret Morning News, who had originally characterized his alcohol and food purchases at a local restaurant as "bar tabs," and which had run articles about the fact that a Salt Lake City Reads Together book selection contained profanity.
In October 2005, local politicians accused Anderson of improper spending of public money. This time the issue was travel to Italy related to the 2006 Winter Olympic Games.[148] Anderson responded that the trip to Turin was to continue the longstanding Olympic tradition of delivering the Olympic message and did not cost Utah taxpayers any money. The Salt Lake City District Attorney cleared Anderson of any wrongdoing in the case.
On June 12, 2007, following a meeting in a City Council workroom, Anderson was involved in a physical and verbal confrontation with downtown real-estate developer Dell Loy Hansen. After challenging Anderson to speak to him, Hansen reportedly knocked Anderson off-balance. Anderson responded by threatening to "kick [Hansen's] ass."[149] On June 18, a spokesman for Anderson indicated that the possibility of legal action against Hansen was being explored.[150] It has since been determined that no charges will be filed.[151]
On August 11, 2011, major news media in Utah reported that Anderson had denounced the Democratic Party and resigned his membership with it. Anderson wrote in his letter to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that "Until the Democratic Party shows some spine and draws a line in the sand -- that an end to the tax breaks for the wealthy needs to be part of any debt/budget bill -- please take my name off your list."[152] He added that "I'm done with the Democratic Party. As I said on Amy Goodman's show a couple years ago, I've put my 'Proud Democrat' coffee mug in storage. I think now I'll just throw it in the garbage and have done with it" and that "The Constitution has been eviscerated while Democrats have stood by with nary a whimper. It is a gutless, unprincipled party, bought and paid for by the same interests that buy and pay for the Republican Party."[153]
On November 29, 2011, the Salt Lake Tribune quotes Anderson as saying, "I'll be announcing my candidacy," for the 2012 presidential nomination of a new national political party. This party was not named, though it was later reported to be called the Justice Party. Its formation is reported to have been discussed among Anderson; Margaret Flowers, a medical doctor and proponent of a single-payer health plan; Kevin Zeese, an organizer of the Occupy D.C. movement; and former U.S. Rep. John Anderson, who ran for president as an independent in the 1980 presidential election.[154][155]
Anderson formally accepted the 2012 presidential nomination of the Justice Party on January 13, 2012.[156]
In March 2012, Anderson announced that he was seeking the presidential nomination of Americans Elect in addition to campaigning as the Justice party nominee.[157][158] The following May, Americans Elect announced that it would not run a presidential nominee in 2012.[159]
Anderson also sought the presidential nomination of the Peace and Freedom Party,[160] but withdrew his bid for that nomination in August 2012.[161]
Personal life
Anderson, a resident of Salt Lake City, is twice divorced and now single. He has one grown son. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1011
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The guy's obviously a genius. I'm very impressed. And he's endorsed by Ralph Nader.
| Truthout wrote: | Justice Party Presidential Candidate Rocky Anderson Speaks Candidly on the Crumbling State of the Union
Sunday, 26 August 2012 00:00 By Ron Boyer, Truthout
I first heard of Ross Carl "Rocky"Anderson through a politically savvy, liberal friend in Santa Barbara, California. More disillusioned and cynical about American politics than ever due to my disappointment in the administration of President Barack Obama, I set aside my friend's invitation to meet Anderson and learn more about his newly formed Justice Party and announced candidacy for President of the United States. "Just what we need,"I told myself at the time, "another false promise of 'hope we can believe in.'"
When a second invitation to meet Anderson was unexpectedly offered, this time from a mutual friend with long-term Berkeley activist credentials, I decided to give him a second look. With endorsements from Ralph Nader and other bonafide progressive political leaders to his credit, I joined Anderson's campaign entourage for a day in the San Francisco Bay Area. The interview was mostly conducted as we drove from one informal political meeting to the next, fighting traffic all the way while driving from an intimate conversation with a half dozen progressive leaders at former San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly's bar to a speech to old-school Berkeley activists at a local church, complete with vegetarian potluck, 60s protest songs, and an unanticipated in-person endorsement from the progressive current mayor of Richmond, California, Gayle McLaughlin.
As I spent time with Anderson and the interview developed, an interesting picture began to emerge: Rocky Anderson is a paradox. A popular two-term mayor of Salt Lake City, which is situated in the heartland of one of the "reddest" states in America, he was the only major urban mayor in the nation to call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush. A soft-spoken, clearly electable, youthful boy-next-door, Anderson's candid, articulate political views belie his clean-cut, conservative presentation: Here is a decent middle-American kind of guy my conservative family members would like, or perhaps even vote for, and yet, his political views are consistently aligned with my own progressive leftist policy positions. Anderson sees global warming as the greatest threat to humanity, big money's influence in politics as the greatest enemy of our struggling democracy, and the current two-party, corporate-owned political system in America as an increasingly anti-constitutional tyranny, in the literal sense of the word.
A strong supporter of the Occupy movement, Anderson fears our government's moves to crush dissent. As an attorney whose practice included civil rights and constitutional law, and as a committed advocate for the rule of law and human rights, he sternly challenges the Obama administration's passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and would support an independent Congressional investigation into what actually happened on 9/11 and would hold responsible parties accountable.
As we rode from one small, casual group meeting to the next, loosely organized by a handful of committed, grassroots activist volunteers, I couldn't help but think how sharply Anderson's campaign contrasted with the well-oiled, well-financed campaign machinery of the Republicans and Democrats - and how different his thoughtful viewpoint sounds from the mainstream narratives that dictate our view of reality from the bully pulpits of the mass media.
Is Rocky Anderson a veritable Don Quixote of post-modern American politics, tilting at the windmills of the national political establishment, where the Big Game seems well rigged? Or is he another visionary voice crying in the wilderness against the perils of American plutocracy? In the present context, both metaphors offer more than a grain of truth. But whether he is a postmodern prophet or a quixotic idealist is for history to decide.
Speaking personally, I prefer to think of Anderson's run for the presidency as the (increasingly less) lonely quest of a decent, courageous and honorable man - a political underdog's journey along a road "less traveled by."And, to paraphrase the poet Robert Frost, author of that fine metaphor: That just might make all the difference.
Ron Boyer: Why did you decide to create the Justice Party and run for President of the United States? And, perhaps as important: Why now?
Rocky Anderson: Our nation has been transformed in extraordinarily tragic ways in the past dozen years. The rule of law has been utterly eviscerated during the Bush and Obama administrations. We've engaged in wars of aggression, wars for which there has been no coherent explanation. Our debt is completely out of control. We have a military-industrial complex with a stranglehold on our government. And at the core of almost every public policy failure, all we have to do to find an explanation is follow the money, because our Congress and the White House have been purchased lock, stock and barrel by wealthy corporate interests.
The Republican and Democratic Parties have colluded in creating the corrupt, perverse system that has led our nation to this point today. And there is now no question in my mind that we need a major new alternative. There are some great third parties in this country, but none of them have a history of winning elections. They simply don't resonate with a broad enough political base either to succeed in winning or in helping create a long-term, sustained movement for significant change in this country.
RB: Can you say more about why you decided to run and why you think you're qualified to lead?
RA: I resisted running in the beginning because, frankly, a campaign for president is overwhelming. And I know we're up against great odds. However, after considering the matter for two or three months, I came to the conclusion that this is something I have to do if I'm going to be able to say that I did everything I could to get our nation back on track.
This isn't only about the American people. This is about the future of our world. There are issues I've worked on for a number of years that aren't being dealt with in an effective way by our government, principally because of the corrupting influence of money.
For instance, I've worked for many years to combat climate change. When I was mayor of Salt Lake City, I committed that we'd abide by the Kyoto Protocol goals in our municipal operations. We far exceeded those goals, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 31 percent in three years. I then worked with dozens of mayors from around the country and teamed up with Robert Redford to bring them to the Sundance Summit - every year for three years - to not only provide scientific information for mayors, but to provide them with communication skills and expose them to best practices from cities around the country.
I'm convinced that climate change poses, by far, the greatest risk to humanity. And the failure of essential US leadership in the international community will end up having devastating consequences.
RB: Obviously, with the ascendancy of Sarah Palin in the last election cycle, it's quite possible for someone with mayoral experience to create a platform and an audience at the national level. And after all, Salt Lake City is certainly no Wasilla, Alaska.
You apparently, despite all the problems you're suggesting, believe in changing the system from within. Many of your presumably natural constituents, like members of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, may not.
RA: First of all, there really is no comparison between Sarah Palin and me. I oversaw a general fund budget of over $200 million - plus a huge redevelopment agency and a major international airport - for eight years. I dealt with thousands of public employees in three public employee unions. I've had infinitely more management and executive experience than someone like Barack Obama before he was elected to the White House. Certainly far more than anybody like Sarah Palin ever had.
But perhaps even more importantly, I've shown, in my professional community and public service commitments, a deep understanding of what we need to do in our local communities and throughout our nation if we're going to deal with major problems that impact all of us. Everything from fiscal responsibility to restorative justice, creating good jobs by building a sustainable economy, and confronting the horrendous problem of climate change.
RB: Say more about your belief in changing the system from within.
RA: In order to change the system, we need to approach it from every direction possible. The anti-slavery movement, the women's suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, the labor movement - all were successful because of tenacious action by committed people at the grassroots willing to organize and act, sometimes year after year, to meet their goals. But real change can certainly be facilitated if we have people in elective office that can both change public policy and urge the American people on to push for change. Certainly that was demonstrated by Franklin Roosevelt, who proposed some fairly radical solutions in his time, and knew how to fight for them and build public support along the way.
So, I would say to anyone who has given up on the electoral system that we need to push from every direction. Keep up the fight on the outside, but also never turn your back on the electoral system, particularly when there are candidates willing to fight for your compatriots. Those who have become so cynical and resigned that they refuse even to vote are, in a certain sense, declaring defeat and are part of the problem.
RB: I recently saw a video clip of Michael Moore on his knees begging Ralph Nader not to run for president this time. What's your reply to the spoiler issue?
RA: If we allow the fear-driven argument that the lesser of two evils (in this case I think we could say the more effective of the two evils) may be defeated by the greater of two evils, then we're simply conceding to the status quo. Then we'll never see a change. In fact, we'll see things continue to get worse, with the ratcheting up of an imperial presidency, with the undermining of the rule of law and our constitutional values, and a continued destruction of our democracy, as well as a worsening economic disparity - which is already worse than at any time since the 1920s and during the Great Depression.
We can either choose to simply move the players - Republicans and Democrats - around and sustain the corrupt system in which those with the money call all the shots, or we can finally organize and take action together to choose a very different way. And that's what my candidacy represents, and that's what the Justice Party represents.
A corollary to that argument concerning the spoiler issue is that we, at some point, must draw the line, both as American citizens and moral actors. People need to put it in perspective. I don't think there are many who would now consider voting for someone who promises to halt wars of aggression and then sends in more troops, who continues to refuse to hold people accountable under the law for war crimes, or targets US citizens for assassination without any semblance of due process, all of which President Obama has done.
Where do we draw the line and say: How can any American support a president for re-election who would ask for the power, as President Obama did in 2009, and then sign into law the NDAA that provides the President with the power to point to anyone in the world, including US citizens, to have them essentially kidnapped, disappeared and indefinitely detained without charges, without trial, without habeas corpus, even without legal assistance? It's probably the most subversive, anti-American act ever undertaken by the United States Congress and the president.
And if the American people can't draw the line because of this fear that a president who would engage in those kinds of acts might not be elected instead of the Republican nominee, then we have become transformed into a very different and dangerous nation of people.
RB: I think top Democratic Party strategists - reportedly, for example, David Axelrod - are banking that those of us on the left whom Obama has alienated since he was elected, for the reasons you're discussing, will realize that we have to vote for Obama again because: "Think how much worse it would be if a Republican was in the White House again!" They have a point.
But there are also a growing number of people, myself included, who think it's perhaps better to let the heavens fall and have a Sarah Palin or a Mitt Romney with their finger on the nuclear bomb, because maybe the crisis just needs to get so bad that Americans will wake up.
RA: We, the American people, need to get beyond our timidity and assert ourselves if we're ever going to see the kind of change that's necessary to move back in the direction of democracy and away from plutocracy. If we re-elect President Obama simply because of our fear that somebody else might be elected, then he is what we deserve. I think we're a better country than that. I think the world deserves better than a president of the United States who so cavalierly sends unmanned drones over other nations without any authorization by Congress, in complete violation of the war powers clause. The presidency has become far more imperial than even under George W. Bush. I didn't think that would be possible.
I, like so many Americans, thought that we would finally see a restoration of the rule of law, a return to separation of powers and our system of checks and balances. Instead, the Obama administration has been even more aggressive in its endorsement of the doctrine of state secrets privilege, essentially removing the courts from the constitutional formula, the system of checks and balances and separation of powers. That is the very definition of tyranny.
I don't think that's what the American people want. I'm not sure that most people understand that's exactly what we're getting with President Obama. And it will continue to get worse if we support his re-election simply on the basis of fear someone else might be elected instead. We do have an opportunity to come together and overthrow the dictatorship of corrupt money and elect to the presidency someone who will do everything possible to change the system. And who will help restore the rule of law, including compliance with the war powers clause and the due process clause of the Constitution.
RB: Do you really think you can create a viable third party on the progressive left and do it before November? Or is there a different kind of strategy for the long term involved here?
RA: You don't know what the possibilities are until you try them. Whoever dreamt that the Arab awakening would occur? Yet the people of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya organized together, through the democratized means of communication offered by social media. They were successful in overthrowing their dictators.
We're powerful enough in this country, using some of the same tools and organizing strategies, to overthrow the corrupting influence of money that has served as essentially a dictator in this nation. We're powerful enough to demand the restoration of the rule of law, a return to essential constitutional values. If only we will. So, certainly it's in the realm of possibility. And it would be a magnificent thing to see happen.
But even if it doesn't, we have the opportunity to communicate with the American people to help further the movement for major reforms. And as has occurred at other times in our nation's history, a major third party movement, even if it is not successful on Election Day, can create the conditions for the changes that we're talking about to ultimately be implemented.
RB: What's the feasibility of forming some kind of coalition party on the left that represents the constituencies of all these splinter groups - the Justice Party, the Greens, etcetera - and have some kind of broad coalition of progressives with a substantial percentage of the American people to start with as a base to build on?
RA: I think this is a perfect time for third parties to come together under one unified banner, perhaps set aside some of our differences and join in providing the kind of option the majority of the American people want to see in the coming election. I would be very pleased to work with the Greens, the Peace and Freedom Party, the Progressive Party, with the Libertarian Party, with Independents - with people of all stripes - in allowing a real choice, rather than creating several different factions and limiting the choices to small parties on either the left or the right of the political spectrum. And bring people together, focusing on our major common concerns and common aspirations.
RB: You alluded to the Arab Spring as a metaphor for possibility. We've experienced our own version of that with the American Autumn and what look to be interesting times ahead for the OWS or Occupy movement.
What do you make of Occupy, and of the mainstream media claims that OWS leaders didn't have a clear message or demand? Isn't the problem rather that there are far too many major, urgent policy issues now that it's impossible to pack them into sound bites?
RA: It seemed to me, almost from the beginning, that the message was coming through very loudly and clearly from the Occupy movement, which is that the wealthiest 1% have been benefiting at the tremendous expense of the 99%. There has never been such division between a very small, elite, financial aristocracy and the rest of us in this country since the Gilded Age - and what some call the "extended" Gilded Age, through the 1920s.
We know that government policy can help produce a healthy, thriving middle class where there's greater opportunity for everyone. And yet our government leaders have been doing the bidding of those who help buy their way into Congress and the White House through such means as deregulation of financial institutions and turning a blind eye to the massive financial fraud on Wall Street, all of which led to the financial meltdown from which so many of us are still reeling, not only in this country, but around the world. I think the Occupy movement has been an incredibly healthy phenomenon, and I hope that it continues for a long time into the future.
During the years when I was mayor, we would hold major demonstrations each time President Bush came to town. I lamented that we had to do far more than just hold a few demonstrations. I wondered at the time, Why aren't people out in the streets? When we were led into an illegal war of aggression based on a pack of lies, we were engaging, for the first time in our nation's history, in war crimes - like waterboarding - as a matter of official policy. Our president was getting away with felonious, warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.
And yet the American people were so relatively quiet and complacent. That, to me, was the most dangerous signal. Because we know that people in power oftentimes are going to abuse their power. But if the people will not hold them in check, and our other institutions, like our courts, will not hold them in check, then we're on the path towards totalitarianism.
RB: I read an article a few months ago in Wired where the author, James Bamford, described former senior National Security Agency (NSA) official William Binney as pinching his thumb and forefinger close together, saying, "We are that far" from being a "turnkey totalitarian state" in this country. You seem to be suggesting that as well.
Are we on the slippery slope toward fascist totalitarianism?
RA: I'm very reluctant to use words like fascism, totalitarianism or tyranny. But at the same time, we need to face the truth if we're going to reverse this dangerous course our country is on. When you consider that during the last 12 years, our county has become so very different than the republic we've known since its very founding, we've got to face up to the truth.
At Nuremberg, we prosecuted and convicted people engaging in aggressive war. There's no question that we, the United States, have been engaged in aggressive wars. And in pursuit of those wars, we have committed some of the most heinous human rights offenses. The president just recently issued an executive order that basically places all industry, all agriculture and all commerce in this country under the control of the president for national security purposes. That is part and parcel of a fascist government.
We've become a government now that engages in surveillance of American citizens' communications. And it's almost accepted now, over the past 12 years, when before that we would have been outraged as American citizens that our government was invading our privacy in such a way. And now, of course, the idea that the executive branch has the power to round people up and hold them indefinitely without any semblance of due process - that's certainly a clear sign of a totalitarian government.
Every generation has such enormous responsibility to preserve our republic, to preserve our constitutional system of government, including the system of checks and balances - to stand up against an imperial presidency that assumes so much power for itself and undermines the power of other branches to hold abuses of excess power in check. That's our challenge, and also our great opportunity. And again, it's not only as American citizens, but as moral actors, that we have this obligation and opportunity to reverse the dangerous course our nation is on.
RB: Earlier we were discussing the Occupy movement and the complexity of the issues, which would seem to be a bit of a challenge for you, as well. Can you give us your sound-bite version of your campaign platform, with the top three or four policy issues that you'll address?
Also, what will it take to unravel this mythical Gordian knot that we're in? There are so many interconnected issues. How do we begin to unravel it?
RA: Compliance with the war powers clause would keep us out of the disastrous wars we've been fighting ever since at least Vietnam. Imagine if Congress lived up to its constitutional responsibility to determine whether the facts justify going to war. We would have never gone into Vietnam. We never would have been in Iraq. And it's very likely we would not have been in Afghanistan.
We need significant campaign finance reform, with a public financing system. We need to reverse the Citizens United case. If that took a constitutional amendment, it would be very worthwhile, because the role of money in our campaign system is in large part responsible for the transformation of our democracy into a plutocracy - the control of our government by the very wealthy. We need to restore the rule of law, and live up to the promise that our nation has made, ever since its founding, that we would honor and recognize individual civil rights and liberties instead of indefinite detention without charges, trial or habeas corpus. We would get back to the basics in terms of due process for everyone.
And we need to join with the rest of the industrialized world and finally recognize the fundamental moral obligation that we, as a people, should have: to provide essential health care for everyone. People are dying simply because they cannot afford decent medical care in this country. We have the worst record in the industrialized world, except for Latvia, in the number of newborn babies who die because of the lack of prenatal and neonatal care. We have one of the highest death rates for people because of diabetes. We have an extremely high maternal death rate because of lack of health care coverage. This is a matter of tremendous national and individual tragedy in this country, and it's all happened because of the corrupting influence of money from the for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
A major transformation in these areas is required, and it's going to take leadership from the very top to turn things around. That's why I'm running for president, and that's why I encourage everyone to no longer be satisfied with the Republican and Democratic Parties and their candidates, who have brought us to this point where we are today.
RB: From a pragmatic standpoint, let's say by some miracle you wind up in the White House. How do you tackle the issues you just described when, from an institutional standpoint, you're surrounded by a Supreme Court that thinks corporations are people, a corrupt and obstinate group of Republicans who think Obama and any Democrats in Congress are "communists" (when, in my opinion, for the most part they really are, with the exception of a few, just ineffective pseudo-liberals).
On top of that, we have a mass media - the so-called Fourth Estate - that's really looking more and more like a propaganda machine for the official infotainment narrative than authentic journalism. It really looks like The People are surrounded.
RA: You have to empower the American people. In every progressive social movement in this country, change came about because of the tenacious activism of people who were willing to take to the streets to push their elected representatives till they did the right thing. Congress and the White House have been acting against the interests of the American people, and just about everybody in this nation knows not only that they've been doing that, but the reasons why.
FDR was up against enormous challenges, and he made his case to the American people, who made it clear to Congress that they were expected to take action. Imagine being without a precedent like Social Security, or Medicare or Medicaid, getting Congress to pass the Social Security Act. That came about because we had somebody in the White House who cared deeply, who was committed to major change, and who brought the American people along with him. This can be done. But not as long as corporate money is always calling the shots with Congress and the White House.
It's actually a time for great optimism if the American people will come together to overthrow the dictatorship of corrupt money, and call for a return of the rule of law, and getting back to the basics and turning the tide against the tyranny and totalitarianism that has been overtaking our country because of the collusion of both Republicans and Democrats.
RB: I was an early supporter of Barack Obama. I found him to be a brilliant, seemingly progressive orator. But within weeks of his inauguration, he surrounded himself with dozens of key advisers and cabinet members. Every single one - Republican and Democrat alike - had professional ties to either the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) or Project for the New American Century (PNAC), or both - which frankly shocked me. From that point on, it's been, predictably, one betrayal of his base after another.
What do you have to say about those organizations and how you'd approach the matter of naming your advisers differently? And how can we trust you or anyone to be different? Despite the bold campaign rhetoric, we obviously did not get "change we can believe in."
RA: Although I favored Barack Obama over McCain, or at least the McCain who was running for president, who was very different than the McCain we all thought we knew before his running in that campaign. But I did not have much hope, and I warned a lot of my friends who were Obama supporters that they were going to be vastly disappointed.
Instead of falling for the campaign slogans and public-relations hype, I always urge people to take a look at what candidates have done before they got involved in politics. Where are their true passions? What have they devoted themselves to, if anything?
I have a record of my entire adult life fighting for civil and human rights, of implementing programs that were aimed at solving problems rather than simply following the polls. I don't think that Barack Obama has any of that kind of record. He was an opportunist in the Illinois Legislature, basically in the hip pocket of the nuclear power industry. He did absolutely nothing to distinguish himself when he was a US Senator. He played it safe at every turn, never stood up against torture or against our continued illegal occupation of Iraq. In fact, he voted consistently for full funding of the occupation.
He promised, before he received the Democratic Party nomination, that he would join a filibuster to block proposed legislation to grant telecommunications companies' retroactive immunity for felonies they'd committed in working with the Bush administration and its illegal surveillance program. As soon as he received the nomination, he betrayed that promise and actually voted for the retroactive immunity, caving to the lobbying blitz after the telecommunications companies spent millions of dollars on their lobbyists to obtain those special favors from Congress.
Other than Eric Holder, there has not been one person in a top leadership position in the Obama administration who opposed our invasion and occupation of Iraq. [Obama has] shown his true colors, but he showed those colors before he was elected president of the United States. I think, because people wanted an alternative to George W. Bush, they were irrationally exuberant about Barack Obama.
The American people have an opportunity for the real thing now. If you look at my record, both as practicing lawyer and my involvement in the community, the service I gave to the Utah American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, Common Cause, Guadalupe School's educational programs - all of the work I did as a volunteer with those organizations - you'll see where my commitment was. Then, of course, my eight years as mayor of Salt Lake City, being one of the top activists among public officials around the world on the issue of climate change. Then the restorative justice programs and my opposition to the so-called war on drugs.
I was the only major city mayor who advocated for the impeachment of George W. Bush. And I hope people, looking back, will realize that was exactly the course this nation should have taken. The impeachment clause was written into the constitution to remove a president who would resort to gross deception of the American people and of Congress in order to make war against another country. A president who placed himself above the law - as what he called the leader of the "unitary executive branch"- assuming dictatorial powers, claiming that he was not bound by laws passed by Congress, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
As mayor of Salt Lake City, I took on a lot of powerful institutions and a lot of powerful people. I did it not out of a commitment to my own political future, but to fundamental principle. That's the way I've always conducted myself, and that's how I will conduct myself as president of the United States.
RB: Speaking of the Bush administration, I'd like pick up a specific thread. I thought we could start with Jason Leopold's excellent article on torture a few months ago after Truthout obtained a lot of information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). There is a very interesting piece that Leopold wrote based on those FOIA documents that basically indicates that the CIA tortured al-Qaeda members not essentially for intelligence purposes, but for propaganda purposes: to create false testimony to bolster government falsehoods, not to gather actionable intelligence.
Obama gave the presumed war criminals in the Bush White House a free pass - will you?
RA: My approach is very simple, and it's one that any president of the United States - or any true patriot - should take, which is: This is a nation where there should be equal justice for all. Anyone who violates the law should be held accountable, no matter how wealthy, no matter their position of power or former position of power. The law should apply to everyone alike.
I will insist on investigations. If Congress will not undertake investigations, as in the 1970s with the Church Committee, to ascertain what abuses took place and who was responsible, and to determine what measures can be taken to make certain such things don't happen in the future, I will create an independent commission to undertake such an investigation and disclosure to the American people.
RB: These kinds of issues take us down the rabbit hole a bit. I'd like to continue in that direction. How about the illegal wars that started based on, I believe, the pretext of 9/11?
I think anyone who has done their homework knows we went to war in Afghanistan to protect, among other things, the Unocal consortium's oil pipeline. It's not coincidental that we built our strategic military bases along that pipeline, and that we appointed an Afghan president who was closely tied to the oil industry.
Peter Dale Scott and others have written extensively about "deep government"and the role of the CIA promoting the Afghani heroin and hashish trade to the West, and similar actions deemed essential to secret government operations.
Acknowledging such dark realities represents a serious critique of the official 9/11 narrative spin, and our true collective identity as a nation, does it not?
RA: Our nation has a long history of overthrowing governments where we thought we could profit. We overthrew democratically elected governments in Iran, in Guatemala, and tried to overthrow the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. All those operations were CIA orchestrations and completely illegal. Even Sen. Barry Goldwater blasted the CIA for mining the port of Corinto in Nicaragua. We're up to the same thing now, but we're expanding these wars, most of the time on false pretense.
At Nuremberg, the prosecutor was Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Robert Jackson. In his opening remarks, Justice Jackson talked about the international crime of aggressive war. And he stated at that point that this prohibition was laid out expressly in the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and that if the prohibition of wars of aggression, the greatest threat to people around the world, was to have any meaning, then it had to be applied in a principled fashion not just against aggressor Germany at the Nuremberg tribunal, but in the future against all nations, including those sitting in judgment at Nuremberg.
We - as a nation and as a people - seem to have completely lost sight of the illegality of aggressive war. Aggressive war, of course, is a military attack against any nation, unless that nation has attacked or was about to attack the aggressor nation.
I'm strongly in favor of a fact-finding investigation where the truth can finally be laid out for the American people. These wars have been fought in our name. They've been financed by our nation. They've been devastating to people who have served and their families and other loved ones. Of course, they've been immensely tragic to people in the nations against whom we've pursued this aggression. There have been 1 million Iraqi people whose lives have been lost, directly or indirectly, as a result of our invasion and occupation of Iraq.
There must be some kind of accountability, even if not criminal prosecutions, even if not an international tribunal as in Nuremberg. The truth must come out. And not only in connection with the commission of these wars, but also the lies that led us into the wars. It's astounding to me that President Bush and other members of his administration could have so blatantly lied to the American people and withhold information that was in their possession in leading our nation to war. At least history should hold these people, who so blatantly lied to us, accountable.
Accountability should also be provided with regard to those in Congress who unconstitutionally delegated to President Bush the power to take our nation to war on his decision rather than, as the Constitution provides, on the basis of findings and an ultimate decision by Congress, which has the sole prerogative to decide whether our nation goes to war. Only a handful of members of the United States Senate even bothered to walk to a secure room in the Capitol, where a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was available for them to read.
If they had read that NIE, they would have found that there was huge disagreement within the intelligence community about the representations being made by the Bush administration as a justification for making war against Iraq. For example, the Department of Energy (DOE) and the intelligence agency within the State Department completely disagreed with the claim that aluminum tubes being obtained by the Iraq government were suitable for enriching uranium for the purpose of making nuclear weapons. Likewise, the intelligence agency within the State Department said that it was very unlikely that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium from Niger.
The really shocking fact, that I think most Americans don't realize, is that 12 days before our invasion of Iraq, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), disclosed that the documents solely relied upon by the Bush administration for its claim that Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase uranium from Niger were blatant forgeries. There was a small article in The Washington Post about that, then nothing else.
I remember exclaiming, when I saw that article in the Post, that this should be front page headline news throughout the country, since it went to the main premise underlying the Bush administration's claim that we should be going to war against Iraq. I think what we saw in Utah daily newspapers was typical of what went on around the rest of the country, and that was that there was not a word about this disclosure concerning the forgeries until some three and a half months after our invasion of Iraq, and well after President Bush had claimed victory.
RB: Let's talk more about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, of course, we're doing a lot of saber rattling around Iran right now, as well.
In terms of our government's darker motives for these wars, let's go back to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) - unofficially referred to in Washington, DC circles, reportedly by the first Bush administration, as the "crazies." PNAC's membership consisted of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Douglas Feith, et al - the usual suspects, all top Bush administration officials.
Apparently, this very same group of guys - who were in charge during 9/11, and who instigated these illegal wars - had publicly called for war in the Middle East back in the 90s to protect American hegemony as the sole world superpower after the fall of the Iron Curtain.
In a controversial policy paper, PNAC reportedly called for a "new"Pearl Harbor, alluding to the pretext for war that FDR allegedly used to get us into WWII. The author David Ray Griffin has written extensively and convincingly about this and other facts surrounding 9/11, raising a host of basic questions of formal logic that still remain unanswered, in spite of (or some would say, because of) the 9/11 Commission.
Was it an inside job? As president, can we count on you to launch a serious independent investigation of what actually happened on 9/11?
RA: I don't think anybody can say that it was an inside job, because there are too many questions that remain unanswered. And the American people deserve conclusive answers following a thorough investigation. I know that there are very strong feelings on both sides of this question, and any doubts about what happened on 9/11 should be finally resolved through a thorough investigation by people who have expertise in relevant areas.
I think people far into the future will be wondering why the truth seems not to have been pursued in a thoroughgoing fashion. One has to wonder, for instance, why WTC Building 7 would have collapsed in the manner it did. On the other hand, a lot of people feel that there's a lot of conspiracy theory going on. But as someone once said, "Paranoia is not necessarily a disease, but could be just a heightened state of awareness."
We really deserve answers, and our posterity deserves answers.
RB: You anticipated my next question with your reference to WTC 7, which is where Griffin, Richard Gage, and other architects and leaders of the 9/11 Truth movement have suggested we focus.
When most Americans hear about the third building going down that day in pretty much exactly the manner the first two buildings went down, they ask, "What third building?"The facts surrounding WTC 7's collapse start unraveling the official narrative rather quickly, because it defies logic. It's very similar to the magic bullet theory that casts doubt on the credibility of the JFK assassination report from the Warren Commission. It simply defies the laws of physics.
Then there is other evidence, including an article last year in a leading scientific journal discussing findings of ubiquitous nanothermite dust lying all over the WTC site at Ground Zero and the surrounding area, which seems to suggest that the fall of the WTC towers may have been caused by high-tech explosives.
Are these the kinds of unanswered questions you're talking about?
RA: Those are exactly the kinds of issues that ought to be explored comprehensively during an investigation.
I think that our nation was badly served by the Warren Commission following the assassination of President Kennedy. I think most of us feel that the truth really was never obtained or disclosed.
What happened on 9/11 was, in my opinion, far more significant in our nation's history. And as I said before, we all deserve the truth. No one should ever fear a thoroughgoing investigation in a matter like this, unless they have something to hide.
RB: If we take, as a premise, the unthinkable possibility that this was either a deliberate conspiracy involving certain members of the Bush administration, or more generously, that it was allowed to happen - because there was plenty of evidence suggesting there was going to be an attack on the towers, or at least an attack on the United States by al-Qaeda - as a pretext to hook Americans into supporting these illegal wars (as the administration promoting this pro-war narrative had recommended in their own policy papers years before), how, as a presidential candidate, can you dare to take on that kind of power?
RA: My view is that's the job of any national leader. That is, to pursue the truth on behalf of the American people. There are all sorts of signs that we are becoming more and more of a tyranny, more and more of an authoritarian government. Avoiding the thoroughgoing investigation to get to the truth behind 9/11 is simply another sign that our democracy is crumbling, and that our government is hiding the truth from the American people. I think it's absolutely incumbent upon our government to facilitate truth-finding and disclosure and allow whatever the truth is to finally be known.
Again, I don't prejudge this. I don't pretend to know. I don't understand the physics involved, or the chemistry. But it seems that there are enough serious questions that they ought to be explored, so that we finally attain the answers the people of this country are entitled to.
RB: Obtaining these answers, in itself, seems a Herculean task given what appears to be the stonewall against truth. For one example, my sense is that the American Autumn, known more broadly as Occupy Wall Street or the Occupy movement, has been really driven underground, chiefly through some very brutal police tactics. And behind the police, as we now know, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appears to have been centrally involved in coordinating the penetration of the movement, the undermining and suppression of the movement, and the arming to the teeth of local law enforcement with military grade weaponry and equipment.
Along with the passage of the NDAA, and the proposed Enemy Expatriation Act (HR 3166 and S 1698) that, from what I've read, goes far beyond the NDAA in some ways - and many other initiatives that Congress seems to be pushing right now - this all seems geared to, if necessary, brutal suppression of the Occupy movement.
RA: I'm not sure it's limited to the Occupy movement, frankly. There are so many signs of our government becoming totalitarian and doing everything it can to quash dissent.
President Obama declared a State of Emergency which, under federal law, is to be reviewed by Congress every six months to determine if it should continue. Congress has completely violated that legal requirement, allowing this State of Emergency to continue without Congress's input.
There is a military unit now in control over North America, the United States Northern Command (NORTHCOM). This is the first time this has happened since the Posse Comitatus Act in the late 1800s. Under our nation's heritage, the military has never been authorized to provide policing responsibility domestically. And yet that's exactly what's happening, and was intended to happen, with the creation of NORTHCOM.
There is a continuity of government (COG) plan completely unknown to the American people and, apparently, several members of Congress. During the Iran-Contra hearings, Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Texas) tried to examine Oliver North about a continuity of government planning process in which North was involved. He asked in the hearings if North was involved with a group that was planning for a contingency to suspend the United States Constitution. And [now senator] Rep. Daniel Inouye, (D-Hawaii) chairman of the committee, would not allow Rep. Brooks to publicly pursue this line of questioning.
This is absolutely shocking, that a member of Congress, first of all, doesn't know about a COG plan that contemplates suspending the Constitution, and also that he can't even ask the question publicly. Combine all of that with the recent executive order by President Obama contemplating that the executive branch can take full control of US commerce for national security purposes, something in the steel seizure case that the US Supreme Court ruled was not within the power of the president, when President Truman tried to take over the steel mills.
Other elements of this trend involve recent legislation passed by Congress that provides criminal penalties for those who are within a certain distance of people protected by the Secret Service. I think that's clearly aimed against the Occupy movement, but also against anyone else rising up in dissent against what our government is doing.
And then, of course, President Obama assumed the power to target US citizens for assassination without any due process. And, most recently, the passage by Congress, and signing into law by the president of the United States, of the power to simply round up anybody, including US citizens, and hold them indefinitely - for up to the rest of their lives - without charges, trial, right of habeas corpus or even access to legal assistance. This is sounding more and more like the gulags in the former Soviet Union, or the practices of the Argentine government during the Dirty War, than the United States of America.
It's all very frightening. And I think it's all leading up to the crushing of American dissent by our federal government. It's an enormous betrayal of the American people and the values that the people of this country have held very dearly, and that have been fought for by those who engaged in military combat to preserve our freedoms over the years. Ultimately, I think it's treasonous that many of these fundamental values have been undermined in such shocking ways.
And it's all been accomplished in about a dozen years. It seems that there really are about no limits to what both the Republican and Democratic Parties are willing to do in the name of national security.
RB: My sense is that - as a country, as a nation - the vast majority of Americans are decent people, and would be shocked and stunned by this discussion. It seems also that our hope, in large part, depends on being able to get this kind of information out to the general American public and to help overcome the mass denial and ignorance, as well as the naive faith that our nation is truly heroic and guided by God.
How do we do that apart from the alternative news? How do we get this into the mainstream when there is no longer the Fair Use Doctrine, the FTC's longstanding policy that required news organizations present information fairly, in exchange for having commercial rights of access to our public airwaves?
It seems to me that, to preserve our democracy, we need an educated, informed public of individuals capable of thinking for themselves, which would lead them directly to these kinds of questions. How do we approach that challenge in this critical time?
RA: Citizen activists working at the grassroots have always played a vital role in getting the truth out to the American people. The distractions of entertainment and sports, and economic problems that people are facing in one form or another, have always been present. And we have often seen disinformation campaigns by our government. It wasn't that long ago that, under the Reagan administration, we were lied to almost daily about the situation in Central America, and the mainstream media dutifully went along with it.
The truth came out and was known by a huge number of Americans, if not most of them, about what was really going on in Central America, because of activists who were doing all they could to get out the truth. We had a solidarity movement in this country that, I think, was largely responsible for the Reagan administration's decision finally not to invade Nicaragua and overthrow the Sandinista government.
That's the power of grassroots action, and it's up to all of us to do everything we can, in every arena, to get the truth out to the American people. It has to be done in a responsible way, because if there is one exaggeration, if there is one misstatement of fact, it can undermine the entire effort to get out the truth, because if people can point to one erroneous statement of fact, the rest of the case can tumble in their views. So, I would urge caution, for instance, with regard to the 9/11 Truth movement. Certainly, there ought to be questions raised. But it can be very dangerous to speculate about certain matters and to say that is the truth, at least in terms of winning people over and exposing the truth about other matters.
One of the reasons that I'm running is because in a campaign like the one we're carrying on, it's a fantastic opportunity to raise these issues and get the truth out. And I'm working every single day - and night - to do that, and will continue to do that.
The situation now is a lot like the lobster in boiling water. This has all crept up over time, and unless something catastrophic happens right before our very eyes, and it's a sudden thing, we as the American public oftentimes don't pay very close attention.
We need to convey to people in this country what's happened, and get everyone to put it in the perspective of what's really gone on these past 12 years in this country. This is not a matter of opinion about whether the president has assumed dictatorial powers. It's a fact. And I think that it's so shocking to a lot of people - to realize that the United States government has been so utterly transformed - that they are not likely to believe it.
So, it needs to be a matter of common knowledge. And we need to address it with a level of concern and activism that matches the severity of the problem. This is indeed a crisis situation when it comes to American democracy and our fundamental constitutional values.
I must say that, in addition to constitutional values, it really goes to the heart of who we are as a people and our moral values. Are we going to continue being a nation that goes around kidnapping, disappearing, torturing, and in some instances even murdering people? Are we going to continue to be a nation that engages in aggressive wars to take over the resources of other nations and dictate to them how they are going to live their lives? Are we going to continue to be a nation that suppresses not only people in other parts of the world, but our own citizens, denying them any security in terms of rights of privacy and their own personal security?
It's amazing how, over just a few years, it seems that so many people in this country have not only become accustomed to, but accept the fact that our government can be listening in on our conversations or mining our email communications. The National Security Agency (NSA) is building a 1-million-square-foot facility - in Draper, Utah - to store the records of the communications that our intelligence community is gathering. And a lot of those communications are those in which US citizens have engaged. That would have seemed absolutely impossible to the people of this country not long ago, from our very founding as a nation up until about the last decade.
So, the complacency and seeming acceptance by the American people of these kinds of abuses is perhaps the most frightening aspect of all of this. We know that people who are given power are often inclined to abuse that power. The really vital thing is that citizens take action to place a check on those abuses of power and make certain that our government takes the necessary action to deter those actions in the future.
We have a history of doing that in this country, up until the past decade. And now the responsibility falls on all of our shoulders to reverse this incredibly dangerous trend in the United States.
RB: You're reminding me of the anecdote in your speech yesterday about when Ben Franklin was asked, "Do we have a monarchy or a Republic?"And his response was, "Ma'am, a Republic ... if only we can keep it."
RA: We still have the tools in our country to resist tyranny. We're fortunate in that regard. We have the traditions of standing up against tyranny. We have traditions in this country of people striving to do better when we find out that our government has abused its power, either against We the People, or against others around the world.
With the Republican and Democratic Parties in control, they're acting in a sense as a cabal against the rest of us. We need - all of us - to understand how dangerous this is, what's at stake not only for us, but for the future of this nation. And we must organize and take action, both within and without the electoral system, if we are to protect and maintain a Republic as we've known it since the very founding of this country.
If we don't, we're going to see our freedoms undermined. We're going to see an evisceration of the right of privacy. We're going to see far less individual, familial and community security. We're going to see much greater hostility and hatred aimed at the United States from around the world. And we're going to see the creation of a national security state where the freedoms that too many of us have taken for granted are no longer available to the American people. It's going to have tragic results for our children and later generations, not only in this country but elsewhere around the world.
We have a window of opportunity now to take effective action to reverse this dangerous trend. But, it won't happen unless every single one of us does all that we can, and never sits back expecting that the job will be done by others.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1011
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, then, Obama must have been the one THEY wanted to win, those bastards who rule our world, and Romney was just a charade. How gross that we have Obama for another term. I voted for Rocky Anderson. Would that the people knew how much power they have to put a good guy in office. But they are all so very stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1011
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obama on climate change 7 hours ago. Speaking as if we are all ignoramuses who don't know that getting people jobs and addressing climate change are exactly the same thing. I guess it means that we won't be getting jobs addressing climate change, which probably extends to all green energy jobs. Green energy is not on Obama's list of priorities.
| Olivier Knox, Yahoo News wrote: | - On climate change
Obama said he would embark "over the next several weeks, next several months" in a "wide-ranging discussion" with scientists, engineers, elected officials and others about "short-term" steps to reduce the carbon emissions that are blamed for global warming. But he seemed pessimistic about any broad response.
"I don't know what either Democrats or Republicans are prepared to do," he said. "There's no doubt that for us to take on climate change in a serious way would involve making some tough political choices."
"And you know, understandably, I think the American people right now have been so focused and will continue to be focused on our economy and jobs and growth that, you know, if the message is somehow we're going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don't think anybody's going to go for that. I won't go for that."
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/live-video-watch-obama-first-press-conference-election-153317135--election.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1011
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The American people are screaming in financial and ill health agony. Our country has been a complete failure. The machine is stopping. Everyone is to blame for not thinking and voting right. We the People should have parted company with the Democrats and Republicans A LONG TIME AGO. They have sold us out, and almost every person in America wanted them to do it. The People have been wasting their votes as long as I've been alive. It's ironic: they accused those of us who voted for third party candidates of wasting our votes, but actually, it was the majority of the people who have been wasting THEIR votes for a very long time. They would have been better off voting for someone like Ralph Nader, who would have run the country right. Now, they are feeling the pain. They thought slavery was a good idea. Slavery, hunger, homelessness, despair. Well, how does it feel, America? What were you thinking voting for Obama, or Mitt Romney? No comprende vous!
I voted for someone who could have made a difference: Rocky Anderson. I wrote his name on the ballot. Next election, if there is one, I would advise that every American do the same. Absolutely fuck the Republicans and Democrats forevermore.
http://www.naderlibrary.com/machine.stop.htm
I see another double, in fact, a double-double: The Black Man Obama overseeing Slavery For All, and the Black People voting for it! Instead of universal suffrage, we'll have universal slavery. I could almost LOL.
Hey, it's not really getting any worse for the Black People, is it? Anyone who has eyes could see that they've had to live a fuckin' poor life, compared to all of us White People. Who is it who's always taking the bus really late at night after they get off work at some shit job, if they are able to get a job? I can certainly understand the sentiment that if one of us has to starve, then why not all of us? And after all, they do have the vote. Finally, they can bring us all to equality -- the equality of ZERO. That's another kind of double, isn't it?
"Southpark" -- another double. Oh, did you think it was a joke? That's how they sneak in: through so-called "humor."
McDonald's -- Fuck, yeah
Wal-Mart -- Fuck, yeah
The Gap -- Fuck, yeah
Baseball -- Fuck, yeah
NFL -- Fuck, yeah
Rock 'n' roll -- Fuck, yeah
The Internet -- Fuck, yeah
Slavery -- Fuck, yeah
Team America World Police -- Fuck, yeah
http://www.naderlibrary.com/teamamericatoc.htm
Team America -- Illustrated Screenplay & Screencap Gallery, directed by Trey Parker, creator of South Park |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Home
Search
Log in
naderlibrary.com
