Zebra 3 Report by Joe Anybody
Tuesday, 10 April 2012
VIDEO: Ralph Nader at Powells Books - Portland Oregon 4.9.12
Mood:  happy
Now Playing: Mobile T gives a report back with video from Ralph Nader speaking in PDX
Topic: NADER

Ralph Nader in PDX 4\9\12 Reportback:

Its been two years since Ralph Nader came to Portland, but he made it worth the wait when he held an open to the public book signing at Powell's City of Books yesterday (4/9). Naders new book, Getting Steamed to Overcome Capitalism, mesmorized the audience in the brightly lit Pearl room on the third floor of Powell's. Attendance was enormous with people crowding even the aisles of books to get a glimpse of and hear the man the commonwealth and corporations are secretly afraid of. As I made my way to the media corner, I heard a thunderous deep voice gradually rising as Mr. Nader once again became enraged within himself and moved the book release into lecture mode.

Nader Delivers Powerful Speech @ Book Signing Event In PDX

Ralph Nader comes to Portland! Nader gave a powerful lecture and released his new book "Getting Steamed to Overcome Corporatism" for a Q & A and signing at Powell's City of Books in downtown Portland. Look for Joe Anybody's video of Naders lecture/symposium at Lewis & Clark College in southwest Portland to follow this event on the same day.

This new book seems to reach into the psyche of the average person who is interested in learning about the shady practices that large Pac-Man corporations are using to exploit the people and hoard so called "capital". Nader emphasised the "fire in your gut" or boiling point analogy after using cold hard facts to astonish his audience and talked numbers in the sense of our government spending excess money on foreign wars not neccessary or worth fighting.
He also spoke about the statistics of those without healthcare and compared the US to other successful coutries which utilize a broad universal healthcare system. Another representative of Occupy Portland (Cameron Whittman) was there and questioned Nader and he responded with positive motivation for the Occupy movement, stressing that Occupy does need some leadership and that we the people can make a difference.

Mr. Nader also held a Q&A about his book and many good questions and comments were offered up. A question by Mobile T, to Nader was on his view of ALEC, and he responded with a firestorm shaming them on everything from corporate manipulation to enactment of bad legislature.
Though the word "Occupy" was never included in the title or context of the book, it's almost as if it was written with the intention of motivating those who are now joining forces as a social movement. Hence Occupy.

LEWIS & CLARK: <video 1hr 49 min> http://youtu.be/e9fF2sg10cY 

Posted by Joe Anybody at 12:01 AM PDT
Updated: Sunday, 23 September 2012 3:13 PM PDT
Thursday, 3 December 2009
Ralph Nader and the W.H. Public Library announcement
Mood:  amorous
Now Playing: Great News regarding my favorite "real politician"
Topic: NADER
Nader visits W.H. Public Library

WEST HARTFORD - At approximately 4 p.m. on Black Friday, Ralph Nader, the 75-year-old consumer activist from Winsted, took his seat inside a room at the West Hartford Public Library and began scribbling his autograph on copies of his new book, "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!"


A line of about 50 people spilled out into the library's main room, eager to meet Nader, who gave a speech downstairs after the signing. Upon seeing Nader enter the room, a cluster of six reporters spiked to the front of the line and set their recorders down at his table, forming their own shield around him as fans approached one by one. Some local television news techies erected a wall of cameras directly in front of Nader's face as he tried to make small talk with fans.

When the line ended, Nader stood up and acknowledged the press, who in unison zoned in for the close-up with their cameras, tape recorders and microphones in hand.

"Big question is, Ralph, are you going to run for the US Senate?" blurts out a local TV reporter with the first question.

The local media was not there to talk about Nader's new book. They wanted to get down to brass tax and see if the three-time presidential candidate would declare to them that he would challenge Chris Dodd for his Senate seat next year.

"It's premature," said Nader, who acknowledged that there is growing resentment with the two senators who represent the state (Joe Lieberman being the other). People don't agree with how they "represent them on a number of issues, including their pensions, financial crimes and health care," he said

Nader expressed concern with the Senate and the passing of legislature.

"The crisis in the Senate is really the big issue. The Senate is the graveyard of the legislative hopes of the country," he said.

Nader said his declaration to run isn't dependent on just him, but whether people from around the state are going to be willing to work and put together a grassroots campaign. He said it is hard for him at this point to truly gauge the political field for a run. He isn't sure if people want him to run just because they're upset with the two incumbent senators or whether there is an actual force out there that will work in 169 towns in Connecticut.

The one force that could serve as his main vehicle to run a campaign is the Green Party. Two members of the Green Party showed up with signs urging Nader to run here at the library on Friday.

Vic Lancia, a weathered former state worker out of the Department of Labor, walked up to greet the man he has admired since 1967.

"I'm retired, Ralph. I've got good legs to go to work for you," said Lancia. "Give me something to do next year Ralph."

Lancia attended to get Nader to start seriously thinking about a run for the Senate. Asked what difference Nader offers from someone like Dodd, he said Nader wouldn't be penetrated by lobbyist money. Lancia feels the current healthcare bill moving through the House and Senate will still leave millions of uninsured. He favors single-payer healthcare, a system that cuts down costs and extends universal coverage through a single government source, like Medicare.

"The blogosphere is going crazy. This is the most important senate race in the country," said Tim McKee, a national committee person from the Green Party who held a sign saying "Run Ralph, Run."

"He's definitely intriguing," said Danielle Barry of West Hartford, who waited in line at the library.

Although the reporters were hoping to get Nader to admit a run for the Senate (Nader concluded the session with reporters by saying "Must be a slow news day"), the questions they were asking him seemed to suggest otherwise.

"Do you really want to be a US Senator? You say the whole system is broken, so do you want to be a part of that?" asked an Associated Press reporter. Another reporter from Channel 8 asked "What would Ralph Nader lose by running for U.S. Senate?" Nader shrugged it off by simply saying "time."

The conversation then focused on Dodd, the longest serving senator in Connecticut history. Nader says Dodd is very resilient despite facing challengers from his own party in 2010.

"Chris Dodd is very personable and I wouldn't write him off," said Nader. "He has been very concessionary to the banks and relied heavily and successfully on Wall Street contributions."

Nader said the real test for Dodd is seeing how far he'll push for real consumer organization in the Financial Consumer Regulatory bill. Nader proposed the creation of a Financial Consumer Association to Dodd as a non-profit for consumers, investors and savors of financial services to keep a check on banks. If it isn't done Wall Street will control the regulatory agency, he said.

"The test for Sen. Dodd is, as chair of the Banking Committee, (to) sponsor this Financial Consumer Association which does not cost the tax payer anything," said Nader.

Down a floor below, there are no reporters present as Nader talks to a packed room about his new book. He speaks about his crusades to perform real change in Washington by trying to route out corporate lobbyists who began their vice-like grip on both Democrats and Republicans in the 1970s. The Democrats, the party that had high hopes as being a real alternative to the Republicans, ended up being "depreciated" by lobbyist money as well, according to Nader.

"Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!" is a fictional book using real characters. It talks about the wealthiest citizens in our country, like Warren Buffett, assembling a cast of 16 plutocrats who use their power to save America's troubles. To get to the heart of the story, Nader uses fiction to point out certain truths about our modern culture.

"A society that has a lot of justice doesn't need charity," he said.

Posted by Joe Anybody at 7:24 PM PST
Updated: Thursday, 3 December 2009 7:26 PM PST
Monday, 5 October 2009
VIDEO: Ralph Nader, Greg & Jason Kafoury, Lloyd Marbet and Matt Zawisky
Mood:  bright
Now Playing: Ralph Nader and Friends Speak at PSU University Place at 1:00Pm
Topic: NADER

Portland Book Tour Videos from Ralph Naders Speaking Event

Filmed on 10.4.09

Ralph Nader talked about his new book as well as on the issue of Single Payer Health Care and other social issues




His book is a novel titled:

"Only The Super Rich Can Save Us"

Here are a few videos from the event at 1:00PM



Ralph Nader
Only The Super Rich Can Save Us (48 min)



Greg Kafoury at

Nader Speaking Event (6:44 min)




Lloyd Marbet

Coal Power Plant in Oregon at

Nader Speaking Event (4:20 min)




Ralph Nader book tour

"Only The Super Rich Can Save Us" (2:51 min)




Jason Kafoury and Matt Zawisky

at Nader Speaking Event (5:40 min)

Ralph Nader and Friends

Speak at PSU University Place at 1:00Pm

Videos from the event arealso posted on Portland Indy Media




Posted by Joe Anybody at 2:29 AM PDT
Updated: Friday, 9 October 2009 10:42 AM PDT
Thursday, 28 August 2008
Mood:  cool
Now Playing: Excitemnt is Ramping up - Corportae media no where around
Topic: NADER




Ralph Nader for President 2008

August 28, 2008



Last night in Denver was a wild party for democracy.

Four thousand people jammed into Magness Arena.

Sean Penn hit it out of the ballpark.

Tom Morello sang a glorious version of Woody Guthrie's This Land is Your Land.

Cindy Sheehan ripped into the dastardly twins (Democrats and Republicans).

Two new supporters came out of the woodwork to support Nader/Gonzalez.

When we asked for donations, Brooke Smith, star of ABC's Grey's Anatomy, rose out of the crowd, took the stage, pledged her support -- and $4,600 -- to the Nader/Gonzalez campaign.

Then we had another convert.

A 21-year-old African American from Phoenix -- Rev. Jarrett Maupin -- gave an eloquent speech as to why he's breaking with the Democratic Party, and vowed to organize the Latino and African American communities for Nader/Gonzalez.

And off course, Ralph laid it on the line, as usual.

Free Speech TV was slammed.

So, few people were able to watch on line.

Our apologies.

But Free Speech TV says they will put up highlights from the rally up on its website soon.

So, take a peek at this amazing show, and then get the DVD (see below).

As you know, we're in the middle of a fundraising drive to raise $100,000 by September 4.

We're off to a great start, hovering around $25,000 in just four days.

But we have to crank it up to meet our goal (we haven't missed one yet -- good job troops).

Let's get it done.

Remember, if you give $100 or more now, we'll send you three DVDs -- the Denver rally, the Minneapolis rally, and a special debate DVD. (Three DVD offer ends September 4 at 11:59 p.m.)

Onward to November.

The Nader Team


Contribute to the Nader for President 2008 campaign


Forward to a friend  |  Comment on our blog


Posted by Joe Anybody at 2:59 PM PDT
Tuesday, 8 January 2008
Why Ralph Nader Should Run in 2008
Mood:  bright
Now Playing: Z3 Readers sign the draft - we want Ralph Nader
Topic: NADER


The following was copied from a link I found on URL above

Why Ralph Nader Should Run for President in



Why Ralph Nader Should Run for President in 2008
*** Sign the DraftNader.org online petition! ***

Statement from the Twin Cities Branches of Socialist Alternative

Within the next few months, the Democratic and Republican nominees for president will be decided. Regardless of who wins, the two major presidential candidates will both support continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely, the expansion of the military by 90,000 more troops, the disastrous for-profit healthcare system, and a host of other policies that benefit Corporate America at the expense of the majority of the population.

A year ago the Democrats were voted into power in Congress on a wave of mass anger in U.S. society at the war in Iraq, economic polarization, and the policies of the Bush administration. However, the Democrats have quickly betrayed their electoral base on every major issue.  The Democratic Congress has handed over hundreds of billions more dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now has an approval rating of 20 percent – lower than Bush!

None of the major Democratic presidential candidates – Clinton, Obama, and Edwards – promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of their first term – in 2013. In an election awash in corporate cash – 2008 will be the first $1 billion election in U.S. history – the top Democrats have received millions of dollars more in big business donations than their Republican counterparts.  While 48 million Americans lack healthcare, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, is the leading recipient of money from the for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical companies. In July, Fortune magazine, one of the leading mouthpieces of the rich elite, even ran a cover story titled, “Business Loves Hillary!”

Neither party’s candidate will give voice to the millions of Americans fed up with the war in Iraq, the lack of affordable housing, health care and good-paying jobs, the mass poverty, under-funded education system, the racist criminal injustice system, and environmental devastation at the hands of corporate polluters.  A USA Today/Gallup poll from July 20 showed that 58% think that a third party is needed and that both the Democrats and the Republicans do an inadequate job representing the American people. A record number of voters (25%) are registered as independents. These facts show that millions of Americans are disillusioned by the two major parties, and that many would be responsive to an anti-war, anti-corporate voice in the 2008 elections, independent of the big business-dominated two party system.

Socialist Alternative in the Twin Cities calls on Ralph Nader to run for president again in 2008 to provide a voice to the millions outraged at the brutal war in Iraq and corporate domination of our society. For tens of millions of Americans, Nader’s name remains synonymous with an independent, left-wing challenge to the Democrats and Republicans. He is a reference point who immediately brings to mind the key question facing workers and youth in the U.S. – is it justified, strategic and possible to break from the two-party system and run independent candidates against big business and their two parties? Or should we continue to support the politics of “lesser-evilism,” which means limiting ourselves to what is acceptable to Corporate America?

In 2000 and 2004, Nader’s campaigns for president reached millions with radical demands, including:
•    A universal single-payer healthcare system
•    Full withdrawal of U.S. troops and personnel from Iraq
•    A $10/hour minimum wage
•    An expansion of workers’ rights and repealing the Taft-Hartley Act
•    Public works programs to create millions of jobs and end unemployment
•    A progressive tax system that makes big business and the rich pay
•    Rigorous environmental protection and a sustainable energy policy
•    Repealing the Patriot Act
•    Same-sex marriage rights
•    Abolition of the death penalty
•    An end to the failed war on drugs

Nader is not a socialist, instead wrongly believing that the major social problems we face can be solved through greater regulations on business. Nevertheless, his presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2004 were extremely important developments because they popularized the idea of building a left-wing alternative to the two-party corporate stranglehold over U.S. politics. We campaigned for a Nader vote, but on an independent, socialist basis (see links below for our previous material on Nader).

Socialist Alternative believes the antiwar movement, the labor movement, and other social struggles can effectively challenge the two corporate parties if they unite and use their powerful resources to build a new mass party of working people that fights for our interests in the streets, the workplaces, and the electoral arena. We have criticized Nader for not using the authority he built up to clearly call for the formation of such a new political party. In 2004 we also made clear our opposition to Nader taking the ballot line of the right-wing, anti-immigrant Reform Party in several states.  If Nader does run, it should be on a clear, principled, and left-wing basis.

However, if Nader does not run, it will likely be a setback to challenging the Democrats and Republicans and preparing the basis for a mass left-wing, working class political alternative in this country.  Owing to his prominence in 2000 and 2004 and his many years of consumer activism, Nader has become a household name and a symbol of resistance to the corporate domination of politics. More than any other foreseeable left independent candidate in 2008, a Nader campaign has the potential to reach the largest number of workers and youth and get the largest vote.

This is important, because the larger the campaign and vote for a left independent in 2008, the greater the confidence ordinary working people will have in our ability to build a powerful, lasting political challenge to corporate rule. It is precisely the fear of this development that explains the uniquely vitriolic, well-funded attack campaigns directed at Nader by apologists for the Democratic Party.

In reality, it is a mistake that Nader has not declared he is running already.  This would have allowed activists to be out campaigning against the Democrats and Republicans and channeling support into an independent left-wing alternative, rather than allowing a lot of anti-war, anti-establishment sentiment to get sucked into the campaign of right-wing libertarian Ron Paul or left-wing Democrats like Dennis Kucinich. Despite Kucinich putting forward a platform essentially similar to Nader’s, he ultimately acts as a vehicle to channel progressives back into the corporate-dominated Democratic Party.

We also welcome the declaration by former Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney that she has broken from the Democrats and is seeking the Green Party’s nomination for president.  McKinney has been outspoken against the occupation of Iraq, calling for “troops home now,” and is a leading critic of Bush and Congress’s attacks on civil liberties. With her base in the working class African American neighborhoods of Atlanta, McKinney has fought against racist and anti-worker policies and championed the fight to rebuild New Orleans in working peoples’ interests. Her program of far-reaching reforms within capitalism is fundamentally similar to Naders.’

While McKinney is much less well-known, if Nader fails to run in 2008 the McKinney campaign will likely be the strongest independent antiwar, anti-corporate electoral challenge for the White House. We feel that a united Nader-McKinney ticket in 2008 would be the strongest challenge to the two-party system and be a pole of attraction for millions fed up with the two parties of war and big business.

Nader has said that he will decide soon whether or not to run for president, depending on the number of activists he feels will get involved in actively building his campaign.  We urge everyone who agrees that Nader should run to show your support by signing the Draft Nader petition at www.draftnader.org.

Previous Socialist Alternative Material on Nader:
2004 Statement: Support Nader’s Campaign for President: It’s Time to Break From the Two-Party System

Review of An Unreasonable Man: New Documentary About Ralph Nader

Assessing the Nader Challenge in 2004 – Was It Worth Voting for Kerry After All? http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/printerfriendly/148.html

Learning from Nader’s Mistakes – We Need a Workers’ Party http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=147

The Nader Factor in the 2000 Elections: http://socialistalternative.org/oldjustice/justice22/3.html

Growing Cracks in the Two-Party System http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=151

Posted by Joe Anybody at 5:52 PM PST
Thursday, 10 August 2006
Ralph Nader Tells It Like It Is, Listen Up My Fellow Z3 Readers!
Mood:  loud
Now Playing: Ned Lamont beats Lieberman for Congress seat
Topic: NADER

Ralph Nader speaks up as a call-in guest on this Democracy Now "War and Peace Report" with Amy Goodman on the Lamont issue and other related subjects



here is the video link




Wednesday, August 9th, 2006
Ralph Nader on Lamont's Antiwar Win in Connecticut Primary and Lieberman's Vow to Run as an Independent

Listen to Segment |    | Download Show mp3      
Watch 128k stream       Watch 256k stream       Read Transcript

Three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman lost Connecticut's Democratic primary last night in one of the most closely-watched races in the country. He was defeated by Ned Lamont, a wealthy a telecommunications executive who has run largely on an antiwar platform. Lieberman has vowed to run as an independent candidate. We speak with former independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader.


Posted by Joe Anybody at 1:50 AM PDT
Updated: Friday, 11 August 2006 12:54 PM PDT
Thursday, 3 August 2006
How Hard Is It To Get On The Ballot?
Mood:  a-ok
Now Playing: Just Ask Ralph Nader!
Topic: NADER


This article illustrates, how rigged the duopoly and control of getting on the ballot really is. It mentions what I have and as well as many others have said and or have been screaming about. That the running for office of President, is so hard to do unless you are a part of the Two Party System. It is rigged to prevent and it continues to "skewer to protect" the mighty two party choice. If you call that being a choice! 

With interest, I think to my self “duhhhhhh” when I was reading the first part of this article. Hell as an avid Ralph Nader supporter, I know this debacle all so very well. In addition, I lived through Oregon’s messy stinking red-tape bullshit as signatures were tossed out or analyzed to the point of no return, and insinuating accusations and comments were tossed around like as if the devil himself was trying to get on the ballot. Well actually truthfully, the Devil was on the Ballot and even “cheated his way to be the current president we have now”.

 As I digress, these recounts of mine, of the Oregon election petition problems, and paying signature gatherers is an interesting topic, and rife with abuse and 'neglect of not allowing a true democratic process to exists" and affording the potential to allow abuse with out ethics and honor.

 Actually this whole topic has been neglected and swept under the shadow of the “vote for the two party” spin... and has been keeping the “good men (and ladies) down” for so long that not many will understand, that this is a very controlled crooked system.  

There needs to be a better answer on this because, what we are doing is not good enough, it needs to have some consistent order on a federal level. It should be not used as a tool to keep opponents of the duopoly from getting on the ballot. But as a tool to regulate and yet allow the freedom to run for president and the choices in multiple opponents. For we the voters should not be "out of reach" to the point we have “no choice” 

Believe you me the difference between The Republican and The Democrat party …..is sadly enough not much difference and this article will shed a little light on this process to keep the mighty as always, ruling with laws that keep power in their hands as they steal and manipulate the way to challenge or contest any possible challenger.

 Interesting too is that these little tweaks of the constitution  that has been adjusted for their benefit and security, are like a sore or wound that will never heal. The first step to get the process rectified I think is “get the masses to realize we need a better (honest) way to get a third party on the ballot. We need to allow more choices. We need real Democracy not Duopoly”We need to do that in a real bad way! In all fairness it needs to be looked into now! Is the fact that people were paid to get a 3rd party on the ballot not right?  Is it not right that a 3rd party can hardly even get on the ballot period, unless they are stinking rich or "a part of the good-olé boy plutocracy SYSTEM"

Smaller parties turn to paid signature gatherers to make ballot

RON TODT Associated Press

The Green Party's apparently successful campaign to put candidates on the Pennsylvania ballot is the latest involving the use of paid signature gatherers, who have been the focus of regulation efforts in other states.Small parties like the Greens say Pennsylvania's onerous ballot requirements leave them no choice but to hire people to supplement their volunteer forces. Even if they get on the ballot, it leaves them little money to wage a general election campaign, they said."Unfortunately it's becoming more and more common," said Thom Marti, an Adams County farmer who is the party's petition coordinator. "Some of the states have such restrictive ballot access, it's really beyond the capability of a small party."In an average year, Marti said, the state party can get the 25,000 or so signatures it needs with volunteers alone. To get the 67,070 required this year, paid circulators for U.S. Senate candidate Carl Romanelli's campaign got $2 per valid signature. The party also recruited members and others to canvass "for more or less pocket money" to add to volunteer efforts, Marti said.States have tried to regulate the activity with varying degrees of success, but a total ban on paying petition circulators was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1988.

In 2004, the Libertarian Party in Pennsylvania got almost half its signatures for statewide office from a paid campaign, but decided against it this year, in part because of the high signature requirement, said Chuck Moulton, the state party's vice chairman. The party will run statewide candidates only if a court overturns the high signature requirement, he said."There are a lot of states it's impossible to get on the ballot without the use of paid signature gatherers," Moulton said.

The Pennsylvania signature threshold is especially high this year because it is calculated based on the number of votes cast for the largest vote-getter in the last statewide election. This year's requirement is based on the record 3.4 million votes by which Bob Casey was elected state treasurer in 2004.Romanelli has acknowledged that probably more than half the roughly $100,000 spent to collect his signatures came from Republican donors, including some who also gave money to Sen. Rick Santorum.Casey, Santorum's Democratic opponent, could lose votes to the Green Party due to Romanelli's support for abortion rights. Casey's campaign accused Republicans of trying to steal the election."Ideally, signature gatherers should be volunteers," said state Democratic Party spokesman Abe Amoros. He cited Ralph Nader's 2004 presidential bid as an example of the problems that can come with paid signature-gatherers.Nader was thrown off the ballot in several states, including Pennsylvania, where a contractor promised $100 to $200 a day to petition circulators. Many homeless people took the jobs in Philadelphia, where dozens of duplicate signatures were found. A state judge called the petitions "rife with forgeries."JSM Inc., which was hired for Romanelli's effort, also worked on Nader's efforts in a number of states; a listed phone number for the firm could not be found.Many states that allow citizen initiatives, which Pennsylvania does not, have tried to regulate the practice of paying petition circulators.

Jennie Drage Bowser, of the National Conference of State Legislatures, said the concern is that, "if signature gatherers are motivated to gather more signatures because they'll earn more money, they might also be motivated to use dishonest tactics."One Arkansas initiative was tossed off the ballot because someone had gone though the phone book and signed names "in alphabetical order, right down the page," Bowser said.

In Oregon, evidence was submitted that circulators of various initiatives got together and had "signing parties," where they signed each other's petitions, she said.Michael Arno, the owner of a consulting firm that says it has collected signatures to qualify nearly 500 ballot initiatives in 20 states, said the Nader campaign managed its own drive and was unaware of the pitfalls. He said experienced firms can sniff out problems."We do find people that forge. We hand them over to the authorities to be prosecuted, and I wish they'd prosecute them more vigorously," Arno said. "Probably 99 percent of petition gatherers out there are decent, honorable people."State governments have tried to step in.Oregon bans paying initiative circulators by the signature, but courts have rejected similar regulations in other states.

Several states require circulators to disclose whether they are paid or volunteers.Arno called regulation efforts ineffective. Banning per-signature payments, for example, breeds sloppiness and padding of hours without reducing the number of problem signatures, he said."When I pay people by the signature, if they do something wrong I can unpay them by the signature," he said.

Posted by Joe Anybody at 11:22 PM PDT
Updated: Thursday, 10 August 2006 4:49 PM PDT
Wednesday, 28 December 2005
Democracy*Anti War* = I voted For Ralph Nader
Mood:  lucky
Now Playing: Ralph Nader
Topic: NADER

The Ralph Nader Team wrote Joe Anybody:
And I have reposted what they say below;
I am proud to say I voted for this Man.
Z3 Readers I hope your vote leaves you as proud and confident that you interests were being represented by your choice, of who you vote for, to represent you as much as mine did! Many People of Both the Du-Oply Parties,,,
tried to keep my choice off the ballot, here in Oregon and many many other states too...
This Joe Anybody "Had To Write His Name In" becaus of the efforts to stiffle Democracy.
With some "Hope for the Future" Read the letter below from
Peter Miguel Camejo about his running partner,
my Hero "RALPH NADER".

Dear Friend,

Over a year has passed since the 2004 presidential elections. While it is still early to fully analyze the meaning of Ralph Nader’s candidacy for president, it has occurred to me that certain fundamental themes are now easier to see than at the time of the campaign.

Fundamentally what separates Ralph Nader from the progressives who opposed his running is Nader’s deep belief in the people themselves being able to change society. That is, Nader really believes democracy is possible. Those who opposed Nader and capitulated by calling for a vote for a candidate who opposed everything they claim to support reflect a hopelessness that there is no way to overcome the control of money over people. Deep down they do not really believe the people could ever rise up and take control of their lives, their country and institute democracy.

Never in the history of our nation has there been such a massive campaign to try and prevent ballot access by an individual running for Presidential office so that those who agreed with him could actually vote for him.

The anti-Nader campaign was a totalitarian effort against free elections aimed at the people’s right to choose and specifically aimed at those who will not surrender their commitment to democracy. Not a single elected Democrat in the United States spoke out against their party’s campaign not to allow the voters to choose. Not one. This alone shows the utter political and moral bankruptcy of that Party.

The Nation, the Progressive, Mother Jones, MoveOn.org, all the leaders of the Progressive Democrats of America not only did not oppose the campaign against democracy but in most cases participated and promoted it.

I can think of only one similar historical event. The early abolitionist movement believed slavery could only be ended if the slave owners could be convinced to free their slaves. Like today they believed you had to accept the political system, you could not go outside the framework and challenge the two pro-slavery parties. You could only lobby, petition, beg but not challenge directly who should rule.

Then in 1840 James G. Birney ran for president on behalf of a newly formed party, the abolitionist Liberty Party. Many of the abolitionists, like progressives today, opposed Birney’s daring to run. It was not realistic. But in fact Birney’s campaign was the opening shot of what was to change America forever and lead to the collapse of the political framework that had allowed slavery to remain unchallenged.

The Liberty Party supporters were called fanatics, self-isolating, unrealistic, and even crazy, as Michael Moore called Nader for daring to run for peace, democracy and pro labor.

But Birney and Nader are not alone in American history. General James B. Weaver ran in 1880 for president for the Greenback Labor Party and campaigned in the South after the crushing of the reconstruction government defending the rights of African Americans. Weaver’s campaign helped set the background for the great rise of the Populist movement and later the rise of another champion of the people - Eugene V. Debs.

There has been a long history of efforts to break the control of money over people and to establish a political movement to fight for democracy in the United States. Nader’s whole life has been rooted in his belief that the people through their own actions can make a difference. His appeals have always been to mobilize from the bottom up.

Nader’s efforts have resulted in so many important victories. While many know of Nader having made their cars safer they do not realize that his efforts have been instrumental in protecting our air, and water, including the establishment of the EPA and OSHA in the early Seventies.

He helped win rights for passengers on airlines, fought for national health care, living wage, freedom of information, against nuclear power, against all kinds of corporate abuses, manipulation, false advertising, and fraudulent practices. He has fought to protect our national resources and public assets. He has defended workers in the mines, auto factories and throughout America and fought against WTO and corporate globalization. He advocated for the use of industrial hemp early, fought discrimination against women and minorities and the rise of monopolies.

As an incorruptible symbol of the rights of the people Nader is a threat to a world based on the corrupting power of money. In time Nader’s campaigns in 2000 and 2004 will be seen as the beginning of what may become a new wave in the battle for democracy. There are now so many signs world wide of the beginning of another radicalizing wave, waves that appear about once every 30 years. We can see it in the events in Latin America, the recent rise of the Maori people in New Zealand, and the massive world opposition to the war in Iraq and globalization. Unlike the radicalizations of the 1930s and 60s, the need to break with the two parties of money is in the air. Twenty five percent of our people are not registered in the two major parties and 38% answer they are independent in polls.

Six months after the election we saw Nader fighting at rally after rally for peace as the Democrats declared their loyalty to Bush’s war. Even Howard Dean had dropped his anti-war rhetoric as the Democrats gave George Bush thirty-nine standing ovations at his 2005 State of the Union address.

Nader stands on the side of all the mass social movements. His call for the need to break with the political duopoly will resound as the next wave develops.

As I speak at meetings here in California since the elections I notice how no one but absolutely no one gets up to defend John Kerry. Even those who voted for him feel a bit embarrassed. The winds are starting to shift.

It was a great honor for me to be part of Nader’s historic challenge as his vice presidential associate. As I traveled throughout our nation speaking to audiences, primarily of young people, I knew I was looking into the eyes of those in the future who will be the leaders of our nation. We know not yet what our nation owes Nader for the seeds he has planted among the minds of our people, especially our youth.

Let us all respect, assist and support Ralph Nader’s continuing efforts, as he has assisted and defended all efforts for social justice, democracy and peace.
Thank you for your generous support and bright horizons.

Peter Miguel Camejo

More from Z3 on Ralph

Posted by Joe Anybody at 1:12 PM PST
Updated: Wednesday, 28 December 2005 1:28 PM PST
Monday, 26 December 2005
Ralph Naders Thoughts on George & Dick's Illegal War (Impeach)
Mood:  not sure
Topic: NADER
Have a, Merry, Merry Christmas,

and an

Impeachable New Year!

Ralph Nader actually suggested that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney both should resign.
Basically because they have disgraced their offices.

Now I couldn't agree more!
In fact this Joe Anybody Voted for the man who is saying just that, a man of principles and respect ....click Here to read about Ralph Asking for the Two War Criminals "To Step Down".
Bush violated the law because of the arrogance of power says Ralph on December 25 2005 Christmas Day, and my fellow Z3 Readers You all know why he is asking for this too, just in the atrocities you have read here in my reports alone are grounds for jail if not prison time.
And "Joe Patriotism Anybody" said that if you want to quote me.

Now an illegal, criminal war, means that every related U.S. death and injury, every related Iraqi civilian death and injury, every person tortured, every home and building destroyed become war crimes as a result--under established international law.

Just think about the old saying ....
"Justice is Served"
.....now that is Exactly what I have Ben Waiting for!!!!
That would be a start for a
"Happy New Year Indeed!"

Take The Survey on MSNBC
Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? *
162172 responses

Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.85%

No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."5%

No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.8%

I don't know.2%

Stay Vocal* Stay Involved* Push For Justice

Posted by Joe Anybody at 9:20 PM PST
Updated: Tuesday, 27 December 2005 2:05 AM PST
Friday, 23 December 2005
Ralph Nader
Mood:  loud
Now Playing: Bird Flu - Debate - Truth - Death
Topic: NADER
Here is what was in an email to joe anybody on the 23 of December
I thought it contained an interesting points to make about a couple different subjects
1. Bird Flu
2. Bush Kerry Du-opoly Election Debate Farce

Below is the email from Joe's Favorite Canidate:

For your Information:In his new book, The Monster at Our Door - The Global Threat of Avian Flu, author Mike Davis writes that "Kerry, in fact, let Bush off the hook, never once mentioning the avian influenza threat in any of the three presidential debates." Davis then tells his readers what we knew but the media ignored last year.

******** Here are Mike Davis' words: **********

In short, as Nature pointed out, "Three years of heightened concern about bioterrorism have done nothing to address the fundamental weakness of the U.S. public health system. Except for those lucky few - mainly doctors and soldiers - who might receive prophylactic treatment with Tamiflu, the Bush administration had left most Americans as vulnerable to the onslaught of a new flu pandemic as their grandparents or great grandparents had been in 1918. Pandemic planners admitted that the bulk of the public, initially at least, would simply have to cower in their homes. In a presidential election season dominated by "national security," pandemic vulnerability should have been a decisive wedge issue; however, the Kerry campaign scolded Bush for the vaccine debacle and promised to stabilize future production with government purchases of unused stocks, but otherwise offered few substantive ideas for repairing America's collapsing public-health infrastructure. Kerry, in fact, let Bush off the hook, never once mentioning the avian influenza threat in any of the three presidential debates.

The only presidential candidate to pay attention to the monster at the door was Ralph Nader, the candidate whose presence in the campaign was so reviled by "progressive" born again Democrats. In February 2004 Nader contrasted the administration's obsession with Iraq's nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" with its failure to energetically address avian flu in Asia. "The chain of infections from domesticated Chinese ducks to pigs to humans," he forewarned in colorful prose, "can explode into a world war of mutant viruses taking millions of casualties before vaccines can be developed and deployed." Six months later he wrote a public letter to Bush impeaching the administration's failure to act upon the warnings of top researchers and medical organizations. "Such notice apparently is not enough to move your Presidency to action. These mutating viruses are not like human villains. You need to recognize that their indiscriminate destruction of innocent civilians however, can be considered a form of viral terrorism." In the WHO's "worst-case" scenario, 2 million of these "innocent civilians" threatened with death are Americans of the remaining 98 million, however, live in the poor cities of the Third World."

~Ralph Nader

Z3 Readers Think about these two points ...Thats all!
"Happy Holidays"

Posted by Joe Anybody at 2:42 PM PST

Newer | Latest | Older

« May 2024 »
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Ben Waiting for it ? Well Look Here!
Robert Lindsay Blog
Old Blogs Go to Joe's Home Web Site
Media Underground
Joe's 911 Truth Report

Alex Ansary