Johnson said he’d cut the military’s budget and end Obama’s interventionism. It wasn’t until he got started on legalizing marijuana that the crowd (figuratively) lit up. A steady stream of applause followed Johnson’s declarations after that.

“I support gay marriage equality. I support repealing the PATRIOT Act. I would have vetoed the Department of Homeland Security, because I think it’s redundant. I would’ve never established the department of—the TSA agency. I think we should end the practices of torture. Period. I can understand the complexities in the following, but I think we should end the practices of detainment without being charged. There is nothing I want to see the government come in and fix with the Internet.”

Johnson also made a point throughout the evening of highlighting the differences between himself and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who sought and received Johnson’s endorsement in 2008.

“I don’t think that Ron Paul is going to win the Republican nomination. For the most part, we are talking about the same message, but we do have differences. And when he drops out, or finds an end to the Republican primary, I don’t see this agenda moving forward,” Johnson said.

“And I think it’s important to point out differences between myself and Ron Paul. I don’t support building a fence across the border, I do support gay marriage equality, I do believe in a strong national defense. I do believe in our alliance with Israel, for example. And I think military alliances are key to reducing military spending by 43 percent and still provide for a strong national defense. And I believe in a woman’s right to choose.”

The crowd went nuts over that last one.

Nate Nelson at United Liberty adds:

Johnson could pose problems for both Obama and the eventual Republican nominee. On the one hand, Johnson built a very solid fiscal and economic record as Governor of New Mexico — which could appeal to Paul supporters and other Republicans as well as right-leaning independents who may feel disaffected if Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum wins the GOP nomination. On the other hand, there are some remarkable differences between Johnson and Paul that could help him succeed in appealing to the more left-leaning so-called “liberaltarians” and even some non-libertarian progressive Democrats and independents whom Paul has so far failed to win over.

It’s unlikely in the extreme that Johnson will win the presidential election. The electoral game is too rigged against third parties and, besides, the Libertarian Party’s dysfunctional nomination process will officially put him into the general election campaign far too late for him to assemble the kind of grassroots movement he’d need to win. But Johnson could well be a problem for both major parties. He could be competitive in his home state and throughout the Southwest, which could make the race for some pivotal swing states even more interesting than usual. In other words, he could play the role of spoiler in the upcoming general election even better than Ralph Nader did in 2000, and it should scare the pants off both Republicans and Democrats that it’s still unclear whose campaign he could spoil.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero also drew the Nader comparison:

“Do you run the risk, in other words, of being a Ralph Nader, given the fact that you have so much more coincidence with the president’s agenda than with Mr. Romney or Mr. Gingrich?”

Meanwhile, Johnson has an article in the conservative Washington Times newspaper spelling out his plan for spending cuts and a national sales tax plan known by its proponents as the FairTax. Excerpt:

Here I present a simple but drastic economic plan to foster a boom in America.

First, we need to get rid of the income tax. When our first great Supreme Court justice, John Marshall, equated the power to tax and the power to destroy, he was predicting what’s happening to our country right now. Giant, slow corporations spend their money on lobbying because tax avoidance is where their profit is. General Electric earned $14.2 billion in 2010 and paid zero taxes on it. Why? Because it has the lobbyists to get subsidies and tax breaks.

But those mom-and-pop stores? The tech startups? The nimble new corporations with new ideas and new visions for our economy? They pay as much as 35 cents on every dollar they earn. When the company pays its employees, the government taxes that money again. We need to stop taxing work, savings and investment. I advocate removing all income taxes, all capital-gains taxes, and replacing them with a consumption tax, kind of a national sales tax called the Fair-tax.

We also need to get rid of payroll taxes. Look at it from the perspective of employers for a moment. When they want to hire someone, it costs more than just the wage they’re paying. They have to pay payroll taxes, including for Social Security and Medicare. That cost is about 10 percent of the wages they pay an employee. Remove that burden, and employers will be able to hire 10 percent more people. With an unemployment rate of 10 percent, why wouldn’t we jump at this chance? The Fair-tax replaces employment and payroll taxes.

[...]

At the same time, I have proposed cutting the federal budget by 43 percent to bring it into balance. It can be done. It requires the will and ability to ignore and even fight the special interests that have a vested interest in more and more government spending. Our system is corrupted by special-interest campaign contributions. Crony capitalism permeates our government. The result is that, as the Congressional Budget Office reported this week, the deficit for 2012 will once again exceed $1 trillion.

The Washinton Times article incorrectly says that “Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party nominee for president….”

Johnson’s plan stands in contrast to candidates such as Lee Wrights and RJ Harris, who are also seeking the Libertarian presidential nomination and have different proposals on taxes and spending. Wrights has his own plan for cutting spending and a couple of articles laying out his criticism of the FairTax (TM) plan, while Harris says

Fellow citizens, if you elect me as President I will exempt you from personal taxes by ending the IRS and allowing nothing to take its place. Then I will end the federal welfare system and the benefits will come from having stopped the government from stealing what you earn along with your ability to be as thrifty or as beneficent as you choose.

Finally, Johnson’s campaign has put out a message contrasting their candidate with two other past Libertarian presidential nominees other than Ron Paul (1988) – Bob Barr (2008) and Michael Badnarik (2004), and also by implication with Harry Browne (1996/2000).

George Phillies reports:

In a widely-circulated message “Paid for by Gary Johnson 2012″ a writer identified as Andrew Ferguson wrote in part:

“Flash back to the last election cycle. No, go back two, to 2004, when the LP, still reeling from Harry Browne’s machinations, nominated a complete unknown as its presidential candidate. The list of “missed opportunities by the Libertarian Party” is a long and tragicomic one, but surely the choice of Michael Badnarik must be at or near the top: in an election evenly split between the military-statist Bush and the eco-statist Gore, the LP could’ve had a healthy cut of the excluded middle – but Badnarik’s was not the name to draw those voters.”

(The letter writer seems to have been unaware that Kerry was the Democratic nominee who ran against Badnarik in 2004, and that Al Gore ran against Harry Browne in 2000, with Bush being the Republican nominee both times. Back to the letter:)

“In 2008, with that swing-and-a-miss behind them, the LP whiffed with the opposite approach, nominating a big name who was a, shall we say, imperfect fit with party ideals. I’m not one to deny the place of pragmatism in politics, but the man who authored the Defense of Marriage Amendment and fervently prosecuted the Drug War was a strange choice for the supposed party of freedom. No matter how hard he pushed his Road to Damascus narrative, a large chunk of the LP base (namely, donors and state and local party poobahs) was never going to buy into his campaign.”

“As a result, Bob Barr’s failure was utterly predictable – the rift in the party in 2008 was clear for all to see – but more to the point, just as utterly inevitable. In Barack Obama, the Democrats found a candidate who could reach out to the same undecideds the LP tries to make its own – those looking to cast a vote in dissent, anything so long as it has nothing to do with the party in power. Empty as we now know (or always knew) his promises of “Hope” and “Change” to be, they were nonetheless effective in closing off any change the Libertarians had of playing a role in the last cycle.”

(I believe that the writer meant chance, not change, in the last part of the preceding sentence. Back to the letter:)

“All of which is to say, the LP screwed up by getting its candidates backward – if anything, the off-the-ranch Republican with name recognition would have fared much better in 2004, serving as an alternative to two unpalatable statists. Meanwhile, 2008 would have been the time to run an outsider, someone who could elucidate a libertarian point of view, in the rare moments he (or she – vide Mary Ruwart) was called upon to do so.”

1,792 votes cast, Jill Stein received 1,223 of them, or 68%. Roseanne Barr, who had just entered the race in the last week, picked up 526 votes, or 29%. There were 35 votes for Kent Mesplay, and 8 votes for Harley Mikkelson

GPW reports that Roseanne Barr is very active on Twitter, and had tweeted a challenge to Bill Maher, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to have both herself and Jill Stein on their programs.

They also report that Jill Stein is actively fundraising, has hired at least 3 staff onto the campaign, and has campaigned so far in California, Colorado, Delaware, DC, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, Wisconsin, and other additional states as well.

Jill Stein issued a short statement saying “It is great to have Roseanne Barr on the Green Party team. Let’s bring down the house!” Barr has similarly already made positive statements regarding Stein’s candidacy.

An email from the Stein campaign says that

Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party presidential candidate, begins a three day tour of Indiana and Ohio today with a visit to the Evergreen Cooperatives in Cleveland, accompanied by Cleveland City Councilman and Green Party elected official Brian Cummins and County Executive candidate David Ellison.

Saturday at 11:30am, Dr. Stein addresses the Green Party of Ohio Presidential Nominating Convention in Columbus.

This Sunday, as part of Indianapolis’ Occupy the Super Bowl protests, she rallies with supporters at the state capitol against anti-labor legislation such as “Right to Work for Less.”

The full itinerary of public events is viewable here: http://www.jillstein.org/events

Dr. Stein is especially interested in the Evergreen Cooperatives for providing one successful model, among many, for how economic democracy can provide employment and prosperity for stressed communities. In her recent People’s State of the Union address, Dr. Stein called for a Green New Deal providing for full employment and an immediate transition to a sustainable, more democratic economy. The Evergreen Cooperatives “are pioneering innovative models of job creation, wealth building, and sustainability,” and are, “employee-owned, for-profit companies are based locally and hire locally.”

On Occupy Super Bowl Sunday, at noon, Dr. Stein will rally with supporters and other labor movement advocates at the Indiana statehouse in Indianapolis. Dr. Stein is not only strongly opposed to so-called Right-to-Work legislation (RTW), her Green New Deal includes a “program of immediate creation of 25 million, publicly useful, sustainable, well-paying jobs,” according to a prepared statement. Stein will be joined at the rally by lifelong labor organizer Anthony Prince, and student activist Erika Wolf, both newly hired members of the Jill Stein for President campaign staff.

The Green Party has put out a press release welcoming Stein and Barr to the presidential race:

The Green Party of the United States welcomes two candidates into the race for the 2012 Green presidential nomination, Jill Stein and Roseanne Barr. Ms. Barr and Dr. Stein submitted paperwork to meet the Green Party’s requirements as of the evening of the Feb. 1 deadline.

“We are thrilled to have two strong women running for President as Greens,” said Darryl Moch, national co-chair of the Green Party. “We look forward to a race based on Green ideas and values, and to showing the Democrats and Republicans how to run without the corrupting influence of fat corporate campaign checks and corporate-funded attack ads.”

“Anyone hopeful about the Occupy Wall Street’s challenge to the status quo or disappointed by the Obama Administration’s broken promises of change now has a pair of candidates to watch. Anyone bored or irritated with the Mitt Versus Newt Show by now will be relieved by the breath of fresh air — maybe a Green gale force of righteousness — that’s about to come,” said Tamar Yager, also a national co-chair of the Green Party.

For more information about the candidates, visit the following sites:

Jill Stein: http://www.jillstein.org

Roseanne Barr: http://www.roseanneforpresident.com

2012 Press Information for Green Candidates http://www.gp.org/candidates/index.php

The nominee will be chosen at the Green Party’s national convention, July 12-15, in Baltimore, Maryland (http://www.gpconvention2012.com)

State Green Parties in California, Arizona, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, and possibly Ohio are participating in primary elections. Other state Green Parties will choose the nominee they support and apportion delegates during statewide Green conventions. The Green Party currently has ballot access in 17 states. Greens expect to have the presidential nominee and other candidates on the ballot in at least 46 states and the District of Columbia on Election Day 2012.

Past Green Party convention sites and nominees:

2000: Denver, Colorado; Ralph Nader

2004: Milwaukee, Wisconsin; David Cobb

2008: Chicago, Illinois; Cynthia McKinney

“We consider it important to have strong women candidates at a time when women’s reproductive rights are under assult, from the Obama Administration’s decision on the morning-after pill to the Komen Foundation’s withdrawal of funding for breast cancer screening from Planned Parenthood. We’re proud that our presidential nominee in 2008 was a woman,” said Carl Romanelli, Pennsylvania Green and member of the Green Party’s International Committee.

132 Greens hold public office in the United States, including five mayors. The largest city with a Green mayor is Richmond, California, with Mayor Gayle McLaughlin. The Green Party and its candidates accept no money from corporate PACs.

Many Green candidates are promoting the “Green New Deal” in their campaigns (http://www.greenpartywatch.org/2010/08/11/62-green-candidates-endorse-green-new-deal). Greens have been active participants in the Occupy Movement; both Ms. Barr and Dr. Stein have appeared and spoken publicly at Occupy rallies.

Ballot Access News reports that the Associated Press has this story about Roseanne Barr’s announcement that she is seeking the Green Party presidential nomination; here is a Los Angeles Times story about Barr’s candidacy.

Kent Mesplay was featured in the Bloomington Alternative (H/T Green Party Watch).

This article at Green Party Watch has biographical information about four candidates (Stein, Barr, Mesplay and Mikkelson).

Green Party Watch also reports that Cindy Sheehan wrote

In the last election, I supported the Green Party candidate, Cynthia McKinney and her running mate, Rosa Clemente. Unfortunately, the Party is not entirely functional (which party is?), even if many of us do support its 10 Key Principles.
I have also been impressed by the other woman seeking the nomination, Jill Stein–she is bright, articulate, well-informed, truly progressive and dedicated to public service–but if push came to shove, I would support Roseanne.

Barr was a supporter of Sheehan in her race for Congress.

The U.S. war in Afghanistan is testing so much futuristic detect and destroy weaponry that it can be called the most advanced all-seeing invasion in military history. From blanket satellite surveillance to soldiers’ infra-red vision to the remotely guided photographing, killer drones to the latest fused ground-based imagery and electronic signal intercepts, the age of robotic land, sea, and air weaponry is at hand.

U.S. and NATO soldiers and contractors greatly outnumber the Taliban, whose sandals and weapons are from the past century. Still, with the most sophisticated arsenals ever deployed, why are U.S. generals saying that less than 30,000 Taliban fighters, for almost a decade, have fought the U.S. led forces to a draw?

Perhaps one answer can be drawn from a ceremony that could be happening in various places in that tormented country. That is, a Jirga of elders awarding a young fighter the Jirga medal of honor for courage on the battlefield, which often happens to be their village or valley.

The chief elder rose to address a wide circle of villagers. “Today we are presenting our beloved Mursi with the revered Jirga medal of honor for courage beyond the call of duty in rescuing seven of his brother defenders from almost certain destruction. The invaders had surrounded our young brothers at night in the great Helmand gully with their snipers, grenade-launchers and helicopter gunships.

It looked like the end. Until Mursi started a very smoky fire and diverted the enemy with a firebomb that startled several donkeys into braying loudly. In the few seconds absorbed by diverting the foreigners who directed their firepower in that direction, Mursi led his brothers, two of them wounded, through a large rock crevice and down an incline that was hidden from view and into a cave covered with bush. For some reason, the occupiers’ night vision equipment was not working, thanks be to Allah.

The next morning, the enemy had gone away, probably to start another deadly attack elsewhere on our people. Before the Jirga awards you this ancient symbol of resistance, Mursi, in the form of a sculptured shield made of a rare wood, will you say a few words to your tribe?”

Mursi, a thin as a rail twenty year old youth, rose.

“I accept this great honor on behalf of my brothers who escaped with their lives that terrible night in Helmand. I was very scared. The enemy has everything and we have nothing. They have planes, helicopters, artillery, many soldiers with equipment that resists bullets, sees in the dark and provides them with food, water and medicine. We only have our old rifles, some grenades and explosives. They can see us all the way from America on screens sitting in cool rooms where they can press buttons and wipe us out without our seeing or hearing anything coming at us. We are all so terrified. Especially the children.

We wonder why they are doing this to us? We never threatened them. They threaten everyone with their bases, ships, planes and missiles. I hear that the foreign soldiers ask themselves why are they here, what are they doing here and for what? But they are paid well to be here, destroying our country year after year, though they boast about building some bridges and digging some water wells. No thank you.”

“Go back to your families, you will never win because we are fighting to repel you invaders from our ancient tribal lands, our homes,. Fighting to expel the invaders is stronger and more righteous than your weapons and all your military wealth. Even if many of us lose our lives, we will prevail one day. For we will have heaven and they will have hell.”

A long knowing silence followed. A rooster crowed in the distance. The chief elder then slowly handed the medal to their brave hero.

Can the most militarily powerful country in the world, many of whose people and soldiers are opposed or have serious doubts about why we are continuing to pursue these senseless undeclared wars of aggression that create more hatred and enemies, look with empathy at what those people, whom we are pummeling, are going through? Will the Pentagon, which doesn’t estimate civilian casualties, let its officials speak publically about the millions of such casualties–deceased, injured and sick–that have afflicted innocent Iraqis, Afghanis and Pakistanis?

Will our current crop of political candidates for Congress and the Presidency ever reflect on the wise words of our past Generals–Dwight Eisenhower, George Marshall and earlier Smedley Butler–about the folly and gore, not the glory of war?

The eighteenth century words of the Scottish poet, Robert Burns, ring so true. He wrote:

And would some Power the small gift give us.
To see ourselves as others see us!
It would from many a blunder free us…

IPR note: Ralph Nader ran for president as an independent in 2008 and 2004, and as a Green in 2000 and 1996.

If one believes that the problem is out-of-control government trampling our Bill of Rights, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the lack of Christian morals among our civil magistrates, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the slaughtering of over 50 million innocent unborn babies, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is honesty and integrity in the White House, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is out-of-control federal spending, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the United States catering to the evil machinations of the Security Council of the United Nations, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is more and more outsourcing of America’s manufacturing jobs and products, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is ever-burgeoning deficit spending, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the banksters at the Federal Reserve, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is illegal immigration, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the United States gives away far too much foreign aid, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution.

Newt Gingrich? Really?

Baldwin goes on to further detail his case against Gingrich, as well as Santorum and Romney, and to elaborate on why he supports Ron Paul.

Paul, who was the 1988 Presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, is seeking the Republican presidential nomination this year, as he did in 2008. Baldwin actively supported Paul in 2008 and is doing so again this year, and in return Ron Paul endorsed Baldwin in the 2008 general election.

Meanwhile, 2008 Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr, who famously backed out of Ron Paul’s joint appearance with Baldwin, independent Ralph Nader and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney because he would not appear on stage with “people like Cynthia McKinney,” has endorsed Newt Gingrich.

Recent Barr columns include The bizarro world of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum (published yesterday), and several previous columns expressing his support for Gingrich.

Barr, Gingrich and McKinney all represented Georgia in Congress.

More of Baldwin’s article here.

The same neocons who persuaded George W. Bush and crew to, in Ron Paul’s inimitable words, “lie their way into invading Iraq” in 2003, are beating the drums of war more loudly these days to attack Iran. It is remarkable how many of these war-mongers are former draft dodgers who wanted other Americans to fight the war in Vietnam.

With the exception of Ron Paul, who actually knows the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, the Republican presidential contenders have declared their belligerency toward Iranian officials who they accuse of moving toward nuclear weapons.

The Iranian regime disputes that charge, claiming they are developing the technology for nuclear power and nuclear medicine.

Nader goes on to examine the historical and geopolitical basis for the developing conflict, and concludes that Congress and the American people should stand up to stop the war before it starts. Read the whole thing.

Nader was an independent presidential candidate in 2008 and 2004, and was the 2000 and 1996 presidential candidate of the Green Party, although he never joined that party himself.

Dear President Obama:

Ralph Nader

The column Nader mentions, also posted separately at Nader.org:

The editor of The Hill, a newspaper exclusively covering Congress, said that Congress was not going to do very much in 2012, except for “the big bill” which is extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment compensation, which expire in late February. That two month extension will likely reignite the fight between Democrats and Republicans that flared last month.

By the way, the Congressional switchboard number is 202-224-3121.

Ralph Nader ran for President as an independent in 2008 and 2004, and as a Green in 2000 and 1996. Other alternative parties will no doubt be responding to Obama and the Republicans’ speeches tonight, but I have yet to see their plans for doing so, other than the Green Party and Jill Stein, the leading candidate for the Green Party presidential nomination.

How unbecoming it is for the self-styled freedom-loving Wall Street Journal (“Ron Paul Nader?” Dec. 21) to use the politically bigoted word “spoiler” to describe a hypothetical Ron Paul-Libertarian party presidential run.

Why is a third-party candidate called a “spoiler” when the nominees of the Republican and Democratic parties, that have given us a spoiled political system (corrupted by the highest bidder) are never referred to in such a pejorative way? These two decaying parties do not own the voters in this country, though they act that way through their many state laws obstructing outside competition.

Since all candidates are supposed to have the equal right to run for election, then they are either all spoilers of one another in seeking votes or none of them deserve to be called “spoilers.” Candidates from smaller parties are not second-class citizens. After all, either of the major party candidates “takes away” far more votes from the other than any third party candidate does.

IPR Notes:

Ron Paul was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1988, and is seeking the Republican presidential nomination this year, as he did in 1988. There has been media speculation that he might go Libertarian again, and Paul has not ruled it out, although his goal remains to win the Republican nomination. Another former contender for the Republican presidential nomination this year, former NM Governor Gary Johnson, has already jumped over to the Libertarians.

Ralph Nader sought the presidency as a Green in 1996 and 2000 and as an independent in 2004 and 2008. He is not running this year.

In the last 27 years, 1992 was the only presidential election year when neither Paul nor Nader was an independent or alternative (“third”) party presidential candidate in the general election.

Students of California, arise, you have nothing to lose but a crushing debt!

The corporate state of California, ever ready to seize its ideological and commercial hour during a recession, has a chokehold on California’s public universities. With its tax-coddled plutocracy and a nod to further corporatization, the state government has taken the lid off tuition increases big time.

Students of the University of California at Berkeley may pay a proposed $23,000 in tuition by the 2015-2016 school year, up from $11,160 this year (2011) that in turn is up from $2,716 in the academic year 2001-2002. In short, tuition for resident undergraduates has more than quadrupled in ten years.

Before and right after World War II the idea of a public university included a then-called “educational fee” close to zero, from city college of New York to UC Berkeley.

Old timers now look back at those days as economic life-savers toward a degree and a productive life for them and the American economy.

No more. Those gates of opportunity are crumbling at an accelerating pace.

Ralph Nader has run for President numerous times as a third party candidate, most recently as an Independent in 2008.

Congressman Ron Paul introduced H.R. 1831, the “Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2011″ on May 11th of this year. It is a simple bill at just two pages in length, and it would legalize the growing of industrial hemp in the United States.

Currently farmers can grow industrial hemp only if they have received a permit from the DEA – a prospect that the agency has made all but impossible for decades. Otherwise, it is illegal to grow.

Although Rep. Paul has introduced several bills like this one in the past, there are several reasons that this bill should be passed now. Hemp has an amazing number of uses. Its fiber can be used in carpeting, home furnishings, construction materials, auto parts, textiles, and paper. Its seeds can be used in food, industrial oils, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals. There are assertions, reported by The Guardian and in Biodiesel Magazine that using industrial hemp in biofuels instead of crops like corn and other feedstock provide greater environmental benefits. The expansion of industrial hemp as a feedstock for biofuels could also help to reduce oil imports.

Not only does hemp have a wide range of uses, but its cultivation in the United States could help to spur our lagging economy. Since the cultivation of hemp is outlawed in the United States, the U.S. market for hemp and hemp-based products is entirely dependent upon imports. A 2010 Congressional Research Service report cited an estimate that the U.S. market for hemp-based products may exceed $350 million annually.

A ban on the agricultural production of hemp simply doesn’t make sense. Farmers in places like Iowa could benefit greatly from the production of industrial hemp. In a crippling recession, unemployed Americans could receive a boost from such an emerging industry, from farm to value-added businesses. And many firms here in the United States that sell hem–based products would reap the benefits.

Currently they import their hemp from places like Canada, China, or France, which can increase their costs from 10 to 15 percent or more. As the only remaining developed nation in which the production of industrial hemp is not permitted, the United States is not only missing out on a large – and growing – global market, but limiting the livelihoods of farmers, processors and fabricators.

Industrial hemp could benefit our environment greatly. A range of studies have shown the benefits: hemp can thrive with minimal – or even without – herbicides, it reinvigorates the soil, and it requires less water than crops like cotton. Furthermore, it could prevent the deforestation of large portions of the U.S. landscape and presents significant benefits compared with wood in the production of paper. Industrial hemp matures in three to four months. It takes years for trees to grow. It can also yield four times as much paper per acre as trees.

Critics of industrial hemp may point to its relation to marijuana in order to claim that if one smokes industrial hemp, they can become high. Although industrial hemp and marijuana share the same species, cannabis sativa, industrial hemp is genetically and chemically different. Industrial hemp, at most, contains one third of 1 percent THC, the drug that produces a psychoactive effect in marijuana. However, marijuana is often between 10 and 30 percent THC. Smoking industrial hemp will not make an individual high.

The DEA will claim that growing industrial hemp next to marijuana may serve to impede law enforcement against the latter. However, countries that have legal cultivation of industrial hemp do not have similar problems. Furthermore, since industrial hemp has such little THC, growing it next to marijuana would only serve to dilute by cross pollinations the illegal marijuana plants – something no marijuana grower wants.

Industrial hemp has a distinguished history in this country dating before the revolution and its founding. The Declaration of Independence was drafted on hemp paper and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew industrial hemp on their farms. During World War II, hemp was used to make very strong rope and the Department of Agriculture made a film, “Hemp for Victory” to encourage its cultivation.

Despite the importance of this issue, we rarely see it discussed in the headlines or by political candidates. Farmers in Iowa could benefit greatly from the cultivation of industrial hemp. Citizens in Iowa, who have the ear of presidential hopefuls, have an opportunity to move this issue back into the spotlight during the December 10th Republican Presidential Primary debate.

Let’s hope Congressman Paul and his fellow candidates agree that it is time to allow farmers in Iowa and other states to once again start growing industrial hemp.

Jeff Musto of CSRL contributed to this article

…In a video interview, Nader said Bloomberg’s money would make it possible for him to take a stand against the two-party system…

“I’d like to see Bloomberg run. I’d like to see Jim Hightower run. I’d like to see Bill McKibben run. I’d like to see the champion of single-payer health care, Dr. Quentin Young, run,” Nader said.

_______________________________

Ralph Nader ran for President of the United States with the Green Party, and more recently as an independent candidate. You can keep up with Nader’s thoughts on the world at: Nader.org

Rumble from the people
by Ralph Nader

Inside the barricading bubbles surrounding the Wall Street plutocrats and the Washington oligarchs who service them, there must be worry. After three years of disclosed “lying, cheating and stealing” as one prosecutor put it, with nary a visible stir from the masses, suddenly the barricades are beginning to quiver.

Could this “Occupy Wall Street” challenge in New York City that is spreading to hundreds of communities from Prescott, Arizona to Hartford, Connecticut, be the real thing they have dreaded? Could this be the revolt of the multitudes, the “reserve army of the unemployed?”

It is remarkable what a little more than 100,000 Americans, showing up and staying awhile have done in three weeks.

They’re rattling the corporate supremacists. They have become a mass media story with columnists, editorials and cartoonists grinding out the ever increasing commentary.

There is fascination and curiosity about people who call themselves “The 99 percent!” People are organizing their little societies and 24/7 necessities – food, first aid, shelter, legal advice, music, posters – all without leaders.

The demonstrators are deliberately nonviolent but are angry over deep inequities and entrenched greed and power that are impoverishing and harming millions in need, including hungry children and those without health care. The protesters are keeping the pundits and pontificators guessing about their “real agenda.”

Perfect, so far! Keep expanding the numbers of Americans who show up all over, who stay, who discover each other’s talents and the emerging power of the powerless. Go to 300,000, then 800,000, then 2 million and onward. There are 25 million Americans who want work but cannot get it to pay their rent, their debts, their mortgages and their multiplying student loans. While big corporate profits, bosses’ bonuses and tax loopholes for the wealthy proliferate.

Sparked by an urging from the culture-jamming ADBUSTERS magazine from Vancouver, Canada in July, the Occupy Wall Street effort gets more remarkable by the day. It carries the moral outrage and the moral authority of the vast majority of Americans who are excluded, disrespected, defrauded, unrepresented, underpaid and unemployed. The American dream has turned into a nightmare. They are taught to trust as school children the very public and business institutions that have betrayed them, looted or drained their pensions, their tax dollars and their common properties.

Those protesters at the renamed Liberty Park in New York are going into the nearby stores, with other consumers, and paying nearly 9 percent sales tax on their purchases. While the Wall Streeters are buying trillions of derivatives and stocks without paying a penny in sales tax. Taxing Wall Street speculators could produce hundreds of billions of overdue dollars a year from just a ½ percent sales tax on financial speculation.

The Wall Street “occupiers” and their offspring have good picks for their demonstrations. In Washington, D.C. they chose the insidious corporatists at the Chamber of Commerce building opposite the White House. They went before the building that houses part of the military-industrial complex devouring our public budget that President Eisenhower warned us about in his remarkable farewell address in January 1961 (Read it here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm)

It will be only a short time before these resisters point to these multinational corporations’ abandonment of America by shipping jobs and industries to dictatorial regimes abroad that repress their 80 cents an hour workers.

Reporters write with some surprise about this new human energy. Look at all the bystanders in suits or uniforms nodding in support at the posters, the signs and the chants. Washington Post columnist, Patula Dvorak was astonished and observed:

“Every Washingtonian I talked to who stepped out to watch the action in Freedom Plaza – from the security guards to the suits – felt a solidarity with the message.

“The banks. The banks are taking all of us for a ride,” one security guard told me. “And they’re in the right place now, because Congress is behind that.”

Though the Occupy surge is going in the right direction – flipping our corporate government from our masters to our servants – no one knows how far it will go, whether it will retain its burgeoning energy and what the backlash will be from the ruling power structures.

Back in October 2008, when Wall Street was crashing on American investors, workers and taxpayers -in that order – our independent presidential campaign held a major rally at Wall Street.

Addressing the New York Stock Exchange, with our participators and their signs, I proposed specific recommendations for law enforcement, a financial transaction tax and accountability for those handling “other peoples’ money.” Few listened.

Now the powers-that-be are starting to listen, because instead of a one day event, they see day-after-day aroused citizens rallying back home and before the perpetrators of the predatory abuses.

When the corporate and political bosses hear the rising roar from the people, they start sweating. Now is time to turn up the heat without pausing.

Visit http://occupywallst.org/ for more information on how to join the movement.

Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader Encourages #OccupyWallStreet Protesters to Challenge Wall Street Abuses

Statement by consumer advocate, Ralph Nader October 8, 2011

The frustration seen in the protests on Wall Street over the past few weeks demonstrates a widespread and growing citizen discontent with the two political parties in Washington, D.C. and with a political system that is dominated by corporate interests.

It is time for citizens to push their elected officials to break the corporate stranglehold on our economy. Congress should start by enacting a financial speculation tax that would help curb the wheeling and dealing on Wall Street and that could raise hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue to help with the our country’s economic recovery.

Congress has done more to bail out Wall Street than Main Street. Wall Street crooks have avoided penalties and prosecution and continued to receive bonuses and excessive compensation while pensions and savings have been looted.

Wages have remained stagnant while the largest corporations and executives have seen record profits and bonuses year after year. Congress has done little in the face of a staggering – and growing – income inequality in this country, where the top 1 percent of the population has financial wealth equal to the combined financial wealth of the bottom 95 percent of the people.

And Congress has done nothing either to disclose or stem the flow of millions of corporate dollars into the electoral process. Corporate Political Action Committees are corrupting the electoral process and blocking the voices and concerns of millions of people.

These are not the signs of a healthy democracy. Those taking part in the “Occupy Wall Street” protests and in similar protests cropping up across the country are working hard to make their voices heard. It is way overdue for the President and Congress to listen.

Masters of the repeated lying sound byte, the craven Congressional Republicans are feasting on the health and safety of the American people with gleeful greed while making the corporate and trade association media swoon. “Job-killing regulations,” exudes daily from the mouths of Speak John Boehner, his Wall Street-licking side-kick Eric Cantor and Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell.

Then all the way down the line, the Republicans are on cue bellowing “job-killing regulations” must be revoked or stopped aborning over at OSHA (protecting workers), EPA (protecting clean air and water), FDA (safer drugs and food), and NHTSA (making your vehicle safer). Imagine how much more civil servants could do to accomplish the statutory missions of their respective agencies if they could get the Republicans and their corporate pay masters off their backs.

The fast developing predator drone technology, officially called unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs, is becoming so dominant and so beyond any restraining framework of law or ethics, that its use by the U.S. government around the world may invite a horrific blowback.

First some background. The Pentagon has about 7,000 aerial drones. Ten years ago there were less than 50. According to the website longwarjournal.com, they have destroyed about 1900 insurgents in Pakistan’s tribal regions. How these fighters are so clearly distinguished from civilians in those mountain areas is not clear.

Nor is it clear how or from whom the government gets such “precise” information about the guerilla leaders’ whereabouts night and day. The drones are beyond any counterattack–flying often at 50,000 feet. But the Air Force has recognized that a third of the Predators have crashed by themselves.

Compared to mass transit, housing, energy technology, infection control, food and drug safety, the innovation in the world of drones is incredible. Coming soon are hummingbird sized drones, submersible drones and software driven autonomous UAVs. The Washington Post described these inventions as “aircraft [that] would hunt, identify and fire at [the] enemy–all on its own.” It is called “lethal autonomy” in the trade.

Military ethicists and legal experts inside and outside the government are debating how far UAVs can go and still stay within what one imaginative booster, Ronald C. Arkin, called international humanitarian law and the rules of engagement. Concerns over restraint can already be considered academic. Drones are going anywhere their governors want them to go already–Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and countries in North Africa to name a few known jurisdictions.

Last year a worried group of robotic specialists, philosophers and human rights activists formed the International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC) (http://www.icrac.co.uk/). They fear that such instruments may make wars more likely by the strong against the weak because there will be fewer human casualties by those waging robotic war. But proliferation is now a fact. Forty countries are reported to be working on drone technology or acquiring it. Some experts at the founding conference of ICRAC forshadowed hostile states or terrorist organizations hacking into robotic systems to redirect them.

ICRAC wants an international treaty against machines of lethal autonomy along the lines of the ones banning land mines and cluster bombs. The trouble is that the United States, unlike over one hundred signatory nations, does not belong to either the land mines treaty or the more recent anti-cluster bomb treaty. Historically, the U.S. has been a major manufacturer and deployer of both. Don’t count on the Obama White House to take the lead anytime soon.

Columnist David Ignatius wrote that “A world where drones are constantly buzzing overhead–waiting to zap those deemed threats under a cloaked and controversial process–isks being, even more, a world of lawlessness and chaos.”

Consider how terrifying it must be to the populations, especially the children, living under the threat of drones that can attack through clouds and dark skies. UAVs are hardly visible but sometimes audible through their frightful whining sound. Polls show Pakistanis overwhelmingly believe most of the drone-driven fatalities are civilians.

US Air Force Colonel Matt Martin has written a book titled Predator. He was a remote operator sitting in the control room in Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada watching “suspects” transversing a mountain ridge in Afghanistan eight thousand miles away. In a review of Martin’s book, Christian Cary writes “The eerie acuity of vision afforded by the Predator’s multiple high-powered video cameras enables him to watch as the objects of his interest light up cigarettes, go to the bathroom, or engage in amorous adventures with animals on the other side of the world, never suspecting that they are under observation as they do.”

For most of a decade the asymmetrical warfare between the most modern, military force in world history and Iraqi and Afghani fighters has left the latter with little conventional aerial or land-based weaponry other than rifles, rocket propelled grenades, roadside IEDs and suicide belted youths.

People who see invaders occupying their land with military domination that is beyond reach will resort to ever more desperate counterattacks, however primitive in nature. When the time comes that robotic weapons of physics cannot be counteracted at all with these simple handmade weapons because the occupier’s arsenals are remote, deadly and without the need for soldiers, what will be the blowback?

Already, people like retired Admiral Dennis Blair, former director of National Intelligence under President Obama is saying, according to POLITICO, that the Administration should curtail U.S.-led drone strikes on suspected terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia because the missiles fired from unmanned aircraft are fueling anti-American sentiment and undercutting reform efforts in those countries.

While scores of physicists and engineers are working on refining further advances in UAVs, thousands of others are staying silent. In prior years, their counterparts spoke out against the nuclear arms race or exposed the unworkability of long-range missile defense. They need to re-engage. Because the next blowback may soon move into chemical and biological resistance against invaders. Suicide belts may contain pathogens–bacterial and viral–and chemical agents deposited in food and water supplies.

Professions are supposed to operate within an ethical code and exercise independent judgment. Doctors have a duty to prevent harm. Biologists and chemists should urge their colleagues in physics to take a greater role as to where their knowhow is leading this tormented world of ours before the blowback spills over into even more lethally indefensible chemical and biological attacks.

The group that started the demonstration is Adbusters: here.

There is a Live Stream of the Occupy Wall Street protest happening at Liberty Square (Zucotti Park) and the streets around Wall Street: here.  At times during the Live Feed, there have been blasts of messages about Ron Paul. The moderators have requested not to promote candidates in the chatroom.

As mentioned here at IPR, and also at Green Party Watch, former Green Party NYC Mayor candidate Reverend Billy spoke at the protest on September 17th.

This morning, author Chris Hedges was interviewed from Liberty Square. A quick transcription of the bulk of the discussion can be found at onthewilderside: here.

Below are some excerpts of Chris Hedges’ comments, where he mentions third party candidates and movements:

The Democratic Party will use the rhetoric, but then again serves the interest of the corporate state. The Liberal Class and Clinton did it through NAFTA, thrust a knife within the American Working Class. Michelle Bachman, Republicans, etc. are right in some way about the hypocrisy of the Liberal Class, and because they can see that hypocrisy, they can use it…

Advice: Speak in a language of justice and truth, which I think cuts across ideological lines. It is not surprising that Ron Paul came in second. Even with Libertarians there is an anger at corporatism that comes across. Theft, greed, corruption and fraud that affects the American people…

The Tea Party is not the problem. It has been used by Koch brothers. The problem is corporations and unregulated capitalism. If we don’t destroy the corporate structure, then we are finished. And, that is where we should put our focus.

“Because we’re locked out of the corporate media, we have to play around the edges, because we don’t have the numbers” it takes a lot more time and work. But that is how it has always been with these kinds of movements. “If we keep at it, if we keep sort of slogging forward, we will be able to get messages out that the corporate mainstream wants to silence” Example – Kucinich and the debate in Iowa, the insurance and pharmacuetical industry sponsored it. They did not want Kucinich there. They shut Nader out. They didn’t want people to hear that message…

Final comments:

“Well, 70% of the US economy is driven by consumption, so we actually have a fair bit of power, if we can break that cycle of consumption, we can begin to hurt” that corporate structure…

We can change if, “we act in ways that defy the definition of a good life that is handed to us by a consumer society.” – Chris Hedges

______________________________________________

Related: Reverend Billy at Occupy Wall Street video:

Imagine a private meeting between President Barack Obama and 25 mega barons of U.S. business at the White House Indian Treaty Room.

President Obama: “Gentlemen and Lady, I’ve invited you here today to give you a preview of an address I will deliver in a month before the national convention of the National Association for Community Economies in Kansas City, Kansas. Before I do that, let’s have some frank talk:

Earlier this year, Warren Buffett wrote an opinion article in The New York Times where he chided Congress for coddling wealthy people and urged higher taxes on under taxed people like him.

I think you’ve been coddled in many ways without having to deliver for our economy and its workers as you move more and more of your operations overseas. Let’s face this reality. Your companies, born in the U.S.A., rose to their large profits on the backs of American workers, were saved, when in trouble, by Washington with bailouts from American taxpayers, and rescued by the U.S. Marines or our naval fleets when you needed them in foreign lands.

So what has been your response to the American people? Gratitude? No, it’s been ‘we’re outta here folks with your jobs and industries to communist or fascist regimes abroad.’ Regimes that know how to keep their 80 cents an hour workers in their miserable place.

From now on, you will be measured by a standard of patriotism. Just like real people. Your predecessors worked for decades, starting with the Supreme Court in 1886, to get judicial activists to treat your corporations as ‘persons’ for purposes of almost all our constitutional rights. So start acting like real Americans.

For example, patriotism involves degrees of sacrifice. Given your resources and power, you fit Alfred North Whitehead’s dicta that ‘duty arises from our potential control over the course of events.’ As CEOs any modest sacrifices are mostly borne by your companies. Here’s my list.

1. Your non-financial companies are sitting on two trillion dollars of idle cash reserves. Send $200 billion back to their owners-the shareholders – in dividends. This will increase needed consumer demand so needed in our serious recession. Some of you already provide a fair amount of dividends. Others like those of you from the Silicon Valley companies return zero from hoards of cash which belongs to the shareholders after all.

2. Your idle reserves can be put to work in an infrastructure or public works bank. Put in $300 billion, as an investment in repairing and upgrading America, and I’ll press Congress to match it. This will release trillions in capital for better schools, airports, clinics, libraries, public transit, roads, bridges, parks, broadband and other vital public services for you and your fellow Americans. Good jobs that can’t be exported.

3. The Internal Revenue Code allows you to deduct up to five percent of your adjusted gross income for charitable purposes. Almost forty years ago major companies in Minneapolis met this level of giving. Few of you ever exceed one percent. You are making large profits in a recession. Loosen up billions in your donations to groups-both charitable and justice-seeking-all over the country. You will enhance your country at its neediest points and create more jobs of compassion and justice, especially for our heavily unemployed youths.

4. Stop demanding from Congress, if you are a prime defense company, more and more expensive weapons systems that are not needed twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union or are massively redundant for our legitimate defense needs. This will help refocus Congress on budget priorities here at home. Listen up, Lockheed Martin.

5. Stop whining about modest instruments of law and order that you call regulatory burdens. You know most regulations are obsolete, weak to begin with and under-enforced. Regulations stimulate innovation which creates jobs. Think seat belts, air bags and power plant scrubbers. Regulation saves lives, (some may be your own workers or family members) and prevent injuries and diseases. Regulation stops corporate abuses. A little maturity here, please.

6. Reverse our dangerous reliance on foreign countries for critical materials. Did you know that there is not one manufacturer making penicillin in our country? Or that the always subsidized U.S. drug companies have moved production of eighty percent of the active ingredients in our pharmaceuticals to FDA-uninspected labs in China and India. This is a matter of national security. (Is it patriotic for U.S. companies to take taxpayer subsidies for research and development and then move the manufacturing- as with solar panels- to China?)

7. Stop your companies from fleeing to tax havens to escape U.S. taxes while your presence here receives the benefits of public services and our armed forces. Many of your largest companies pay little or no federal income taxes and even receive tax refunds and subsidies from the Treasury. Your tax lawyer-lobbyists have made it possible for people to say that one janitor in your company paid more to Uncle Sam than his or her profitable company paid.

8. Finally I believe at your annual shareholder meetings you should stand up and, in the name of your U.S. corporation – e.g. on behalf of Ford, Dow Chemical, Chevron, Merck or Citibank, ‘pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’ It will focus your intention to stand up for America and its beleaguered workers, while we all strive for full employment.

I’ve done so much for you – extending your tax breaks, bailed you out in many direct and indirect ways, expanded loan guarantees, assured you huge government contracts, leases, and health care customers, scrapped some proposed regulations and did not ask for increased law enforcement budgets for prosecuting corporate crime and fraud. I’ve done so much for you that my liberal/progressive base is very upset.

Now as President, I will raise the yardsticks of corporate patriotism before that forthcoming gathering of community businesses who never threaten to abandon the U.S.A.

You have a month to make public whatever patriotic announcements you may arrange for yourself or between yourselves. Do it for your country.

I know you have questions. Let’s move to the reception and we’ll discuss them over refreshments.”

Consumer advocate and progressive liberal Ralph Nader said Thursday he will send a letter to a targeted group of 40 former university presidents, retired congressmen, progressive business leaders and civic activists and ask them to challenge President Barack Obama in 2012.

“The pitch is this: Look, take six months off from your routine, form a slate, challenge Obama in the primaries,” Nader said on Fox News.

The letter will go out in “a few days,” he said.

“If he’s not challenged from the progressive liberal wing of his party that elected him, there’ll be a very dull campaign,” Nader said.

Read more…

Tar Sands Arrests on Obama’s Doorstep
by Ralph Nader, Reader Supported News / August 30, 2011

 

his is the second week of protests, led by Bill McKibben, in front of the White House demanding that President Barack Obama reject a proposed 1700 mile pipeline transporting the dirtiest oil from Alberta, Canada through fragile ecologies down to the Gulf Coast refineries. One thousand people will be arrested there from all fifty states before their demonstration is over [including, actress Daryl Hannah, on Tuesday, August 30th]. The vast majority voted for Obama and they are plenty angry with his brittleness on environmental issues in general…

Were Obama to look out his White House window and see the arrested and handcuffed demonstrators against this $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline, he might think: “This will upset my environmental supporters, but heck, where can they go in November 2012?”

He is right. No matter what Mr. Obama does to surrender environmental health and safety to corporatist demands, they will vote for him. They certainly won’t vote for the Republican corporate mascots. They wouldn’t vote for a Green Party candidate either. This is not only the environmentalists’ dilemma, it is the liberal/progressive/labor union dilemma as well. They have no bargaining power with Obama…

Above article via FOCUS: Tar Sands Arrests on Obama’s Doorstep.

Another opinion piece on The Tar Sands at theenergycollective.com: here.

A fascinating piece at IBTimes. New information shows that in addition to the TARP funds and bank bailout that Americans know about, there were secret loans from the Federal Reserve to private banks. And, did you know that our US Federal Reserve secretly loaned money to foreign banks? What is that about? My comments on the article (and its status quo bias) are below. A January 2011 video with Ron Paul and Ralph Nader about the Federal Reserve is: here.

(excerpt from) International Business Times
Federal Reserve Lent Private Banks $1.2 Trillion During Financial Crisis’ Acute Stage
IBTimes Staff Reporter | August 21, 2011 9:10 PM EDT

The U.S. Federal Reserve lent private banks about $1.2 trillion in order to maintain credit market liquidity, bank function, and prevent the U.S. economy from plunging in to a depression.

The largest borrower was Morgan Stanley (MS), which received as much as $107.3 billion in loans, Bloomberg News reported Sunday, while Citigroup (C) received $99.5 billion, and the Bank of America (BAC) received $91.4 billion. Bloomberg News obtained the information through Freedom of Information Act requests.

The loan totals far surpass the $160 billion in public bailouts the top 10 banks received from the U.S. Treasury Department. Up until now, the Federal Reserve action was not made public…

What’s more, half of the Federal Reserve’s top 30 borrowers, as ranked by peak balances, were European firms…

My comments, as posted at the IBTimes website:

This “article” is so bogus. It is at least an opinion piece, if not a propaganda piece for the bankers, Washington, and the status quo. It is also comical to believe that Bloomberg news is wonderful and successful for filing the Freedom of Information Act which led to this bank loan news. Ron Paul has been working on this project for years. And, the fact that Ron Paul’s HR 459 bill to audit the Federal Reserve is picking up sponsor after sponsor is probably why the Federal Reserve decided to answer this request, and answer to people more fully than it has in the past. The information is fascinating. Get our US taxpayer money back from the foreign banks! Fire the Fed Chairman and Treasury Secretary. Then, let’s rethink the Federal Reserve.

Related information:

Ron Paul website: here

Ralph Nader website: here

“Audit The Federal Reserve supported by Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul”  from May 2010: here.

Archival videos of a press conference from September 10, 2008. Ron Paul is standing up with Presidential candidates from third parties who had endorsed a set of principles. The principles were endorsed by Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and Chuck Baldwin who all attended the press conference.

Video below: Dr. Ron Paul speaks
Lists 4 principles the candidates agree on
at 3 min 35 sec – Request audit of Federal Reserve

Video below: Ralph Nader speaks
Four areas of agreement
at 1 min 43 sec – Nader on Federal Reserve

Ralph Nader ran for President with the Green Party, and more recently as an independent candidate. Below is an excerpt from a 7/28/2011 post at Nader’s nonpartisan website. It is an Open Letter he wrote to the heads of Standard and Poor’s, Moody’s Corp, and Fitch’s Ratings:

Now your lobbyists are pressing members of Congress to weaken further the provisions affecting rating agencies in the Dodd-Frank law in ways that will raise the risk-consequences for the savings and investments of innocent people. See the strong critique of your looming downgrade by arch-conservative columnist Holman W. Jenkins in the January 27, 2011 Wall Street Journal titled, “Who Elected the Rating Agencies?” Mr. Jenkins wrote that not only are your caveats overblown, but he concluded that, “it is foppish in the extreme of S&P to imagine its opinion is needed or valued, and one more reason to expedite a rare useful provision of Dodd-Frank – it’s requirement that federal law be purged of language requiring investors to act on the opinions of rating agencies.”…