Green News and Opinion

A newly minted Green responded to the statement that Phil Huckleberry is an active Democrat by explaining that the Supreme Court has invalidated IL's law governing party registration. The explanation is behind the "Read more!" link, but to this Green, voting in a party's primary is joining that party, unless one lives in a fusion state and intends to assist a Green in securing another party nomination as well.

Anyhoo, one "answer" to the questions raised about Huckleberry's actions is behind the "Read more!" link...


Michael and list,

(Note to Forum Managers and others who might complain: I have subscribed to the discussion list, but not yet been authorized. This list is my only choice, at present, for response to Michael's questioning of Phil Huckelberry's Green-ness.)

Summary: A U.S. Supreme Court decision invalidates the Illinois method of locking someone into a party, so we, as voters in Illinois, essentially do not have any official party registration. Phil Huckelberry is not a Democrat just because he may have pulled a Democrat primary ballot at some point in his voting history. Having pulled a Democrat primary ballot when a Green Party primary ballot was not available is more likely a indicator of Phil's reasonable desire to have more influence over his own representation.

Personal Background: I am a recent convert that believed in Green Party values but not Green Party viability until late last year. I worked on a Democrat's campaign for Illinois senate early last year, but voted for every available Green candidate on my ballot in November 2006. I joined the Green Party in November 2006 when I became convinced that the Green Party is viable. I share this background to make it clear that I have recently participated in the Democrat party, but genuinely now participate in the Green Party.

The biggest reason that I am now a member of the Green Party is because the Rich Whitney for Illinois Governor campaign was a huge success, though not victorious. After being in the party for several months, I am convinced that Phil Huckelberry was a major contributor to the Rich Whitney campaign's success.

Regarding primary voting in Illinois, we have had little choice in how best to influence our own representation during primary voting. Generally we have only had the choice of Democrat, Republican or non-partisan. An Illinoisan could have taken a purist approach by pulling a non-partisan ballot since a Green Party primary ballot has generally not been available. But, then we give up our right to influence our own representation during the primary voting. In my dealings with Phil, he doesn't seem like the kind of person that will just stand by and let things happen to him without trying to influence them. In addition, Phil has been working along with others in the
Illinois Green Party and locals to make sure he and others in Illinois have a Green Party primary ballot.

The Law: The Illinois Election Code in Section 7-43 states:

No person shall be entitled to vote at a primary: ...
(d) If he has voted at a primary held under this Article 7 of another
political party within a period of 23 calendar months next preceding the
calendar month in which such primary is held: ...

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=001000050HArt%2E+7&Ac
tID=170&ChapAct=10%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=3&ChapterName=ELECT
IONS&SectionID=36401&SeqStart=30200000&SeqEnd=38500000&ActName=Election+Code
%2E

The U.S. Supreme Court found section 7-43(d) unconstitutional by stating:

Section 7-43 (d) unconstitutionally infringes upon the right of free political association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments by "locking" the voter in his pre-existing party affiliation for a substantial period of time following his participation in any primary election, and the State's legitimate interest in preventing party "raiding" cannot justify the substantial restraint of the 23-month rule.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/414/51/case.html

Though the election code still appears to create a party affiliation for 23 months after participation in a primary election, case law makes that part of the election code unconstitutional. As a non-lawyer but still a reasonable person, I do not believe Illinois has party registration. Therefore, Phil Huckelberry is not and cannot be a registered Democrat, regardless of what party's primary ballot he may have chosen in past elections.

Regards,

Terry Campbell
Illinois Delegate

Read more!

I believe the Democratic Party is an evil institution, run by evil rich white men, by and large. Like the Republican Party, there are good and bad people involved, but the institution is rotten to the core and beyond redemption. If there were no Green Party I would do as I did before 2000...focus my energies on local issues and anti-nuclear efforts.

Unfortunately, at least from my perspective, mine is not a universally held belief. There are those in the Green Party who believe that there is some sort of "pure core" inside that rotten organization, and if only the right people could run the show, all would work out well.

Some of these people are leaders in the Green Party. Gray Newman of North Carolina was actively promoting the Democratic Party, and told we members of the Charlotte Area Green Party that he had changed his registration from "declined to state" to Democrat.

Apparently Phil Huckleberry, a current co-chair of the national party, as was Newman before he resigned and joined the Democratic Party, actively participates in Democratic Party internal affairs. Apparently every time he goes to vote in a primary he is required to declare membership in a party, and sign a document attesting to being a member of that party.

This comes from a posting to the Green National Committee listserve. The full text of the letter is behind the "Read more!" link. This does not mean that Huckleberry has done anything illegal. It does, in my mind, call into question his commitment to the Green Party. I am very uncomfortable with him serving as a national leader...but then again, I don't understand why we allow registered members of other parties to serve on our national committee, but we do.

I'll keep an eye open for more info as I read over the Green National Committee list. All the details, at least from one perspective, are behind the "Read more!" link, so read on...


Phil:

Since you claim to be so well-versed in Illinois election law, it is baffling why you persist in repeating the falsehood that Illinois is not a partisan registration state (google is our friend). It is, every bit as much as New York or California. All that differs is the registration mechanism. In New York, a voter has the option of picking a party (or not) when s/he fills out a voter registration form. It's on the same piece of paper. In New Jersey, the registration form is a separate piece of paper, and you usually have to ask for it. In Illinois, a voter picks a party (in fact, MUST pick a party) when s/he votes in a primary. In fact, the party registration process is even more specific and policed than it is in New York, since you are called by name by a poll judge, asked verbally which party you are declaring your affiliation with, given the color-coded registration form for that party, you sign in front of judges from both parties in the form of a legal, written affidavit attesting to your declaration of affiliation with the stated party, and have your signature verified by judges from both parties, before you go into a booth.

That is how it works in Illinois, is it not? Every county clerk's office in Illinois issues a poll judge's guidebook just like this one, that spells it all out.
http://www.ricountyclerk.org/uploadedFiles/CoClk/Elections/JudgesManual.pdf
In other words, there is no difference in the IL party registration and its legality except the mechanism by which the party is declared. Some states have registrants declare it upon registering to vote, and yours does it annually on primary day, in writing, signed affidavit, confirmed by legal witnesses. There is no question that you know this, and no question that you knew it every time you swore in to vote in other parties' primaries, and therefore no question that you are misleading this body deliberately about whether or not you legally joined one of the major parties and were legally enrolled as a member of that party during years you were serving in various ILGP and GPUS offices.

We must ask the question of the strategic impact of the primary voting histories of you and all IL Greens who have acted as you have, upon the needs of Green organizing. While you may have spun yourself, as you have always tried to spin this body, into thinking you were merely enhancing your ability to have a meaningful vote in a gerrymandered district, the fact is, by helping Democrats select a general election candidate more to your liking, ostensibly the more left-liberal/progressive/populist one, or at least boosting those vote totals in a losing effort, you were a) helping the Democrats bring forth candidates from which potential Green candidates would have a more difficult time distinguishing themselves, and b) encouraging existing and up-and-coming progressive candidates, through enhanced vote totals in Democratic primaries, to think their future was in the Democratic Party. This provides the Democratic Party with the political cover that they are home for progressives.

This means you exercised very poor short and long-term party-building judgment, judgment we have every right and responsibility to question. In fact, here in Minnesota there are some Greens that hold that we Greens should never run against Democrats, especiall;y those who masquarade as "progressive" like Keith Ellison. This strikes me as taking the "safe states" strategy to a whole new level. Quite frankly, that is how I am reading you and I am personally uncomfortable with that. You see, unlike those who give rhetoric that "the Democratic Party is where progressive politics go to die", I really believe it. For the record, Keith Ellison had spoken at a 4,000 strong anti-war rally saying that "I will never vote to fund this illegal, rotten war" on a Thursday. He then voted for it the next Tuesday and even spoke of the "brave leadership of Nancy Pelosi."

I admit that I had told Greens to vote for Keith Ellison in the Democratic primary and I did the same thing. However, I have not registered as a Democrat and ALWAYS publically declared my support for Jay Pond, the Green who ran against him. I supported and stood for the Green Party at all times, never the "lesser evil" Democratic Party.

Please post to this list the exact years of your voting history, and party, in which you legally declared Democrat or Republican party affiliation in Illinois. We have a right to know.

Yours,

Michael Cavlan
Minnesota

P.S. I am appalled that it would even be mentioned that the Green Party would talk of censoring and "not allowing" articles that are critical of our leadership. I know just how much the corporate media lies, yet when i get get information from them, it is still valuable information that we have a right to know. Unless there is something to hide.

Read more!

Over at the Berkley Daily Planet an article reports that a Green Party member of the Rent Stabilization Board may not live in Berkley.

As one might expect, living in the city is a prerequisite for serving as an elected official of that city. Of course I am all the way on the other side of the continent, and have no way to determine what's what, but I sure do hope the Greens in Berkley are on top of this situation.

Read more!

I've never been to Reading PA, but somehow I am under the impression that there are a few communities in PA a bit bigger.

Of course, that's good for us. By holding our national convention is a city of more modest size we were able to generate some excitement that might, in a larger community, fade as fast as summer dew. I know that, for example, if Ralph Nader, Head Roc and Cynthia McKinney were to come to Rock Hill, SC, many folks would be talking about the impact of their visits for some time to come.

But the fine folks of Reading PA are in for a longer term impact than just reverberations from an exciting weekend. An article in the Reading Eagle tells of two newly minted Green candidates for Reading City Council, joining their Mayoral candidate, and a fourth candidate announcing for Clerk of Court.

Now that's what I call a long term impact.

Read more!

Many of us are members of local chapters. Some of these local chapters have websites. Some are complete and useful. Some are not. One that I have seen which is well designed and useful is the Marion County Indiana Greens. Their site carries a steady stream of reports, minutes and agendas...not necessarily sexy stuff, but most of the work we Greens do is grunt work. At first glance it would seem that the folks in Marion County are blessed with a Green local not afraid to get some dirt under their nails.

Read more!

In an article over at OpEdNews.org, Mikael Rudolph calls himself a "registered Democrat", and encourages his fellow Democrats to support and vote Green.

The piece is called "Blind Party Loyalty is a Mental Illness."

Personally, I'm doubtful of accusations of mental illness. But the article was interesting, and I get his point.

Off to work for now gang. Hopefully I'll get a bit more in after work.

Read more!

In a "Part 2" over at Dissident Voices, John Halle writes about Cindy Sheehan's election to the US House of Reps, beating Nancy Pelosi.

The comments are, at least in some cases, pretty nasty. I guess we should always expect the same sort of treatment Sheehan got over at Daily KOS.

I must say though, when Sheehan was in Charlotte recently, she made it clear that she was "done with party politics". While I understand to some extent, every leader should understand that they may have more impact when working with an organization instead of trying to carry the load all alone.

Read more!

I feel sure that some will believe that I somehow think that the Cobb/LaMarche campaign of 2004 was sneaky and underhanded. It was not. They did, as far as I can tell, most everything above board. The only time I can recall where they behaved in a seriously bad fashion was in the post-California primary. Since Camejo had said he was a stand in for Nader, and since Nader was rejecting the party's nomination, the Cobb campaign was able to keep the vote totals and resulting delegate count off the national party website for some time.

There can be no doubt in my mind that most Greens wanted Nader to run as a Green in 2004. Sadly, this is not what Nader wanted to do. It appears that he is not interested again in 2008. Why his unwillingness to run with us is not seen as a real shame is beyond me. It's like a divorcing couple, both refusing to accept any portion of the blame for the break up.

All that said, Cobb and his supporters were pretty much out there in public doing what needed to be done to be sure he won the nomination. From his supporters joining and controlling the Delegate Allocation Committee, the Presidential Campaign Support committee, the By-laws, Rules, Policies and Procedures committee and other relevant committees to writing op-eds in prominent publications about how another Nader run would spell the end for we Greens, the Cobb faction did the work needed to win the nomination.

I believe the Cobb campaign did serious damage to the Green Party and did nothing to make us grow. Our financial situation has sucked since his disastrous outcome, and ballot lines were lost. Again, I can't point to a single local chapter or state chapter which was created or grown as a result of the Cobb/LaMarche campaign.

Now, as I pointed out in the previous post, some of those same forces are aligning behind Dr. Jared Ball's campaign. I believe his campaign would be just as disastrous for us as the 2004 campaign was.

To share with you a perspective from an "insider" in the Cobb/LaMarche debacle, I post a letter from Greg Gerritt of RI.

**************************************************************

Many people had a piece of the action in 2004, but maybe the person most responsible for the strategy of 2004 is me. Early on I knew it was going to be a very bad year for the party and figured that a low budget grassroots campaign was going to be the best we could muster. I helped set it in motion because I believed that it was going to be the best of a number of bad alternatives. I still think it was the right thing to do given the situation. I was the first person to tell David Cobb that if he wanted the nomination, that he ought to go about it as an organizing effort, actually
talk to Greens and run for the nomination. The only way to run for President is to actually run. I gave this advice to every potential candidate, but only David Cobb, and to a lesser extent, Kent Mesplay followed it.

I am proud of the campaign David Cobb ran in 2004, especially in light of the state of politics on planet earth at that time, and the forces aligned against the Green Party. I continue to stand by that advice and am happy to report that it is exactly the same advice I give to everyone seeking the 2008 GP nomination.

For 2008 the stars do not appear to be aligning against us in the same way, so maybe the results will be better, but I still note that the only way to run for president is to actually do it, and if someone wants to be nominated by the Green Party they have to ask for it and campaign for delegates to the nominating convention.

Greg Gerritt gpri co chair pcsc


So, the bottom line is, those of us who want a useful Green Presidential campaign should begin now to contact individuals we would like to see seeking our nomination, and show them our support. If you think Nader should seek our nomination (although I think it a lost cause), contact him and tell him so. If you want Rep. McKinney to seek our nomination, tell her. If you want Elaine Brown to be our nominee, let her know.

Frankly, there is not a single person announced at this point who gets even a tiny rise out of me. I only see failure and wasted time/money/effort.

Read more!

The same fine folks who brought us the disastrous David Cobb campaign are at it again. Anita Rios, former co-chair of the national Green Party and current chair of the Green Institute, has written a piece about Jared Ball, PhD, of Washington DC, and his campaign for the Green nomination.

Are we incapable of finding a woman to seek this office? Why, this far in advance of the nominating convention, is the Green Institute lining up behind yet another man with an advanced degree, making him part of the what, 15% of American's with a doctorate? Lawyers and others with advanced degrees are not the only folks with valuable ideas.

How do I know that the Green Institute is behind Ball's campaign? Well, I may be wrong. I am certain that the people associated with the Green Institute are checking their Ps & Qs to be sure they are not breaking any rules, but please...

I got a solicitation from the Green Institute in the mail recently, and it was FULL of Dr. Jared Ball. Dr. Jared Ball speaking at the Social Forum in Atlanta. Dr. Jared Ball as a "Communication Director" of the Green Institute. Dr. Jared Ball and Hip Hop. Dr. Jared Ball and Domestic Colonialism. And now the same people who run the Green Institute are running Dr. Jared Ball's campaign? How long will it be before Ted Glick, John Rensenbrink, Gray Newman, Jack Uhrich and the rest of the Cobb forces declare their support for yet another useless Presidential bid?

And now I read at Detroit Greens that Anita Rios is running Dr. Jared Ball's presidential campaign.

Personally, I think the time has come for someone serious to announce and run. These non-entities running for offices they are not qualified to fill, with no other benefit to the party, only make us seem irrelevant. No amount of campaigning by a person with no experience, no following, and no money will help us grow the party. Cobb's campaign did not create or expand even one Green Party chapter. Dr. Jared Ball will have the same level of success.

And we don't need the Green Institute to choose our candidates.

Read more!

Over at the Wichita Eagle, a Green has submitted a letter to the editor. Jeanne Johnson points out that we have positions that most American's agree with, and calls for more inclusion in the political debate for Greens and other smaller parties.

Read more!

Over at Dee's 'Dotes you'll find some fine photographs, and another perspective on the national convention.

Read more!

Over at Chlorophyll esteban has written a report on the Reading national convention. It covers aspects of the convention I've not seen elsewhere. Click the link above and enjoy!

Read more!

Thanks go to Green Jenni and esteban over at Chlorophyll for pointing out this Presidential directive which deals with questions arising from the possibility of another attack on the US mainland a-la 9/11.

Suffice it to say that there are reasons to fear this directive. Sadly I must say that I'd have expected exactly the same sort of thing from a President Gore, or either Presidents Clinton. There is a mindset that seems to pervade every person elected to the presidency, and amongst those who desire it: The President knows best and should be trusted.

Well, Democrat or Republican, I don't trust the bastards as far as I can throw them...and I ain't no strong guy here.

The full text of the president's directive is hiding behind the "Read more!" link...


National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive


RSS Feed White House News

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20

Subject: National Continuity Policy

Purpose

(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

Definitions

(2) In this directive:

(a) "Category" refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive;

(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

(c) "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;

(d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

(f) "Executive Departments and Agencies" means the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1), and the United States Postal Service;

(g) "Government Functions" means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches;

(h) "National Essential Functions," or "NEFs," means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and

(i) "Primary Mission Essential Functions," or "PMEFs," means those Government Functions that must be performed in order to support or implement the performance of NEFs before, during, and in the aftermath of an emergency.

Policy

(3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.

Implementation Actions

(4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences.

(5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:

(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;

(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;

(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;

(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;

(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and

(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.

(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.

(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.

(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.

(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.

(10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.

(11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following:

(a) The continuation of the performance of PMEFs during any emergency must be for a period up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and the capability to be fully operational at alternate sites as soon as possible after the occurrence of an emergency, but not later than 12 hours after COOP activation;

(b) Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law;

(c) Vital resources, facilities, and records must be safeguarded, and official access to them must be provided;

(d) Provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis;

(e) Provision must be made for the availability and redundancy of critical communications capabilities at alternate sites in order to support connectivity between and among key government leadership, internal elements, other executive departments and agencies, critical partners, and the public;

(f) Provision must be made for reconstitution capabilities that allow for recovery from a catastrophic emergency and resumption of normal operations; and

(g) Provision must be made for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel capable of relocating to alternate facilities to support the continuation of the performance of PMEFs.

(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee.

(13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall:

(a) Conduct an annual assessment of executive department and agency continuity funding requests and performance data that are submitted by executive departments and agencies as part of the annual budget request process, in order to monitor progress in the implementation of the Plan and the execution of continuity budgets;

(b) In coordination with the National Continuity Coordinator, issue annual continuity planning guidance for the development of continuity budget requests; and

(c) Ensure that heads of executive departments and agencies prioritize budget resources for continuity capabilities, consistent with this directive.

(14) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall:

(a) Define and issue minimum requirements for continuity communications for executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President;

(b) Establish requirements for, and monitor the development, implementation, and maintenance of, a comprehensive communications architecture to integrate continuity components, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; and

(c) Review quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities, as prepared pursuant to section 16(d) of this directive or otherwise, and report the results and recommended remedial actions to the National Continuity Coordinator.

(15) An official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall:

(a) Advise the President, the Chief of Staff to the President, the APHS/CT, and the APNSA on COGCON operational execution options; and

(b) Consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in order to ensure synchronization and integration of continuity activities among the four categories of executive departments and agencies.

(16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:

(a) Coordinate the implementation, execution, and assessment of continuity operations and activities;

(b) Develop and promulgate Federal Continuity Directives in order to establish continuity planning requirements for executive departments and agencies;

(c) Conduct biennial assessments of individual department and agency continuity capabilities as prescribed by the Plan and report the results to the President through the APHS/CT;

(d) Conduct quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(e) Develop, lead, and conduct a Federal continuity training and exercise program, which shall be incorporated into the National Exercise Program developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 ("National Preparedness"), in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(f) Develop and promulgate continuity planning guidance to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators;

(g) Make available continuity planning and exercise funding, in the form of grants as provided by law, to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; and

(h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture.

(17) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall produce a biennial assessment of the foreign and domestic threats to the Nation's continuity of government.

(18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies.

(19) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to a localized emergency and shall:

(a) Appoint a senior accountable official, at the Assistant Secretary level, as the Continuity Coordinator for the department or agency;

(b) Identify and submit to the National Continuity Coordinator the list of PMEFs for the department or agency and develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions;

(c) Plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities consistent with this directive;

(d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and

(e) Support other continuity requirements, as assigned by category, in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities

General Provisions

(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.

(21) This directive:

(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;

(b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and

(c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.

(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Read more!

Wondering who was elected to serve as co-chairs of the national party at the recent national convention? Fear not! Roger Snyder has all the details at the Green Party of New York State website.

Read more!

Commenting on the USA Today article mentioned below, a blogger at Case Western Reserve University makes some interesting comments about we Greens and Ralph Nader.

Read more!

The article right this way...

Read more!

Over at Natural Liberation Blog William P. Meyers makes interesting observations about a northern CA congressman who's out of step with his progressive voters and what tricks he's using to remain in power.

To some degree his observations translate to my community. By giving out tiny sums to environmental and educational causes, the owners of Springs Global have created a positive image around these parts which allows them to pursue their land development programs which are destroying both our local ecology and threaten our local schools.

Why do we let these bastards get away with this stuff?

Read more!

In an article at OpEdNews.com, Carol Wolman explains to potential Greens why they should get going and help grow the Green Party.

Wolman is running for Congress. Think you have something to say that might persuade a person or two? Op Ed News is a great place to do it! Register, write, submit and make an impact...it's that simple!

Read more!

In an earlier post I made mention of Willie Marshall's death. A prominent leader in the St Louis Green Party, Marshall was given credit for bringing the Green Party to the local black community.

Here's another article about Marshall and his work with we Greens, and here's another

Oh...and here's another.

I can't help but think that I lost out by never meeting Marshall. One does not get this much notice when you die unless you've made a difference. Clearly Mr. Marshall did.

Read more!

Roger Snyder of NY posted this message about their plans for "Green Fest" as a fundraiser for the state party.

Sounds like a real windig to me. If you're in the area, you should really consider going. I know that I would!

The NY Greens have even put together an entire website about Green Fest. You can check it out by clicking right here

Read more!

In an article at the Des Moines Register, staff writer Jason Clayworth says that a lawsuit by the Iowa Greens and Libertarians has forced Iowa to allow voters to register as members of the party of their choice.

I personally believe that registration by party should be a goal of each state Green Party.

Read more!

The article is right over here

Read more!

While I cannot confirm his assertion that the latest Green Party national convention publicity made no mention of the war on Iraq, I must agree with his assertion that the national party, and by extension candidates for national office, should focus like a lazer beam on the war. I'd only add that we might want to focus as well on impeachment.

We are recognized for our stand on the environment. Let's take that, and use it to explain that the war is an environmental disaster as well as a human disaster. Let's use public support for environmentalism and parlay it into supoport for us as the peace and justice party.

We can do it!

Walsh's article can be found at CounterPunch.

Read more!

In an earlier post I wrote that many of us run the risk of going to jail. I am sure that most of us were thinking about the Bush Co administration locking up disidents, but the Democrats have shown themselves as eager to throw us into the hoosegow as Republicans.

Case in point? Carolyn Bninski. After visiting the office of Congressman Mark Udall of Colorado, she and five others were arrested. Their crime? Reading aloud a list of names of those killed in the Democrat's and Republican's war on Iraq.

The Metro Denver Greens are holding up their end of the bargain by protesting these arrests.

Geeze...Democrats and Republicans don't have to spend their time dealing with this sort of crap..perhaps because they need more time to kneel before their corporate sponsors, sucking money from their...er...pockets.

Read more!

In a piece at Ballot Access News, Richard Winger reports that the national party headquarters has moved. Still in Washington DC, the new office includes a small kitchen and bathroom, but costs less than the old party digs cost.

Sounds like a good move to me.

Another good move, for each of us, would be to join the Coalition on Free and Open Elections and subscribe to the print version of Ballot Access News. you can do so by clicking here. For $25, only buying your Green Card should come first.

So...for $51 you can get both a membership in the national Green Party and join the Coalition for Free and Open Elections.

That's just a bit more or less than the cost of two cartons of smokes, three cases of beer, four trips to the movies, or a week of eating out at Mickey D's...and much healthier for us, and our democracy.

Read more!

In an article at Politics NJ.com, George DeCarlo, Chair of the New Jersey Greens, says that a Nader/McKinney ticket is the most likely outcome of the current Green Party presidential campaign, but either with or without Nader, DeCarlo and the New Jersey Greens will continue to push for a safe, sane and honest political future for our nation.

Read more!

In an article at Dissident Voices, John Halle, former councilman in New Haven, CT, writes an "announcement" about his "Dream Team" of Matt Gonzalez and Cynthia McKinney for Prez and Veep respectively.

Some day....

Read more!

Bush Co has signed an executive order which says, in part,

"I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."

Professor Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research writes that

The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended to "blocking property" of US citizens and organizations actively involved in the peace movement. It allows the Department of Defense to interfere in financial affairs and instruct the Treasury to "block the property" and/or confiscate/ freeze the assets of "Certain Persons" involved in antiwar activities. It targets those "Certain Persons" in America, including civil society organizatioins, who oppose the Bush Administration's "peace and stability" program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians.

These people, Bush Co and the spineless Democrats and Republicans who are not resisting this imperial president, should all be tossed unceremoniously into jail cells, and the keys thrown away for good. Their criminal and anti-constitutional actions can not be seen as anything less than a full frontal assault on the American Republic.

Read more!

As many of you know, Ingrid Betancourt was running for President of Colombia when she and her campaign manager, Clara Rojas, were kidnapped by the FARC, Fuerzas Armadas Revolutionaria de Colombia or in English, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. Yes, my Spanish sucks.

Betancourt was the nominee of El Partido Verde/Oxigena. That means "The Green Oxygen Party".

Today I link to several articles about the FARC apparently killing more than a dozen hostages in what they are calling a "mistake". They apparently thought they were under government attack when, in fact, one group of FARC fired on another, and the hostages were caught in the crossfire.

I have not found anything yet which indicates that Rojas of Betancourt were injured or killed. Hopefully they are both safe. I pray they come home soon. They have suffered too much.

From iol.co.za

This, from Times Online, indicates that Ms. Sarkozy of France may try to win Betancourt's release

This article is from Reuters

This piece at Euro News again points to efforts to free Betancourt by Cecilia Sarkozy.

Again, Reuters reports that FARC is claiming that Colombia has resorted to mercenaries to try to free Betancourt and others.

This situation is such a mess. I really hope that Rojas and Betancourt can be freed, and soon.

Read more!

In a post over at Green Commons, Alex Walker of CA points out that the Democrat who won 37% of the votes cast by the 11% who bothered to show up somehow makes for a "safe seat" in a congressional race.

As he says, "This is democracy?"

Read more!

In a press release, the OH Greens announced that they have joined the Michigan Third Party Coalition.

Read more!

According to City Beat, Mr. Smitherman's run for Cincinnati City Council as a Green is a forgone conclusion, and local Democrats are unhappy.

I'll certainly keep an eye on this one. Hell, Cincinnati is close enough, I just might have to go there and beat the pavement for a weekend...

Of course, I might be better off spending that time trying to persuade our local NAACP Prez to do the same here.

Read more!

I must admit that I like the name "Daily Bellwether". What brought them to my attention was a post that said that the chair of the local NAACP in Cincinnati, OH is running as a Green for city council.

Now that is something to get excited about. I'll post more as I find it, but for now you can visit the Daily Bellwether right here.

Read more!

Over at Green Commons, KY Colonel discusses the use of ethanol to power automobiles.

Like me, he's agin it.

Read more!

In an article at the Irregular Times, Alan Augustson's congressional bid wins praise from readers.

Go Alan!

Read more!

In an article at Think Youth.net, Koko Chassid brings to some of America's "Progressive Youth" a press release from Green Party member Alan Augustson announcing his run for Congress.

I fear the term "Progressive" is going the way of "Liberal" or "Conservative"...that is, it's becoming a meaningless term. Ron Paul, libertarian cum Republican, seems to be a fave over there, as is the Democratic Party.

We need an effective Campus Greens.

Brother (or sister)...can you spare a dime?

Read more!

While your preferred Presidential candidate may or may not be seeking the Green Party nod, the Gravy Train Media is reporting that there is already a "top candidate" to host our national convention in 2008. According to the target="_blank">Minnesota Daily, Minneapolis is that "Top candidate".

I have no doubt that the great city of Minneapolis is a top candidate.

I just wish the Gravy Train Media would give our human candidates as much coverage.

Read more!

In a piece at MD Green Party Blog Karma 432 reports that the city council voted unanimously in support of Impeachment.

Democrats...grow a freaking SPINE already.

Q-Can a jelly fish even grow a spine?

Read more!

seems like a no-brainer to me, but I am sure it bears repeting. The Democrats are, according to a Green Party press release, unworthy of our votes because:

There is absolutely no progress on ending our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is absolutely no progress on bringing impeachment before a congressional committee.

There is absolutely no progress in beating back any part of the anti-Constitution acts of Bush Co, including recent Presidential Orders which make anti-war protests illegal.

I'm not surprised...are you?

Read more!

When El Presidente Bush & Co come to your town, they establish a "Free Speech Zone" far away from the Thief in Chief for we lowly citizens to vent.

Apparently the city of San Francisco has someone running the show who shares the Bush Co perspective.

In an article at the Fog City News, reporter Erika McDonald tells the trials and tribulations of the San Francisco Green Party" as they endeavor to use city parks. It seems that these public places are, more and more often, being run by private corporations...so, are the private, or public? Apparently that depends, to some extent, on which party is doing the campaigning. Democrats have been given free reign to do as they please while Greens are told that they must not leaflet or campaign.

What do these people want from us? They want us to go away. We won't.

And eventually, a lot of us are going to go to jail.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -
-- Mahatma Gandhi

Read more!

Well, apparently we are not focused enough on smaller local races to satisfy everyone. A Mr. Andy Hefty writes in B C Standard that we Greens need to lighten up and recognize that the planet is not at "the eve of destruction".

I can see his point, although we may be at the eve of destruction, if taken in geological time. Of course, none of us lives long enough to know what will happen on a geologic scale. To be fair though, I do sometimes think that we are too "serious", and as such, turn off those who might be interested in our goals.

Read more!

In an earlier post I mentioned that Clair Saylor of Somerset County, PA had decided to run for county council as a Green, even though he had served as chair of his local Republican Party for some time.

Well, it seems that he made a slight error in seeking to run as a Green. Because the PA Greens did not reach the required vote in recent elections, they have been "demoted" to "unofficial party", and as such, Mr. Saylor was unable to secure a place on the ballot simply by filing for the office.

I believe this is a mixed blessing. While it's true that Saylor was looking to use the Green Party for ballot access only, and had no real identity as a Green, it's also true that there are Republicans who might find a comfortable home in the Green Party.

And the Greens not having ballot access in PA simply sucks.

The details of Mr. Saylor's aborted bid can be found at The Daily American

Read more!

In a column published at Common Dreams, Ralph Nader wrote that nuclear energy is not an alternative to carbon based fuels. The entire article is hiding behind the "Read more!" link below.

No Future for Nuclear Energy
by Ralph Nader

Here they go again. After thirty years without a firm order, the atomic power companies are pushing their radioactive, costly technology for a comeback on the backs of you the taxpayers.

The old argument in the Seventies was that nuclear powered electricity would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. With only three percent of our electricity coming from burning petroleum, the pro-nuke lobby is now jumping on the global warming bandwagon. Uranium, they argue, does not release greenhouse gases like coal or oil.

What nuclear lobbies ignore is all the coal and oil that needs to be burned to enrich uranium, to transport radioactive wastes with protective highway and rail convoys and provide security since they would be a priority target for sabotage.

Apart from that, let’s start with the technological insanity of the nuclear fuel cycle-from uranium mines and their deadly tailings, to the refining and fabrication into fuel rods, to the multi-shielded dome-like nuclear plant, to the necessity for perfect operation of the facility, to the still unresolved problems of the location and containment of hot radioactive wastes and contaminated material for the next 200,000 years!

All this for one objective-to boil water into steam. A pretty complex chain of events in order to boil water. There are far better, cheaper ways to meet the electricity needs of today’s generation without burdening future generations for centuries with the deadly waste products.

Back in the Seventies, before the public rose up and said no to nuclear power, helped by Wall Street’s reluctance to finance these trouble-prone plants, the Atomic Energy Commission projected the construction of 1000 atomic power plants in the U.S. by the year 2000. There are today 103 plants.

Placing the predicted 100 plants up and down the California coastline would have been an act of peerless recklessness, especially given the earthquake faults.

Just this week, a magnitude 6.8 earthquake struck Kashiwazaki, Japan and disabled a gigantic nuclear power plant which the New York Times reported, “raised new concerns about the safety of the nation’s accident-plagued nuclear industry.” It turns out that this plant, owned by Tokyo Electric Power, may be sitting directly above an earthquake fault line.

Each day, reports show damage greater than believed the day before, including radiation leaks, damage to exhaust ducts, burst pipes and other “malfunctions” beyond the fires. Several hundred barrels of radioactive waste were toppled.

The problem with nuclear power is that it gets one bite of the apple.

Just one major meltdown could provoke a demand to close the industry down by overwhelming adverse public outrage. You see, way back in the Fifties and Sixties, the Atomic Energy Commission, a booster-regulatory agency for atomic power plants, estimated that an “area the size of Pennsylvania” would be contaminated in such a disaster.

Remember, Chernobyl in Ukraine is still surrounded by vacant towns and villages following the 1986 tragedy. Radioactivity found its way as far as sheep in England, nuts grown in Turkey and elsewhere.

Do you know any other industry producing electricity that has to have specific evacuation plans for miles around it, is inherently a national security risk, cannot be privately insured without Congress mandating severe limited liability in case of massive casualties and requires massive taxpayer subsidies?

A most concise, authoritative case against the electric atom was recently released titled “Why a Future for the Nuclear Industry is Risky” by a group of environmental health and social investment groups. (See www.cleanenergy.org)

In the introduction to the report, the case against nuclear energy was summarized this way: “Wind power and other renewable technologies, combined with energy efficiency, conservation and cogeneration can be much more cost effective and can be deployed much sooner than new nuclear power plants.”

Yes indeed, efficiency or conservation, with a national mission, can cut in half the waste of energy, using currently available technology and know-how, before the first privately capitalized nuclear plant opens. One scientist once described the primary output of electric generating plants as “heating the heavens.”

If this insensitive industry cannot be revived by Uncle Sam’s tax treasury, Wall Street certainly has given no indication that private investment would take on the risk. Investment money is pouring presently into wind power, solar and other renewables and this is just the early springtime for these benign sources of energy.

The International Energy Agency sees a 25% cost reduction for wind power and a 50% cost reduction for solar photovoltaics from 2001 to 2020. Without Wall Street’s private capital and with rising construction and operating costs in other countries, the prospect for nuclear power being competitive, even deducting decommissioning costs, and the many
millennia of waste storage costs, is not there.

Add a major accident and you’ll see, in addition to casualties and contaminated land and property, every private investor running for cover while the bill is passed on to taxpayers.

Here is a suggestion to put the industry’s propaganda to rest. Will any high nuclear industry executive debate physicist Amory Lovins at the National Press Club filled with electric company leaders? If so, please visit http://www.rmi.org and contact Mr. Lovins.

Read more!

According to this article at the Tahoe Daily Tribune, the Northern California Greens have plans for this weekend. A campout! Even the headline says "Bring the kids, dogs and guitars to Green Party campout this weekend"

Sounds like a plan to me!

Read more!

There must be something in the water up there! These folks are in my "Inbox" pretty regularly, and I am thrilled! In an article at "Wilton Villager", A.J. O'Connell writes about CT Green David Bedell and his efforts to grow the Green Party. Here's my favorite quote:

"I think every activist should run for office," said Bedell. He has run for probate judge and constable in Stamford and for state senate last year.

Read more!

While I am no big fan of identity politics, if we are going to have identity caucuses, they must be expected to meet certain criteria to remain "official" caucuses. The Women's Caucus, for example, is not representative of enough Green women to justify it's continued existence.

Likewise the Black Caucus. Run in the recent past as some sort of tiny fiefdom for a few folks in DC, the Black Caucus seems to have had a revival of sorts. While I believe that all identity caucuses should be private and "unofficial" organizations, mine is a minority position.

That said, I believe all the caucuses we do have would benefit from looking at both the The Lavender Greens and the new Black Caucus website. The new leadership of the Black Caucus includes Cliff Thornton of CT, who ran for Governor and made an effective case against the stupid and harmful "war on drugs", as well as other profound Green Party leaders from the black community.

I'd prefer no caucuses at all, but at least the LC and now the BC seem to be on track, benefitting us all in the process.

Read more!

In a Press Release, the Green Party calls for an end to anti-black and anti-latino bias in the prison and judicial systems. The press release focuses on the case of the "Jena Six",, a group of black youth who were arrested after a fight broke out at their school. Apparently they took offense at three nooses hung in the school yard. Things escalated from there. Facing up to 100 years in prison, these six defendants are the only people being prosecuted, even though white youth were also involved in the fighting.

Read more!

An article at the News Leader, Marshall is said to have single handedly recruited from St. Louis' black community so effectively that the city's Green Party chapter has a majority black rank-and-file membership. In 2005 he ran for Mayor, and won 21% of the vote.

My sympathies go to his family and the MO Greens. 65 years old is very young, and far too soon to loose such an important Green leader.

Read more!

In an article at the San Francisco Gate, Richmond CA mayor Gayle McLaughlin, one of the nation's most prominent elected Greens, is said to be engaged in a new sort of environmentalism...a "hardscrabble environmentalism"...which I gather means that you are trying to clean up a working class community.

Read more!

An article at Raw Story says that Cindy Sheehan has decided to move ahead and run as an independent against Nancy Pelosi.

Frankly, I don't invest my time in independent runs. No one person is going to generate the force needed to bring about the change we need. A group of people working towards a common sane future is what the Green Party is all about, and independent runs don't get us closer to that goal.

Greens may well run a candidate of their own in Pelosi's district. If they do, that is where my support and effort would go. Then again, I don't live in Pelosi's district. sadly, neither does Sheehan.

Read more!

Personally, if the Democratic and Republican parties can't defend the Constitution, there is no value in them at all. The Congress has taken **no action** to support and defend the Constitution.

Greens and others from Huntington Beach community are calling for impeachment of Bush Co.

Greens have the backbone to do the right thing when we have precious little power while the Republicans and Democrats allow Bush, Chaney, Rove, Gonzalez et al use our nation's fundamental laws against the people without so much as a peep!

Explain to me again why I should trust the Republicans or Democrats with anything...

Read more!

Their website contains the most complete National Convention coverage I have seen as yet. Check it out here

Read more!

Again, the electoral success of the IL Green Party and their gubernatorial candidate has helped grow the party in that state. Now, according to an article in the Suburban Chicago News website, that county is going Green.

Go IL Greens!

Read more!

A Southeastern Convergence for Clean Energy is planned for Asheville, NC, from August 8th to the 14th.

To learn more about their plans, visit Green Nuclear Butterfly

Read more!

The Daily American reports that Clair Saylor, of Rockwood PA has left the Republican Party after serving in a leadership position in that party to join we Greens and run for County Council in Somerset County.

Not sure if this is a good thing or not, in this case. He says many things I agree with, like tourism is not the sort of thing a community should base it's economy on. Even so, this sort of thing is worrisome:

“As far as knowing anything about the Green Party, I know absolutely nothing. I've been a Republican all my life and this is the only way I could get my name on the ballot,” he said.

Read more!

The Charlotte Area Green Party is a regional party. With members in both Carolinas, and both inside and outside the city limits, the CAGP is one of the area's Green Party chapters. The York County (SC) Greens is the other.

Up in IL, where they benefited from amazing organization and out of state help in their gubernatorial race, a county chapter is going regional. By expanding their reach, the Madison County Green Party hopes to expand their visibility and grow their membership base.

The Edwardsville Journal carries the article, written by Chris Coates

Read more!

In an article in the Queens Journal, Theresa Juva reports that Sklar's campaign for Long Island City city council was an educational effort that is paying dividends today.

For example,

While crime and schools always rank high on the list of campaign platforms, Sklar was also promoting less popular ideas, like bike transportation and enhancing the borough’s greenways .
“If you are talking about green ideas and sustainable ideas, you are going to resonate with 15 percent of the community,” she said, adding that in just the last two years focus on green ideas has grown exponentially.

Read more!

No, not me. Jim Jocoy. I have no idea if we are related, but it seems likely.

At any rate, he and I share an interest in punk rock. I attended the University of Georgia beginning in 1977. REM, Love Tractor, B 52s, and many others performed regularly in Athens.

Jim Jocoy's book is called "We're desperate: The punk rock photography of Jim Jocoy" got a very positive review, which you can see right over here and you can buy the book by going to Amazon. No, I don't get a kick back, but the book looks interesting.

Read more!

As most of us know, there are quite a few folks actively seeking the Green Party nomination. Several spoke at the recent national convention in PA. Here ther are.


Kat Swift of TX


Gail Parker of VA


Kent Mesplay of CA


Jerry Kahn of NY


Jesse Johnson of WV


M. Jingozian of OR


Jared Ball of DC

Read more!

My mother-in-law moved in yesterday. Oh happy day! Those of us who have not had to face the sort of difficulties that come with age for most of us are in for a shock. My goodness. Perhaps a quote will explain somewhat.

Growing old ain't for sissies."

Maggie Kuhn, founder, Gray Panthers

Read more!

These videos are from the Green Party National Convention in Reading PA this past weekend. Thanks go to Mike Feinstein of Santa Monica, CA for the videos. They are all up at YouTube.


John Rensenbrink of Maine


Marco Antonio Mroz of Brazil


Tom Neilson sings


Juan Behredt, Sec General of the European Greens

More later. For now I must get to work making a few pennies for food, shelter...you know...stuff. ~Grin~

Read more!

These are just a few of the latest tidbits.

Nader protests DC library plan

IL Greens get better deal than independents, but only because Rich Whitney's race for Gov. made them a "major party". Congrats to Whitney and the ILGP.

20% of Peace Voters want to vote Green. Of course, being a part of the GravyTrain Media means that we Greens are part of the Democratic Party's "natural supporters". Ugh!

The Democratic Party never was, never will be a pro-peace party. Republicans got nothing on Democrats when it comes to killing poor people to make rich people even richer.

And finally, for now at least, here's one from Tuscon. It says that Dave Croteau will be running for mayor of his city. He's on the ballot now. Sure hope he wins!

Read more!

Bryan has replied to my last post about "Greens and Libertarians", and said that he was going to carry his thoughts over onto a new post at his blog...then didn't leave a link to it! Ha ha! That I cannot allow.

Check out Bry's blog right through this door

Read more!

In an article at the the Reading Eagle, Jennaro Pullano announced that he is running for Mayor of Reading, PA. In this announcement, made on July 6th, Pullano says that he believes that Reading needs more police focus on community based policing instead of arrests to drive drug dealers off the streets. Sorry Jennaro, they are not leaving. Demand will be supplied, but I agree that we need such commerce to not threaten communities and neighborhoods. Good luck to you!

Read more!

Here's a set of links to coverage of the Green Party National Convention held over the last four days in Reading, PA.

The Reading Eagle

The Times Leader (Thanks to Richard Winger of Ballot Access News. I stole the link.)

The Centre Daily (Another link stolen from Ballot Access News)

Boston.com

The Philadelphia Enquirer.

USA Today blog (Ya gotta search for it)

Read more!

The same blog post could read "Nader doesn't seek nod, Greens still in the news thanks to Nader"

In an article I looked at because it was on Yahoo! News, Christopher Dodd, Senator from CT is understandably upset at Senator Clinton and former Senator Edwards of NC for discussing plans to block him and other candidates from upcoming forums and debates.

I can't help but wonder if Dodd, Clinton or Edwards would say a PEEP about access to the presidential debates by any candidate on enough ballots to win the Electoral College if the people voted for her? This would make Nader, Libertarians, Greens, Democrats, Republicans, Unity 08? Bloomberg? Constitution Party? a part of the debate.

I'd be for it, but I kinda doubt the good Senators would feel the same way.

Here's why I say Greens benefit. The Number 2 story is about Ralph Nader addressing the Green Party convention. Despite telling the Presidential Campaign Support Committee that he will not be seeking the Green Party nomination, according to an email sent by Phil Huckleberry of IL, Nader went to Reading to address ballot access issues, and the Green Party was mentioned in positive light in each article I have read. I'll post others as I find them.

The point is, Dodd's story was linked to Nader's, and the Greens got mentioned as a result.

There was no mention of any of the people seeking the party nomination. There was no mention of Cobb, LaMarche, Camejo or even the local Green candidate for Mayor. This is not their fault. The GravyTrain Media are not about to cover us. Hell, they barely cover political issues at all! My local McClatchy outlet can go MONTHS without a SINGLE article about clean air, the Catawba River, local poverty, local governance etc. If they don't even cover something as expensive and impactful as building new roads, why should we expect them to ever cover we Greens?

We gotta do it without the GravyTrain Media.

Read more!

In a reply to my last post John wrote:

I appreciate your analysis but it is inaccurate. Libertarians believe in the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective, whether that collective is government or corporations. In Libertarian ideology no groups have "rights". What you call Libertarianism is actually corporatism and this is very different. The reason corporations can pollute the planet and the air you breath is because in the current political system, their rights trump your rights because they buy political influence. The bigger government gets, the worse the problem becomes regardless of whether right or left is in power. Pollution is essentially a problem of the individual vs the collective. If I can prove economic or personal damage from a company polluting my property or air space then I should have recourse using the law. Libertarians oppose all initiated violence and pollution of the air is a form of violence against people.

First off, thanks for commenting John. My "reply" below may be dis-jointed. Stuff here at home is running at a whirl wind pace. Yesterday I spent the day as "Ho Ho the Clown" blowing up balloons for the Fort Mill Community Optimist Club. Nancy was in Anderson SC training her Search and Rescue dogs Cyra and Grim. Our granddaughters spent the night, my daughter and her husband are preparing to move and my mother-in-law gets home Thursday. Anyway, let's keep the conversation going readers. I think we might all benefit.


Hey John,

I am sure that you are right in your perspective. Let me make some more observations if I may.

While I realize that it may feel like pandering, and many Greens see precious little in common between Greens and Libertarians, I continue to believe that there are some shared values between our respective party supporters.

I believe that Green and Libertarian voters have much more actual respect for and expectations of our Constitution. It is not an empty, out of date nor meaningless document: It is the social contract we have collectively made and have, by our own inaction allowed to be stripped of effective meaning by Bush and his cronies.

Please forgive the invective, but what Bush & Co have done to the Constitution is only a deepening of the resolute march against the true rights of all peoples. This stinking system simply allows all of us...YES, US and U.S., to take the world's resources to build what we want all the while making the rest of the planet eat our waste and be grateful for it. Our wants or their needs?

Sustaining the Constitution and a Constitutional United States is essential if there is to be real hope for our grandchildren. With what we know today about health, and advancements being made in medicine and environmental damage and organics, micro and macro biology, and coming advances in nano technology and nutrition, there is every reason to believe that my grand daughters could live to be a healthy 115 years of age. It's not impossible to imagine that by the end of this century, such ages will not be terribly uncommon.

How will we be able to do any of the major things we want; healthy care for everyone regardless of what tool we use to get there, dramatically less violence, substantially more freedom, more ownership of our lives and citizenship in the school, workplace and community, if we don't have a Constitutional Government?

Now, I'll admit that many of the above goals are not goals of Libertarians, but we do share a passion for Constitutional Government and as such want to protect the Constitution as the guarantor of our freedom. Our only protection against being stolen away in the middle of the night, like happens in other parts of the world, is respect for and implementation of the Constitution.

If 10% of U.S. Troops were to refuse deployment, the war would end in six weeks. The military and it's Industrial Complex would have to imprison tens of thousands of America's Best and Brightest (by many's reckoning). The internal debate that such an action would bring to bear would catalyze such pressure that we would likely see mass defections of Billionaires from the nation as a bulwark against what they would likely anticipate would be a loss of ownership over the assets they own and operate.

We can debate the idea of which approaches gets the people the goods and services they need at the lowest price and with maximum freedom, but we can't seriously doubt what those needs are. Any system and political grouping that cannot deliver to the people food, clean water, education, clean air, justice, meaningful participation, adequate housing and health care (only a few), then they should be replaced by the people. The Constitution, imperfect as it is, is the best format for the people to use to seize control of the government and use it to insure the delivery of those goods, services, and freedoms as we need. As Malcolm X said, revolutions are bloody, violent conflicts in which many die, and are almost always about land.

Other things I believe Green and Libertarian voters believe is that government should not be used to pick particular companies, individuals, classes and industry/merchant groups to hand out special deals. We believe, actually believe, in clean government. I think we also both understand the problems caused by Big Government.

But I don't get the impression that Libertarians believe, as I think most Greens do, that Big Business is equally dangerous to personal freedom, and in fact stands in the way of being able to deliver to the rest of the world the benefits of the sort of freedom we enjoy here, limited as it may be.

If Wal-Wart drives all the profits from small town sales into their coffers that leaves they in the position of being a community's biggest employer and tax generator. There may be less tax revenue and less employment and less local profits and wages, but that one company is too strong to be challenged by local government.

Where we Greens go wrong is in our tendency to believe that this is the fault of the Wal Mart employee and/or shopper. Well excuuuuse me! Tell me how the fuck it's going to make a difference if I'm spending my few dollars at Wal Mart or Target? Bi-Lo or BJ's Warehouse? Food Lion or Dollar General? Be real folks. I don't freaking have access to a locally owned store.

Not only that, I don't have any choice but to take the bagger/stocker/shipper/driver job at Wal Mart (or Bi-Lo, Wendy's, Pizza Hut etc) because...well, I don't! Sorry, for some folks there are no options but to take a job that sucks and do it for a lot longer than we want.

So, where was I? Oh yeah...honest government and Constitutional Government...what else?

Maybe that's all. Maybe that is enough. But there can be no doubt that Gs & Ls will remain partisans so long as Libertarians don't see Corporate Power as anti-freedom as Government Power.

To me, the Mantra "Small is beautiful" spells out what I adore about the Green Party. Somehow I think that just believing that makes me an outsider in the Libertarian Party's eyes.

Oh yeah. On practical matters we see eye to eye pretty often. Ballot access for example. Voter rights issues, the rights of political parties, and access to debates are areas where Gs and Ls are in general agreement.

Read more!

It's interesting to me that my post about Ron Paul, a Libertarian who is seeking the Republican nomination, generated more comments that anything else I have written here, at least for a LONG time. That's OK by me because I believe we must carry the message to all people, including Republicans and Libertarians. No one is beyond the reach of common sense. It just takes the right combination of ideas and the right opportunity to share them.

One thing I want to be clear about though is what I think separates Greens and Libertarians. Most Libertarians would place liberty as their one key organizing principle. Liberty, per se, does not even appear in the Ten Key Values.

The other key difference, to me, is that Libertarians, by and large, believe that corporations enjoy rights. Most Greens would reject this, pointing out that legal combinations of capital and people are just that, a legal combination, not a person. Entireties such as "empower individuals to sue polluters" or "Open markets to all comers" ignores the power which has been building up in corporate coffers and board rooms for decades.

Nancy just got home with a bunch of groceries. Blog ya later gang!

Read more!

According to a link I saw on my Yahoo mail the General Accounting Office set up a dummy corporation and wrote to the Nuclear regulatory Commission asking for permits to buy radioactive materials. Without ever physically visiting a NRC office or being physically inspected by the NRC, this dummy corporation was able to get permits to buy enough radioactive material to make a radioactive "dirty bomb"...show me a clean bomb and I'll kiss your bomb in the middle of Times Square.

Curious about how complex the sting was? The dummy corporation set up by the GAO used a UPS drop box as an address! Doesn't the NRC have access to Google Maps! Yahoo! Yellow Pages? Good GOD save us! No wonder so many anti-nuke folks I know don't put much stock in "government regulation"!

Want the full skinny? Click here.

Read more!

This is stupid stuff. In two days the GNC received 26 email messages, with lord only knows how many messages on average, but I'd guess 4 to 5. That's over 100 posts to the GNC in two days! No wonder folks are so reticent to serve. Only the exceptionally dedicated or those without very full lives can wade through this morass.

The GNC needs to find ways to bring this volume down to a tolerable level or we will always suffer from those so strong in their perspective that they will read crap after crap, in other words, extremists, or those with no life and no real connection to living human beings.

Read more!

The following have been submitted for GNC approval to serve on the Senatorial Campaign Committee:

Anita Wessling
Brent White
Dave Jette
Eric Oines
Jim Lendall
Marc Sanson
Teresa Keane

2 of 7 are female. This is starting to feel like an unwelcome trend.

The GNC delegates are voting now. To see the results, visit this link

Read more!

Delegate John Murphy of PA wrote to the GNC about the Rensenbrink proposal

I'm not even interested in their strategic relevance right now. I am just flabbergasted at this point. Perhaps we will have more opportunity to investigate the thinking behind this rather bizarre menu of "short-term and long-term goals". I at least hope that this is just a conversation starter and not something that anyone should take seriously.

On the other hand, Martin Zehr (aka Mato Ska) of NM wrote:

THIS is leadership. Can we nominate John Rensenbrink for SC and formalize the proposal or establish a Working Committee at the workshop to formalize it.

Martin Zehr
NMGP

In a subsequent post, Murphy wrote in response to Zehr

A short-term planning horizon for the Green party would be three to five years out. A long-term planning horizon for the Green party would be five to 10 years out. What we need is a set of objectives for the immediate term: now until the election of 2008 along with a strategy statement. This must be followed with a short-term planning horizon then a long-term planning horizon. Even talking about 25 years out is irrational due to the uncertainties in the political world.

I'll not endorse every particle of this perspective, but I do agree that Rresebrink is not being rational talking about 25 year horizons. There is a difference between building with future generations in mind and trying to lay out today a path to carry us for 25 years. That's just silly.

Read more!

My city creates a twenty-year-plan, as does my county, and every five years dusts it off and spends a lot of time and money re-vamping it, then promptly drops it into a drawer and forgets it until five years hence.

Apparently John Rensenbrink thinks himself capable of five extra years of vision, and is offering a seminar on his ideas at the Reading convention. I hope someone can attend and report on it's value.

Personally, I am very doubtful. His first draft, which makes many assumptions I don't share, is behind the "Read more!" link. And, since Rensenbrink is both a well respected Green and an architect of the disastrous"Safe States" strategy which did nothing to grow the party, it may be worth an active Green's time to read it over...



Hello all,

This might interest you. Take your mind off re-hashing the past and getting into conniption fits over it. That's partly why I helped form a group in late March to do some exploring of vision and goals for our party. Instead of incessantly dwelling on the past lets look to the future.



We'll be doing a Workshop at Reading on Thursday afternoon, entitled "Green Party Vision for the Next 25 years."

It's Workshop Session #5 from 4:00 to 5:15.

John Rensenbrink



Here's what we will be discussing and taking off from:



Vision and Goals for the United States Green Party 2007-2032

A 25-Year Prospectus



The short term and long term vision of the United States Green Party during the next 25 years is to place one of its members in the Presidential Office, one of its members in the Vice Presidential Office, and a significant number of its members in the Congress of the United States. The intent of our candidates, campaign workers, and office holders is to work in cooperation with voluntary associations and the self-help projects of the people to develop and implement policies fostering quality of life and quality of place for everyone in the United States; and to foster policies and governance in the world at large to bring the peoples of the world ever closer to quality of life and quality of place.

In accordance with this vision, the Green Party of the United States works to transform the politics of our country. We insist on honesty and integrity in the political process for ourselves and others. We seek to involve everyone in our country in decision-making. We seek to work from the grass roots up to reach the ideals of democracy, civil liberty, social justice, a sustainable environment, peaceful co-existence and effective democratic governance among all nations and
peoples.


In the Short Term: Goals for 2007--2008




A. Focus energy, resources, and political enthusiasm on three winnable Congressional House Seats and one winnable Congressional Senate seat in 2008.

B. Put a strong emphasis on a presidential nominee for 2008 who most closely shares a focus on building momentum in the 2008 presidential campaign for future Green Party presidential aspirations and campaigns.

C. Begin the development and articulation of a Green Party Presidential Agenda in the fields of foreign policy, civil liberties, energy, food, health, education, taxes, and transportation. [Note: what this clearly calls for is the creation of a Green Party governance-conscious Shadow Government. Caveat: This is not the same
as a Cabinet and not the same as Dream Teams.]


D. Put energy policy at the crux of our national Green political campaigns in next year’s elections. Though climate change and the Iraq War are crucial concerns, it is Energy that encapsulates both and anchors our appeal as a Green Party in the guts of the fundamental problem facing the nation and the planet.



E. Begin laying the foundation for a vivid and intensive promotional campaign to market the Green Party and make its short term and long term 25-year goal visible to more and more of the public in general and – specifically-- to actual and potential Green Party constituencies.

F. Begin dialogue with voluntary associations and self-help projects of the people in the vital fields of peace, food, energy, health, civil liberties, human rights, democratic development, education, taxes, and transportation. Share with them the Green Party’s 25-Year Vision and Goals.


G. Appoint a special committee to examine and assess the Green Party’s national structure in the light of its ability to move the party forward towards the 25–year vision and goals; and to make recommendations to the 2008 Green Party Convention for changes in structure that are intended to enhance the Green Party’s ability to
move the party forward in the direction of the 25-year vision and goals.




In the Long Term: 2009—2032



I. Continue to focus energy, resources, and political enthusiasm
on three winnable races for the House of Representatives and one winnable Senate seat in 2010, 2012, and 2014 with the expectation that Green Party members will be elected to both Houses of Congress. With the resulting greater energy, resources and enthusiasm, the Green Party will continue to prioritize Congressional races but will
do so in many more House and Senate Districts.

II. Following from 2008, continue to put a strong emphasis on a presidential nominee in 2012 and 2016 who most closely shares a focus on building momentum for future Green Party presidential campaigns, with the expectation that the Green Party Presidential ticket will cross the threshold of 5%, thus preparing the way for the campaigns of the Green Party presidential ticket in the next election.

III. Continue the development and articulation of a Green Party Presidential Agenda in the fields of foreign policy, civil liberties, energy, food, health, education, taxes, and transportation (and others as they reach the threshold of urgency to the public). Further refine and deepen the pertinence and thrust of a Shadow Government composed of Green Party members.


IV. If public financing has been attained for the 2016 election, or if it becomes available in 2020 or 2024, choose in that year a presidential/vice presidential ticket that will most effectively win the White House and will most energetically campaign on the Green Party Presidential Agenda. The expectation is that the Green Party will win the White House not later than 2024.


V. Continue and deepen the dialogue with voluntary associations and self-help projects of the people in the vital fields of peace, food, energy, health, civil liberties, human rights, democratic development, education, taxes, and transportation – and others that may be urgently pertinent by that time.


VI. Once in office, the Green Party President and Vice President and the Green Party members of Congress will set forth on an eight-year campaign for quality of life and quality of place at home and abroad in cooperation with thousands of voluntary associations and self-help projects of the people and in coordination
with members of other political parties.

Read more!