Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Ron Paul, Ralph Nader and other third party candidates endorse common agenda

Posted by Justin Jeffre

Today third party candidates joined Congressman Ron Paul to endorse a common agenda that stands up for the US Constitution by ending illegal wars, and protecting the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. They also called for an immediate halt to the increase in the national debt, an end to corporate subsidies and taxpayer bailouts of corporations, and to start aggressively pursuing prosecution of corporations that commit crimes and frauds.

Here’s the statement that lays out what the Independents agreed upon.

We Agree

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

We support opening up the debates beyond the two parties and the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a private corporation co-chaired by former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic Party. It is time for our Presidential Debates to once again be hosted by a truly non-partisan civic-minded association.

• Share This Article!
Listen to this article

Socializer!

Username

Password

Auto-login on future visits

Show my name in the online users list

Forgot your password?

Register

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

anonymous says:
11 Sep 2008  at  05:09 pm | #

Which 3rd party candidates joined Paul?

says:
11 Sep 2008  at  05:28 pm | #

Constitution Party Chuck Baldwin, a Baptist minister; Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney, a former Congresswoman from Georgia; and Independent Ralph Nader. Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr was supposed to be there, but wasn’t.

says:
12 Sep 2008  at  07:15 am | #

Despite being on opposite ends of the spectrum, Nader is poised to reap the most benefits.

Anybody remember the alliance formed to defeat the jail tax?

Was it not the NAACP and COAST?

This is happening accross the country.

The right needs to focus on strangling the corporate whores instead of eliminating hand outs to the poor.

The left needs to focus on the constitutional aspect of their platform instead of the socialistic nature of some of their key issues.

The goals are the same from both ends.

It is only the means to achieve those goals that are different.

Chris Johnson says:
12 Sep 2008  at  07:42 am | #

Apparently, Bob Barr has asked Ron Paul to be his running mate.  See here.

says:
12 Sep 2008  at  07:45 am | #

Mr. Nader’s announcement to Ron Paul supporters (If he would have left out the very last sentence, it would have been a very productive statement):

Today, along with other third party candidates, I joined Congressman Ron Paul to endorse a common agenda that stands up for the US Constitution by ending illegal wars, and protecting the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We also jointly called for an immediate halt to the increase in the national debt, an end to corporate subsidies and taxpayer bailouts of corporations, and to start aggressively pursuing prosecution of corporations that commit crimes and frauds.

Both Congressman Paul and I also support holding President Bush and Dick Cheney to account for their transgressions against our Constitution.

Today’s coming together of third party candidates marks the beginning of the realignment of American politics.

While Congressman Paul and I do not agree on all things—such as health and safety regulations and health insurance systems and how to handle areas where the market fails or is not up to the task of getting the best outcomes for the American people—on the overriding foreign policy, reckless waste financed by deficit spending, and civil liberties issues of the day, we stand together. He is a stalwart who has consistently stood up for what he believes in and never wavered when he is opposed by the legions of commercial interests and lobbyists that swarm the Capitol.

Congressman Paul said today, “the strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems.” He also called on his supporters to vote for Nader/Gonzalez or one of the other non-establishment, principled candidates, who support the joint statement issued today.

For all the millions of people who have broken free from the establishment parties’ domination over our dwindling democracy, Nader/Gonzalez presents a clear choice for those who want to support a candidate who will stand up against the war and stand up for personal liberties and privacy that have been trampled on by the notorious, misnamed, PATRIOT Act, the FISA ‘snoop’ Bill, and the unilateral dictates of the Bush/Cheney regime.

Some unfairly paint the Nader/Gonzalez candidacy as being for big government. Nothing could be more untrue.

Nader/Gonzalez supports a government of the people, by the people, for the people. We agree with Congressman Paul that government is rife with waste and corporate demands, and needs to be scaled back in many areas—most of all the bloated, wasteful US military budget, which is half of the government’s total operating budget.

We are also against big government doling out hundreds of billions in corporate welfare, subsidies, and bailouts to companies.

We support abolishing income tax on the first $50,000 of income to be made up with a fraction of a percent Wall Street speculation tax, especially on derivatives.

says:
12 Sep 2008  at  11:46 am | #

Mr. Johnson:

This was cover to justify his actions. 

No one has taken this seriously, even the Libertarian Party.

In fact, the Libertarian Party Co-Founder has labeled Mr. Barr’s Campaign “Over”, because of his actions and/or lack there of.

says:
12 Sep 2008  at  11:48 am | #

Sorry Mr. Johnson,

I forgot to provide the link. 

http://www.nolanchart.com/article4805.html

says:
12 Sep 2008  at  11:54 am | #

Here is Nader going into the den of the far, far right.  The kook “inside job” far right.  The, Dr. Paul doesn’t go this far, far right.  He took his message there, to the Alex Jones Show, and from what I can tell, his message was embraced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9mqkQa368E

says:
12 Sep 2008  at  12:18 pm | #

Mr. Ryan, Nader gets asked about this all the time. Someone asked him about it here in Cincy. There’s nothing kooky about saying there should be an independent investigation. It’s what the families of the victims have called for and there’s a referendum going on in NY to get a new investigation.

Nader never implied that there was an inside job and the issue isn’t far right or left as far as I can tell. I have heard people from across the political spectrum express doubts about the investigation. It was quite odd that there wasn’t going to be one in the first place until the families demanded one, then Kissinger was appointed to head it up but resigned because he had conflicts of interest that were pointed out by the families of the victims. Bush and Chenny weren’t under oath and neither was a lot of other people. The investigation was certainly underfunded. They spent 10 times as much investigating Clinton’s BJ.

says:
12 Sep 2008  at  12:33 pm | #

I’m on an email list with my former History Professor and fellow Nader supporter. He sent this around on his list and said to feel free to share it. I think it’s quite relevant to this topic.

A few nights ago, when Ralph Nader was passing through, he came up with an FDR quote I don’t recall ever having heard.  So I came home and looked it up. 

“. . . the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any other controlling private power.  . . . . Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.”
---- FDR, Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolis, April 29, 1938
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15637

The last line, particularly, should make us think about how much that power has grown since 1938. 

Since 2001, the Republican administration has continued without challenge from within the privatization of government functioning.  We have also seen wholesale arrests, imprisonments, torture, and murder without due process or respect for constitutional rights.  All of that capped this past summer by the preemptive mass arrests of U.S. citizens in a major American. city under suspicion of a thought crime.  (They were quite literally suspect of participation in a conspiracy to think about planning to assemble to seek a redress of their grievances.)

Can we really find the heirs of FDR today among those such as Barrack Obama and Joe Biden who’ve remained silent in the face of the high crimes of those in this government?  Among those who’ve assured those engaged in these criminal acts that they would not be prosecuted, as has Biden and Nancy Pelosi, or even investigated seriously.  Still less, perhaps, among those who’ve actually voted for and collaborated in such criminal activity.

says:
12 Sep 2008  at  12:41 pm | #

Mr. Jeffre,

Sorry I did not explain.

Of course there is nothing kooky about Mr. Nader’s position.  It is my position.

But that is not Alex Jone’s position. 

Mr. Jones believes that 9/11 was a false flag event orchestrated by the Administration and that the towers actually came down using controlled demolition.  Which is fine, kooky, but fine.

Here is where the real kooky stuff is:

They actually believe that there is proof of this, overwhelming evidence.  To state something like this as speculation is odd, but acceptable.  To state this as fact is not acceptable.

Not only is it not acceptable, these kooks tend to alienate the candidates that they have attached themselves to.  Dr. Paul’s position mirrors Mr. Nader’s on this and yet Dr. Paul has been stereotyped as an “inside job” advocate and I think has lost support because of it.

says:
12 Sep 2008  at  12:49 pm | #

A 2004 Ralph Nader interview with Pat Buchanan.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/jun/21/00006/

says:
12 Sep 2008  at  01:41 pm | #

Mr. Jeffre,

Try to stay on point over the next couple of weeks.  First get the Paul vote, then get the Obama vote.  In that order, it must be done in that order.

says:
12 Sep 2008  at  04:34 pm | #

Thanks for that Mr. Ryan. I hadn’t seen that and thought it was very interesting. Especially this part on NAFTA and the WTO.


PB: I was going to ask you about NAFTA and the WTO—

RN: Sovereignty shredding, you know. The decisions are now in Geneva, bypassing our courts, our regulatory agencies, our legislatures.

PB: I find it amazing that Congress sits there and they get an order from the WTO, and they capitulate. What happened to bristling conservative defiance, “don’t tread on me” patriotism? I think the problem is that a lot of these guys in Congress—I think some of them are basically good guys. But I went up there and was asking about some issue, and they would say things like, “I don’t even know what it is about. My boss tells me …”

RN: Did you hear about my challenge to Senator Hank Brown?

We put a challenge out before WTO was voted in 1995 because we went all over Capitol Hill and had never found any Member of Congress or a staffer who had ever read the proposal. So I said, “I’ll give $10,000 to the favorite charity of any Member of Congress who will sign an affidavit that he or she has read the WTO agreement and will answer 10 questions in public.”

The deadline passed. Nobody. So I extended it a week. A quarter to 5:00 on Friday, the phone rings in our office. It is Hank Brown, and he said, “I don’t want the $10,000 to charity, but I will take you up on it. How much time do I have?” I said, “Take a month.” So he reserves the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the interrogation.

It gets better. The press is all there, and in the witness chair is Hank Brown. We have 12 questions, and he answers every one. They weren’t all simple either. It was really impressive. And I said, “Thank you very much. That was really commendable,” and we start to get up and he says, “Wait. I have something to say.” He says, “You know, I am a free trader, and I voted for NAFTA, but after reading the WTO agreement, I was so appalled by the anti-democratic provisions that I am going to vote against it and urge everyone else to.”

The next day, almost no press. It shows you the bias against anybody who challenges those multinational systems of autocratic governance that we call “trade agreements.” And he didn’t convince one extra senator.

Once when I testified before the House Ways and Means Committee, I had to say some nice things at the beginning, “Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the House Ways and Means Committee, it is indeed a pleasure to testify before a committee of Congress that has read this proposed trade agreement,” and the chair looks up and says, “What makes you think we did?”

Let’s put it this way: it is impossible to exaggerate the dereliction of diligence in the Congress.

cincysuz says:
17 Sep 2008  at  08:30 am | #

Nothing in this common agenda about poverty in America. A major problem--especially for those without homes, jobs and even food. Not a word. I’m sure that they think there will be trickle down effect akin to how Reagan (hero to a couple of the candidates) handled poverty. Nothing about racism, sexism, classism. Not surprising. I don’t see anything about Cynthia McKinney (the only one in the group I have respect for at this point)endorsing the common agenda. I can’t believe she’d be bamboozled into coalescing with this motley crew. Each of them, by the way, having a history of insensitivity to and dismissive of, issues of race and class in America.

Health Insurance says:
22 Sep 2008  at  05:34 am | #

Great post. That info really came in handy for me.. I’ll be coming back later to read the rest of the articles.
Thank you,

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

<b>

<i>

<u>

quote

code

@

<a>

Close Tags

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: