Keith Stern ( Independent candidate for U.S. House of Reps ) Sends letter to Free Press

Here is the Letter he sent to the Free Press.  I agree with him on many things, especially the need to open up the media to independent candidates like Keith and myself.  — Steve Moyer  http://stevemoyer.us

here is a letter to the burlington “free” press in response to their editorial today

Why is the Burlington “Free” Press afraid of an Independent candidate for the US House seat?  Is it because you have hitched your cart to a candidate and are afraid that there is a candidate that the people will be more enthused about?  Or maybe you don’t think a candidate talking about income tax reform where the first $75,000 in income is exempt from taxes is something your readers are interested in.  How about a plan for protecting Social Security?  Nothing your readers are concerned with, right?  My plan for world peace through a treaty of nonaggression and basic human rights can’t be of any importance to your readers, can it?  How about a true discussion of decreasing the use of fossil fuels?

I am absolutely amazed that any legitimate media provider would intentionally keep a legitimate candidate out of the election process.  Maybe because I don’t have a lot of money to spend advertising with you?  I hope you print this so your readers can see that this paper doesn’t believe they have the right to complete election coverage, instead censoring the information to what the paper wants them to know.

Keith Stern
Independent candidate for the US House
http://www.getstern.org
 

Stupid

A news item you may have overlooked in Seven Days:

Luna, who is six months pregnant, says she and several of her friends arrived at [the Burlington bar Red Square] shortly after 9 p.m. for a performance by Mamadou, a Senegalese rhythm guitarist. She claims she was asked to leave at about 10:30; a bouncer told her that the policy was in place to protect pregnant women from being jostled by dancers or injured in a fight.

“I have a right to be there, and I don’t want other pregnant women to be restricted just because we have a belly,” she notes, adding she plans to report the incident to the Vermont Human Rights Commission.

Nice thought, but you’d have just as much of a chance if you were a Democrat appealing to the US Supreme Court for a fair election recount. This is the new, improved Jim Douglas Human Rights Commission, remember?

The Associated Press analyzed commission numbers for the 10 years from fiscal 1996 through June 2005, when Dean appointees were the majority for all but the last three months. Numbers of cases referred to the full commission ranged from a high of 75 in 1996 to a low of 28 in 2001.

The panel found grounds for continuing the case in as much as 56 percent of the 1999 cases to a low of 18 percent in 2001. Over the 10 years, the commission found possible discrimination in an average of 31.7 percent of cases.

In the first 10 months of fiscal 2006, when Douglas appointees were a majority, 26 cases went to the commission and it found potential discrimination in one. When no settlement was reached in that one and the commission was asked to sue, it refused.

But I digress…

Let’s return to the news report at hand…

So, let’s have a stupid-off, shall we? After all, both “sides” go straight to that word, so there must be stupid in here somewhere, yes?

But Red Square owner Martti Matheson says that the whole incident has been blown out of proportion. He insists that Red Square has “absolutely” never had a policy barring pregnant women in the bar — before 10 p.m. or after. “If we see someone who’s obviously pregnant, we might tell them that we think it might not be healthy” to be on the dance floor, Matheson says. “But we’d definitely never tell someone to leave. That would just be stupid.

…and…

“He told us that we didn’t understand the risks of being pregnant,” says Luna. “I found it very offensive, discriminatory and stupid.

So…ready to vote..?

THE FIRST VERMONT PRESIDENTIAL STRAW POLL (for links to the candidates exploratory committees, refer to the diary on the right-hand column)!!! If the 2008 Vermont Democratic Presidential Primary were

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Bernie the Democrat!

Suddenly as reported in the Time Argus, Bernie
Sanders has started a signature drive to get on the Democratic primary ballot!

I guess Bernie wants to debate Craig Hill and Larry Drown? I doubt it. Rather Bernie wants to make shure no one is on the Democratic ballot line come November.

Could it be that Bernie actually wants to be a  Democrat, the party that he votes like and with whom he is getting support from?

I do not know much about Larry, but I do know that Bernie is aware of the fact that Craig Hill is already making a point of exposing Bernie Sanders
voting record, which exposes the reality of his rhetoric.

I hope that the Vermont press will entertain a true debate and airing of issues. Bernard Sanders does not deserve a free pass to the Senate no matter how chic, warm and fuzzy, he may seem.

  I myself am appalled by the fact that he voted for the Iran Freedom Act, which Dennis Kucinich called “a stepping stones to war”. See Justin Raimondo’s piece at Antiwar.com for details. Vermonters should know that Bernie has voted for a bill that calls for economic sanctions and regime change in Iran. This is not about peaceful solutions, but solutions based on power politics that plays into Bush’s hands.

  Also the fact that Bernie wants to cut off aid to the Palestinians is appalling. The treatment of the Palestinian people by the Israeli government and the United States is nothing less than a genocidal progrom which is stealing land, water and human decency away from these people. Are not all humankind made in the image of god? Are not all men created equal as our Declaration of Independence states? Why not policies that respect such ideas of self-evident truth?

  So in essence Bernie Sanders supports the state sponsored terrorism of Isreal, Britain and the United States which is beggetting the very terrorism that we decry. This is not the way to peace. Peace can only come through trust that can not be bought, but worked at through projects of mutual development which people of that entire region need such as water development. Right now
the battle between the Palestinians and Isreali’s is as much about water as anything else.

  There is much more of Bernie’s record that he does not want Craig Hill, or anybody else the chance to question him on. I frankly believe that no one deserves a free ride into the Senate of the United States.

  Certainly the other millionaire, and Sanders is a rich man, Richie Tarrent, is not going to go after Sanders voting record that helps the Bush Administration. Tarrent is not going to challenge
Sanders as to why he refuses to take his oath of office seriously…for anyone who believes that 19 Arab hijackers are responisible for demolition of the World Trade Center is either willingly or unwittingly going along with the basic contention of the Bush Administration, that Al-Qeada did 9/11 and thus we must have a war on Terrorism.

  Sorry folks 9/11 was a Reichstag fire style Coup that is the excuse to implement the preemptive war plans of the neoconservatives and concurrrent abrogation of the Constitution which Bush’s imperial signing statements attest. With his vote in support of th Iran Freedom Act, Bernie is doing Bush and the NeoCons bidding.

  One must ask why did it take so long for Bernie
to sign on to John Conyers inquiery into a possible impeachment. Well because Vermonter’s themsleves were becoming the leaders in our own call to have Bush and Cheney impeached so Bernie finally jumped on board.

  By the way it was Chuck Ross, Patrick Leahy’s top aide in Vermont, was the leading voice against the Jefferson’s Rulebook Impeachment proceeding from ever being taken up for a vote by the Vermont Legistlature.  Such Legistlature endorsement would bring the very credible issue of impeachment to the floor of Congress. That was not what Leahy and the Democratic leadership want.

  The Democrats do not want to get rid of Bush, they just want to continue the ‘wait until November charade’ that did not work in with the coup’s of 2000 & 2004. Who says that we will have
an election without stories election fraud somewhere in the country this year?

  The issue is that we must get Cheney and Bush out now. Bernie could do that by taking the essence of what Craig Hill tried Patrick Leahy to understand in 2004 about 9/11 and make that an issue. Expose the anomilies of the case that show that the 9/11 Commission was a farce. A farce that is the ultimate unchallenged excuse that allows Bush to go to war and dismantle our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

  The reason that Leahy and Sanders will not bring up this issue is that they are afraid. They know the message of the Anthrax letters. Well there are Citizens in this country and this state that demand that our leaders uphold their Oaths to defend the Country from enemies both foreign and domenstic. Our young soldieres are dying to do so right now, why can’t highly paid politicians like
Leahy and Sanders do so?

  If Tarrant is a patriot, then he will ask these questions too, but he is a Bushist, or will he wake up!

  Craig Hill is not an apologist for the Bush administration unlike the wimpy milktoast oppossition of the Co-dependent Democratic Party and suppossedly independent Sanders. Sanders made a faustian bargin with the Democrats a long time ago which has forced him to vote in the democratic block, though he is gets to keep his independent cover. Do not judge a book by its cover.

  Craig Hill has a wide platform of solutions that Vermonter’s and the nation needs to hear concerning a New Deal type of approach to solve the Energy crisis/global warming issue which is needed to be implemented as a response as well to
the fact that the finacial system is helplessly
bankrupt. We can have a positive future.

  It is the bankruptcy of the west that is the cause of the imperialism of the United States. War is the way in which the speculative bubbles can be kept alive. Read ‘Confessions of an Economic Hitman’ by John Perkins to understand the role of the IMF/World Bank in its subjugation of nations.
The economic material of the LaRouche organization is right on target as they have for years.

  Craig Hill is not a LaRouche supporter in that he does not like his stance and rhetoric on the environment and other poinst, but Craig does realize the need for a New Deal type of approach to reindustrialize the United States such that we can implement a new Green economy. The Vermont Legistlature passed a Resolution JRH 76 that calls for an New Deal approach to saving the nation’s Machine-Tool capacities and skilled workforce through a plan ot diversify the productive capabilities of the ailing Automobile sector. The federal Government can create and allocate the recources towards such a diversification plan. The precident is hear as confirmed by the Vermont Resolution.

  Congress must promote the General Welfare as is its Constitutional charge by directing investment towards those projects in infrastructure and the promotion of science and manjufacturing that will deal with the many issues that face our nation, a nation that still can not seem to clean up New Orleans.

  As a member of the Congressional Committee on Banking what has Bernie Sanders done to promote such Congressional power over the use of the nation’s finances towards investment in the physical economy other than going into supportting
the greatest speculative bubbles in history?

  The plan is right there with you and you are in power already as Congressman Mr. Sanders. If you really want to be Senator, why do you not do what you can while you are a Congressman. State that you doubt the official story of 9-11 and want a new investigation. Work to stop a war with Iran as oppossed to helping Bush start one. Bring forth the Vermont Resolution on retooling the auto industry and reviving the American economy away from the bankers such as  Middlebury alum Felix Rohatyn who funds the Democratic Party to not take an FDR style approach to our crisis.

  Bruce Marshall

  Co-Chair Green Party of Vermont.

Rainville’s Solicitation of Military Supporters

Found this document on the Rainville website:

(I’d be curious if anyone has received this document personally, or knows of someone who has. I think we’d all be curious as to the context in which it’s been applied…)

This is hardly a particularly shocking or press-stopping document (unless it is being used to directly solicit support from National Guard lists, which it sure as hell seems the Rainville camp is illegally using), but I think it’s interesting to juxtapose this advice against Rainville’s unabashed exploitation of her own uniform and office to raise her stature before her official announcement, and long after her exploratory committee had raised money above and beyond the spirit, if not the letter, of the law (I wish someone would tell her it’s not an exlporatory committee anymore – when GMD gets hits from her campaign, it still shows up as “Rainville exploratory”). All that political fundraising and activity just made it clear that she was biding her time and milking what military-themed press she could to advance her ambitions (and of course, while at the same time, communications-director-to-be Brendan McKenna was using the Rutland Herald as a propoganda tool to this same purpose).

Ah well. I suppose I should be gentle, given the upcoming political “all-star break” that Sunday’s blogger BBQ has become, what with right wing bloggers and Rainville staff intending to join the festivities.

Tell you what, in the interest of peace and harmony, I’ll say how appreciative I am that – despite what I may think of some of her behavior vis-a-vis the uniform – Rainville has not yet gone down the negative attack route. Take a look at her Dorain Gray portrait (and compare that with Douglas’s, and th already rather grueome image of Rich Tarrant!). Let’s hope this is a sign that she intends to do her part to keep this one out of the mud.

Blogger BBQ: SUNDAY

Hey folks. Looks like I missed Brattlerouser’s typo from the linkdump below, that has since been picked up by PoliticsVT. Cookout is SUNDAY not Saturday. I can’t post on the blogger-blogs such as PoliticsVT without a blogger account, I cant remember my blogger account password, and it won’t let me set up a new one without setting up a stoopid blogger blog. (&*^%in’ blogspot-blogsh*t)

*Ahem*

If someone has a blogger account and can zip over there and post a correction, it’d be super-swell-dandy. Double super-swell-dandy, even.

Building a better purpose for humanity

What is humanity’s purpose?  It seems to me that we have accepted the purpose of “control over resources.”  This is most commonly known as “capitalism” but it could also include communism and fascism.  In all of these systems the purpose is to control the resources of society, albeit by different means.

Suppose that we were to seek a better purpose for humanity.  What would it be?  Homeostasis, perhaps. Our purpose might be to build a stable relationship between nature and humanity.  This is often referred to as “sustainability” meaning that a homeostasis (stable state) between nature and humanity could be maintained over time.

Our current predicament is that we are “inside the box” of capital control.  We are trying to control the resources of society ( “capital” ).  That produces war by its nature.  In truth, the very idea that we should pursue control is the dominant paradigm.  The dominant paradigm is dominance.  Seeking to control resources, which includes other people, produces dominant behavior patterns, such as war, political fights and societal divisions.

What do politicians mean when they say “I’ll fight for you?”  Who or what are they fighting?  They are fighting for control of resources, usually money.  Money is a fluid form of capital. It can easily be “controlled” by government. 

From a higher perspective we are all being controlled by money because we lack a better purpose.  We are “victims of money.” If our purpose was to build a “sustainable world” we might still have money but it would be in service to the higher purpose. Without a higher purpose we are left to “fight over money” which produces a parade of negative behavior patterns.

We need to “get out of the box” of fighting over resources ( money ) and start building a better purpose.  We can start by thinking about how we are going to produce a world where everyone gets what they need, without having to compete or conflict with each other.

We might begin by doing a global inventory of resources and needs.  What do we have?  What do we need to do to accomplish sustainability?  This forms the foundation of a new economic system and a new political system.

It’s what’s for dinner!

Steve Moyer
http://stevemoyer.us

The Return of Banishment

( – promoted by odum)

A 36 year old man from the village of Gilman in Essex County has been banished from his hometown for a period of three years, following a five month prison sentence. Francis Robb (who will be allowed to visit his mother on Thanksgiving, Christmas, and her birthday) was sentenced for retaliating against neighbors following repeated conflicts, including felony aggravated assault and a reported incident (denied by Robb) involving threats with a handgun. Fron the AP:

“Given Mr. Robb’s record of convictions and his menacing behavior toward some of his neighbors, it made sense to get him out of the picture for an extended duration,” [Essex County State’s Attorney Vincent] Illuzzi said in a prepared statement.

“The only other alternative would have been a longer jail sentence and I’m not sure the state’s taxpayers should foot that bill. The entire burden should rest on Mr. Robb,” said Illuzzi, who also serves as a [Republican] state senator from the Essex-Orleans district.

The Northeast Kingdom banishment decree comes from a plea arrangement and is attached as a condition of probation to the felony conviction. The AP piece leaves several questions unanswered, however, the essence of the story remains clear:

“It’s kind of a ‘get out of Dodge’ sort of thing,” said Illuzzi.

Robb’s lawyer, Peter Langrock of Middlebury bristled at the use of the word “banishment” and had this to say:

“You frequently have cases where someone is told to stay 500 feet away from (his or her victim). These people are next-door neighbors, so it made sense” to have Robb stay away from the village.

It’s worth taking a moment to consider just how weak the argument that banishment is no different than a restraining order really is.

First and most obvious, a restraining order is releative to a person or persons. Banishment is relative to a static, fixed point. If the interest is in protecting Robb’s neighbors, and this sentence is simply a restraining-order-on-steroids, what happens if the neighbors move out of Gilman? What protection do they have then?

Second, small as it is, Gilman is not a village simply of Robb and his neighbors. In the interest of letting the punishment fit the crime, why extend the restraining order to everyone in the town? If the authorities believe he is a threat to everyone and anyone, why isn’t he serving a longer jail sentence? Is the suggestion that he is a threat to people in Gilman, but not in Norton? Canaan? Based on what, exactly?

So it’s, at best, a goofy sentence, and quite possibly overly cruel (it’s certainly unusual), as it serves to arbitrarily seperate the man from his mother, who may well play a vital role in the support system that could be crucial for any hope of rehabilitation.

But it’s worse than that. Consider for a moment – is this a sentence likely to be handed down to a homeowner? Would a judge tell a middle or upper class person they had to abandon their property for a year and make their way elsewhere?

Of course not. Banishment is a punishment that will be exclusively applied against the poor, and could easily become another tool against the homeless.

And consider where this might lead. We often talk about “slippery slopes,” whereby an idea that might be appealing (as this one, in many ways, is) might project several steps forward into scary unintended consequences.

Well, we only have to project one step down this “slope.” After banishment will eventually come town laws refusing to allow individuals under banishment sentences on their streets (after all, no town wants their neighbors dumping their unmanageables on them). If this stands up to a legal test and catches on, it could be the beginning of a frightening new wave against civil liberties.

Of course it won’t be called banishment if that happens:

Langrock disputed Illuzzi’s characterization of the sentence. “It’s not banishment. Banishment is pejorative.

It’s perjorative, you see. It sounds bad. We wouldn’t countenence anything bad would we?

Maybe we’ll just call it a correctional time out

Why the Senate Race in Connecticut Matters in Vermont (UPDATE: Leahy comes through)

At GMD, we have been known to comment on happenings in neighboring states. While Connecticut isn’t quite neighboring, it is New England, yet I’ve never quite felt it quite right to blog on the Democratic Primary there. However, recent events have put that race front and center among everyone who considers themselves a Democrat, as well as any who feel that the netroots are part of the antidote to the disease of entrenched power in Washington.

The Democratic primary, if you haven’t heard, pits long-time incumbent and former Dem veep candidate Joe Lieberman against political newcomer Ned Lamont. If you know this story, you might want to skip to the end. If you don’t, I’ll try to summarize the events that brought us to the point where Lieberman has now publicly announced his intention to bolt the party, and how (like it or not) this race has become the make-or-break battle for the soul (and future) of the national Democratic Party.

Frustration has long been simmering against Lieberman among liberal Dems, and particularly among the netroots, where the anger isn’t so exclusively ideological (more on that in a moment).

Although Liberman’s voting record isn’t so bad overall, there’s been a strong sense that liberal Connecticut should be able to do much better. When explaining their frustration, lefties most frequently point to Lieberman’s stance on the Iraq war, where he has staked a position to the right of most Republicans. In fact, Lieberman remains one of the the handful of the Bush Iraq policies most adamant and unapologetic supporters. Even as many Republicans have been forced to find cover and chastise the Bush administration fro screwing up, Lieberman is the poster child for the “everything’s going great, and the critics are undermining our troops and should shut up and support the President” school of political rhetoric.

Lieberman supporters try to cast the opposition as fixated on one issue, but the seething truly originates as far back as Lieberman’s embrace of the racist psuedo-science of Charles Murray’s infamous Bell Curve, along with his stance against affirmative action:

On March 9, 1995, in remarks at the National Press Club, as chairman of the pro-corporate Democratic Leadership Council, Lieberman denounced the case for affirmative action as “an un-American argument because it’s based on averages, not individuals,” and went on to praise Ward Connerly’s Proposition 209, the misnamed “California Civil Rights Initiative,” which outlawed affirmative action: “I can’t see how I could be opposed to it, because it basically is a statement of American values.” The year before, the New Haven Advocate’s excellent Paul Bass — who’s covered Lieberman for 22 years — wrote, “After meeting with racist scholar [and Bell Curve author] Charles Murray, Lieberman promoted Murray’s idea of taking children away from mothers on welfare and putting them in new government-run orphanages (rather than, for instance, boosting support for agencies seeking to keep together families in crisis).”

…and a little digging (especially in recent history) confirms that the ideological split goes deeper. FOr example, in defending his position that Catholic hospitals should be allowed to refuse emergency “Plan B” contraception to rape victims, Lieberman said “in Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital.” Some consolation, eh?

But at the end of the day, what finally put the Netroots over the edge is Lieberman’s eagerness to take every opportunity to appear on Fox News and the Sunday talk circuit specifically to attack and undermine his fellow Senate Democrats. The degree to which he has pursued this media strategy is truly unique, and it means he consistently places himself in positions to undermine Democratic efforts against the Bush regime on a host of issues (not just Iraq) more than he possibly could by simply being a conservative Democratic Senator. And this is how this one-time vice presidential candidate, dubbed “Loserman” (at the time) by the right, now counts Sean Hannity among his fans.

Which brings us to the big news from the other day (from GMD’s sister-site in Connecticut, My Left Nutmeg):

Joseph Lieberman will announce at his 1 pm news conference that he will pull petitions to begin gathering signatures for an independent run.
Furthermore, he will announce his intention to stay in the primary, but bolt the party if he loses.

No surprise to many of us. Joe is desperate to cling to power and the voters of his own Party be damned.

So that’s the thumbnail of the background. Lieberman is willing to scuttle the Democratic process in the Democratic Party, deliver a big “fuck you” to voters, and potentially give the Republicans their best chance to gain a Senator in Connecticut they may ever have. All to hold power at all costs.

Why does it matter to Vermonters, beyond the simple satisfaction it brings to see a weaselcrat like Joe brought to his knees by a grassroots/netroots driven campaign like that of challenger Ned Lamont?

This:

Schumer said that the DSCC “fully supports” Sen. Joe Lieberman in his primary bid, and he refused to rule out continuing that support if Lieberman were to run as an independent.

There were degrees of independence, Schumer said. “You can run as an independent, you can run as an independent Democrat who pledges to vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader.”

Schumer said he had neither sought nor recieved assurances from Lieberman that an independent bid would not ensue if Ned Lamont tightened the noose

What this means is that the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is refusing to say whether or not he will support the rightfully chosen Democrat in the Connecticut Senate race.

Just take moment and let that sink in. It is truly extraordinary. And it is completely intolerable.

And Schumer is not alone:

It hasn’t taken Lamont long to unnerve the Democratic establishment. (CT Democratic Sen. Chris) Dodd, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and ultimate party loyalist, refuses to give an unqualified answer to whether he will support the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.

What this energing sitution does is crystallize in such a tangible form what the netroots and the rise of “people-powered” politics is fighting against: the fraternity of entrenched power for entrenched power’s sake.

To many’s surprise, the first out of the gate to say what should be obvious is Hillary Clinton:

“ALBANY, N.Y. – Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a longtime supporter of Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Tuesday she will not back the Connecticut Democrat’s bid for re-election if he loses their party’s primary.

Of course, there isn’t necessarily a lot of love lost between Liberman and the Clintons after Joe very publicly called Bill to the mat for his sexual indiscretions (and, of course, how he continues to be Bush’s #1 Democratic fan:)

Ahem.

But it does signal that it’s time to take a stand. This situation, for better or worse, has become the defining flashpoint for the soul of the Democratic Party at the national level. It is time for all Democratis Senators, and those who aspire to the Senate, to stand up and be counted, and that includes Leahy and Sanders. The question is; do you stand with your Party, the voters, and the principles of a fair Democratic process…?

…or do you stand with Joe, Chris Dodd and Chuck Schumer?

It’s time to remind the DSCC who they’re working for:

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Phone (202) 224-2447

And for an answer from Bernie and Leahy:

Leahy:

Burlington office
199 Main Street, 4th Floor
Burlington, VT 05401
(802) 863-2525
1-800-642-3193 

Montpelier office
P.O. Box 933
87 State Street, Room 338
Montpelier, VT 05602
(802) 229-0569 

Bernie:

Burlington, Vermont
1 Church St. 2nd Floor, Burlington, VT 05401
Phone – 802-862-0697 In-State 800-339-9834
Fax – 802-860-6370

Brattleboro, Vermont
167 Main Street, Suite 410 Brattleboro, VT 05301
Phone – 802-254-8732 Fax – 802-254-9207

UPDATE: Sheesh, I’ve never had to update a diary only a few minutes after posting it before. From Raw Story:

In a serious blow to Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s (D-CT) reelection campaign, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is likely to back the winner of the Democratic primary in Connecticut, meaning that Lieberman may be left without national allies for campaign money.

A senior Democratic party official confirmed that the DSCC is unlikely to back Lieberman should he lose the primary to Ned Lamont, a more progressive contender in Connecticut who has garnered support from bloggers and has catalyzed his campaign around Lieberman’s aggressive position on Iraq.

Hunh. The DSCC supporting the Democratic candidate. To think that this is news…

I still wanna hear it from Schumer.

UPDATE II: Kos is now keeping a “where do you stand” tally, now that Sen. Salazar has said he will support Liberman regardless of the primary.  I’m hoping some enterprising GMD reader with more time on their hands will check with our folks and report back so we can update the list over there…

UPDATE III: Leahy states he will support the Dem nominee regardless of who wins. Heard it on VPR. Dont have a link…sorry. He had some relatively harsh words for Joementum, though. Good stuff. Thanks, Pat.

Gov Douglas’ Achilles Heel

Douglas’ big problems lie with his appointees.


See below blog entry with certified letter to Douglas concerning his appointment of a convicted civil rights violator to the chief of the Vermont Police Academy.


DouglasAppointments

This year he also appointed one of the sleaziest Vermont attorneys to the Vermont criminal justice training counsel.  The only private attorney appointed to that agency.

Cronies = corruption in the Douglas administration.

— scott huminski

The Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton