Take the money out of politics.
Put the people first!

button_stop_endless_wars.png

When congress increases the military budget, nobody asks "how will we afford it?"

When congress authorizes another 190 billion dollars in emergency defense appropriations, nobody asks, "how will we afford it?"

After 18 years in Afghanistan and several trillion dollars, nobody asks, "when will it end?"

But wasted resources on endless wars is not the most critical issue.

What is critical is the damage to our environment which is rapidly becoming incapable of sustaining human existence.

The Democrats Green New Deal does not even mention the military: perhaps the largest single source of pollution on the planet.

We can't really save the planet without addressing the most environmentally destructive force on the plant: WAR

 

Click here for the full length documentary

 

 

Changing the Dialogue of American Politics

 


  • Latest from the blog

    MN ballot access among worst in the nation

    UPDATED PER AMENDMENT -WEEK OF FERUARY 17, 2019 Minnesota Senate Bill SF 752, Minnesota House Bill HF 708 (Ballot Access Inclusiveness Bill)   SYNOPSIS This proposal contains a comprehensive set of reforms to improve and modernize Minnesota's outdated statutory definitions of political parties. It encompasses revisions and modifications to arbitrary petitioning requirements, percentages, and timelines that as currently exist, create and sustain exclusivity to ballot access for the main two parties. Goals are to bring Minnesota's prohibitive standards in-line with neighboring states, to eliminate unconstitutional and inequitable restrictions, and to harmonize the various statutes while keeping robust system integrity and encouraging democratic participation. A formal request is hereby made for committee hearings to discuss these matters.   MAIN POINTS Section 1: Revises major political party threshold percent from 5% to 1%, for both direct petitioning and election results methods.(for reference WI, SD are at 1%, IA is at 2%). Section 2: Modifies our system into recognition of two simple tiers of political parties versus the current three tiers. (to become major and minor only, like all other states). Section 3: Allows petitions to be on common size 8-1⁄2x11 letter size paper(vs 8-1/2x14). Section 4: Modifies oath on nominating petitions to allow signors to still participate in the major party primaries. (“I solemnly swear that I know the contents and purpose of this NOMINATING petition, that I do not intend to vote at the primary election for the office for which this nominating petition is made, and that I signed this petition of my own free will.”) Section 5: Revises statute to allow signors to sign more than one nominating petition. Section 6: Modifies the number of signatures required into ratios of flat numbers based on district size for state, county, and municipal races (400 for State Senate, 200 for State Rep, 200 for municipals, versus the current statutes set at 500 for all). Section 7: Expands the days allowed to collect signatures from 14 to 88, by attaching the window to the general election vs the primary election (in alignment with the statutory window we have for Presidential electors). (WI gives 70 days, SD 112 days, IA 140 days). Section 8: AMENDMENT IS FILED TO REMOVE THIS SECTION (to give a political party the ability to approve a candidate’s affiliation with it prior to filing for primary ballot). Section 9: Addresses special election parameters. It adds 7 extra days for the SOS to conduct, adds 9 days to the (5 day)filing window, and reduces the number of nominating petition signatures required to half per the office sought.   Table 1. Petition signature requirements for major (recognized) party status   Table 2. Petition requirements and collection periods
    read more

    Military Draft challenges the ERA

    Ironically the demise of the second wave feminist movement was the one piece of legislation fundamental to the concept of equality and basic human dignity, the Equal Rights Amendment, ERA was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal rights for women. The National Woman’s Party had introduced the Equal Rights Amendment to every congress since 1923 until the feminist movement finally saw passage in the House in 1970 and the Senate in 1972. The Republican Party included support of the ERA in its platform beginning in 1940, renewing the plank every four years until 1980. There was strong opposition in the democratic party from labor groups including the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers, and the American Nurses Association under the presumption that working class women needed government protection. Eugene McCarthy, leader of the Anti-war movement in the Democratic Party, was also chief author of the ERA. Initially public support for the ERA was strong. Within a year after its passage in the Senate the ERA had been ratified by thirty states. Opposition to the ERA quickly organized around the protection of women. Phyllis Schlafly became the spokesperson for the Stop ERA movement emphasizing a threat to the security of middle-aged housewives. Organizers claimed women would lose their right to alimony and child custody. Religious conservatives, Evangelical Christians, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and Roman Catholics argued that the amendment would guarantee universal abortion rights, same sex marriage, and eliminate single-sex bathrooms. By 1977 only five additional states had ratified the amendment, three short of the required thirty-eight. By 1996 men had reasserted the “traditional marriage,” when Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Philp A. Randoph, founder of the Negro American Labor Council (NALC) initiated the March on Washington in 1963 where Martin Luther King gave his infamous I Have a Dream speech. Neither of these groups felt women should be included in the Civil Rights Act. Black Women argued that black families were heavily dependent on women’s income and discrimination against women would be damaging to black families. The cause of black women was largely responsible for the inclusion of sex and gender in Title VII of the civil rights act of 1964. On the basis of Title VII, Women continued fighting for equity in the courts, fighting for custody, fighting for alimony, and ultimately fighting for their very lives against the threat of domestic violence. In 1970 only 13 percent of families were headed by a single parent. By 1996 that number had doubled with 84 percent of these families headed by women. Dissolving family values fueled a divorce industry that would grow to fifty billion dollars by 2005. The African American civil rights movement was split between civil disobedience and Black Power. The feminist movement was divided between empowerment and protectionism. Perhaps the most effective tactic of the ERA opposition movement threatened that women would lose their exemption from the draft. A new chapter in the ERA story began this week when U.S. District Court Judge Gray Miller declared that exempting women from registering for the draft violates the Constitution's equal protection principles. Attorney Marc Angelucci, representing the National Coalition for Men, says, "There really is no more excuse to only require men to register." The #MeToo movement is demanding greater protection for women against sexual assault and domestic violence at the same time income and social inequality are expanding. How we define equals rights is a challenging discussion that is clearly taking on new dimensions.  
    read more
    See all posts or Add your voice