THE CASE FOR PEACE CANDIDATE JOHN EDWARDS
UP FRONT News January, 26, 2006
Published by Tom Weiss
Editorial Advisor: Willard Whittingham
“The paper that can’t be bought and can’t be sold.” www.tomsupfrontnews.blogspot.com
THE CASE FOR PEACE CANDIDATE JOHN EDWARDS HILLARY CLINTON IS A HAWK IN DOVE’S FEATHERS BARACK OBAMA “WOULD HAVE VOTED ‘NO’?” DENNIS KUCINICH TRIES TO SPLIT THE LEFT AND THE LYNDON LAROUCHE FACTOR
While the mainstream media continue to mega-publicize Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom are trying to appeal to the now vast anti-War sentiment, my view is that the most committed and electable peace candidate is John Edwards. Mr. Edwards has made it abundantly clear that he regards his vote as a U.S. Senator to authorize the use of military force against Saddam Hussein because of his reported “weapons of mass destruction” as wrong. He should never have believed Bush’s lies. Hillary Clinton, whose approach has been scarcely less militaristic than Dick Cheney’s and John McCain’s, will never admit she was wrong (unless paid in some form to do so). And so she attempts to seduce liberals by criticizing an increasingly politically frail Acting President and calling for a troop “cap.” The suddenly New York Post- "hot” Barack Obama, capitalizing on the fact that he was not a Senator when the original military action authorization vote took place, is saying, with an apparently straight face, that he “would have voted ‘no’.” While Mr. Obama was not in the Senate at the time, he was most certainly very politically prominent and media savvy. He managed to keep his war views quite muted.
While most Democrats are content to pass “non-binding” anti-“surge” resolutions while continuing to fund the Iraq War, John Edwards has called for the immediate withdrawal of 40,000 troops and for Congress to enact a funding cut-off. While that view will not satisfy the folks in ANSWER, The Workers World Party, and the Green Party, etc. that the troops be out perhaps before Valentine’s Day (and, by the way, that the U.S. cut off all aid to Israel), it shows that a Democrat can be a peace candidate. That can be a very potent political statement from a candidate who, although very well off financially, states that his key domestic mission as president will be to eliminate poverty and homelessness in America.
Mrs. Clinton’s approach to eliminating poverty is by eliminating the poor - by whatever means necessary. Her political alliances with poverty generators like Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch speak volumes (of cash). Obama Barack, rapidly becoming the darling of some anti-Hillary rich, will probably try to catch up to John Edwards when it comes to addressing the reality of the “Two Americas.” The Republicans are not a consideration here as they are in fact the party of war, plunder, repression, and, corruption, definitely, from a certain perspective, the significantly greater of two evils.
But, just as Ralph (“Split the left”) Nader and his Greens did in 2000 and 2004, so-called “peace” candidate the apparently quite full of himself Dennis Kucinich is running as the no-chance-at-all front-man of the Lyndon LaRouche wing of the Democratic Party. The once-again “left” neo-fascist LaRouche - while working via fifth column surrogates in all parties, particularly the Greens - is a registered Democrat, who swears that on his road to total power in America he will take over the Democratic Party. He lives in Loudon Coun- ty, Va., a short helicopter ride from the White House. He believes, just like his role model Adolf Hitler did, in taking power by any means necessary, and most definitely employing “left” and populist, not “conservative” rhetoric. That involves both the electoral process and the criminal process. All Dennis Kucinich, (who, as a “peace” candidate in 2000 was less than asterisk with the voters), can do in 2008 is draw some votes from an electable peace candidate such as Edwards and thereby help a Republicrat like Mrs. Clinton or out-and-out Republicans like McCain, Rudolph Giuliani, or (no matter what he claims to the contrary) presidential wannabe Michael Bloomberg. If Kucinich’s New York effort is anything like his quite Green/Nader-connected run in 2000 it will have the fascistic in- gredient of Kucinich promoter and recurrently out of control autocrat Charlene Barker. Ms. Barker, a “left”-spouting activist who works for one of the most predatory corpora- tions on the planet, ruled the 2004 Kucinich NYC meet-up with a LaRouche/Lenora Fulani-like iron hand. Her closest Kucinich colleague was a Staten Island peace activist named Ellen Jaedicke. Ms. Barker, who viewed dissent from a perspective not unlike that of Augusto Pinochet, responded to a communications breakdown between Ms. Jaedicke and me by, after issuing me a series of commands, throwing a profanity-laced tirade at me over the telephone and throwing me out of the meet-up. Ms. Jaedicke, who may be a peace activist but is also an obedient soldier, agreed that Barker’s action was wrong but was afraid to do anything about it. Indeed Barker’s autocratic behavior mirrored closely the behavior manifested by the LaRouche/Fulani “Green” people who ran the Nader meetups. Not at all surprisingly. Ms. Barker has never responded to my March 5, 2004 e-mail to her asking her about any LaRouche connections.
Sitting a very few feet away from Ms. Barker last fall at a meeting at Local 1199 I at- tended when I was running for the U.S. Senate as a Democratic write-in candidateAgainst Mrs. Clinton, was Charles Lenchner. Mr. Lenchner was one of the people committing physical acts of criminal harassment against me on behalf of a LaRouche ideo- logue by the name of Jonathan Tasini. Charles Lenchner, a camouflaged official of the so-called Progressive Democrats of America, also works for Lyndon LaRouche’s magazine, “Executive Intelligence Review.” As soon as I learned that the serpentine Lenchner had tapewormed his way into the John Edwards campaign, I politically “outed” him. I am glad to say that an experienced New York-based Edwards worker has separated this mole. And so, while the Greens, regardless of grass roots membership, are run by fascists (LaRouche/Fulani, Paul Zulkowitz, Gerald Kann & Co.), and the Republicans are run by Dick Cheney, and Hillary is run by the corporations, and Obama is just running, John Edwards is (relatively speaking at least), aside from being Democratic, also small “d” democratic. Indeed, this may be the first presidential race in some time where domestic “left” neo-fascism becomes a campaign issue - especially since Lyndon LaRouche has ties to Cheney/Bush.
When Mrs. Clinton accelerated her candidacy decision-making following the Edwards and Obama announcements, each was asked about Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Obama praised her
(suggesting that he harbors fantasies about being her running mate). When John Edwards was asked about being her running mate he smiled, shook his head, and said that he’s not interested. Definitely a new kind of Democrat.
* * * * * * *
Published by Tom Weiss
Editorial Advisor: Willard Whittingham
“The paper that can’t be bought and can’t be sold.” www.tomsupfrontnews.blogspot.com
THE CASE FOR PEACE CANDIDATE JOHN EDWARDS HILLARY CLINTON IS A HAWK IN DOVE’S FEATHERS BARACK OBAMA “WOULD HAVE VOTED ‘NO’?” DENNIS KUCINICH TRIES TO SPLIT THE LEFT AND THE LYNDON LAROUCHE FACTOR
While the mainstream media continue to mega-publicize Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom are trying to appeal to the now vast anti-War sentiment, my view is that the most committed and electable peace candidate is John Edwards. Mr. Edwards has made it abundantly clear that he regards his vote as a U.S. Senator to authorize the use of military force against Saddam Hussein because of his reported “weapons of mass destruction” as wrong. He should never have believed Bush’s lies. Hillary Clinton, whose approach has been scarcely less militaristic than Dick Cheney’s and John McCain’s, will never admit she was wrong (unless paid in some form to do so). And so she attempts to seduce liberals by criticizing an increasingly politically frail Acting President and calling for a troop “cap.” The suddenly New York Post- "hot” Barack Obama, capitalizing on the fact that he was not a Senator when the original military action authorization vote took place, is saying, with an apparently straight face, that he “would have voted ‘no’.” While Mr. Obama was not in the Senate at the time, he was most certainly very politically prominent and media savvy. He managed to keep his war views quite muted.
While most Democrats are content to pass “non-binding” anti-“surge” resolutions while continuing to fund the Iraq War, John Edwards has called for the immediate withdrawal of 40,000 troops and for Congress to enact a funding cut-off. While that view will not satisfy the folks in ANSWER, The Workers World Party, and the Green Party, etc. that the troops be out perhaps before Valentine’s Day (and, by the way, that the U.S. cut off all aid to Israel), it shows that a Democrat can be a peace candidate. That can be a very potent political statement from a candidate who, although very well off financially, states that his key domestic mission as president will be to eliminate poverty and homelessness in America.
Mrs. Clinton’s approach to eliminating poverty is by eliminating the poor - by whatever means necessary. Her political alliances with poverty generators like Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch speak volumes (of cash). Obama Barack, rapidly becoming the darling of some anti-Hillary rich, will probably try to catch up to John Edwards when it comes to addressing the reality of the “Two Americas.” The Republicans are not a consideration here as they are in fact the party of war, plunder, repression, and, corruption, definitely, from a certain perspective, the significantly greater of two evils.
But, just as Ralph (“Split the left”) Nader and his Greens did in 2000 and 2004, so-called “peace” candidate the apparently quite full of himself Dennis Kucinich is running as the no-chance-at-all front-man of the Lyndon LaRouche wing of the Democratic Party. The once-again “left” neo-fascist LaRouche - while working via fifth column surrogates in all parties, particularly the Greens - is a registered Democrat, who swears that on his road to total power in America he will take over the Democratic Party. He lives in Loudon Coun- ty, Va., a short helicopter ride from the White House. He believes, just like his role model Adolf Hitler did, in taking power by any means necessary, and most definitely employing “left” and populist, not “conservative” rhetoric. That involves both the electoral process and the criminal process. All Dennis Kucinich, (who, as a “peace” candidate in 2000 was less than asterisk with the voters), can do in 2008 is draw some votes from an electable peace candidate such as Edwards and thereby help a Republicrat like Mrs. Clinton or out-and-out Republicans like McCain, Rudolph Giuliani, or (no matter what he claims to the contrary) presidential wannabe Michael Bloomberg. If Kucinich’s New York effort is anything like his quite Green/Nader-connected run in 2000 it will have the fascistic in- gredient of Kucinich promoter and recurrently out of control autocrat Charlene Barker. Ms. Barker, a “left”-spouting activist who works for one of the most predatory corpora- tions on the planet, ruled the 2004 Kucinich NYC meet-up with a LaRouche/Lenora Fulani-like iron hand. Her closest Kucinich colleague was a Staten Island peace activist named Ellen Jaedicke. Ms. Barker, who viewed dissent from a perspective not unlike that of Augusto Pinochet, responded to a communications breakdown between Ms. Jaedicke and me by, after issuing me a series of commands, throwing a profanity-laced tirade at me over the telephone and throwing me out of the meet-up. Ms. Jaedicke, who may be a peace activist but is also an obedient soldier, agreed that Barker’s action was wrong but was afraid to do anything about it. Indeed Barker’s autocratic behavior mirrored closely the behavior manifested by the LaRouche/Fulani “Green” people who ran the Nader meetups. Not at all surprisingly. Ms. Barker has never responded to my March 5, 2004 e-mail to her asking her about any LaRouche connections.
Sitting a very few feet away from Ms. Barker last fall at a meeting at Local 1199 I at- tended when I was running for the U.S. Senate as a Democratic write-in candidateAgainst Mrs. Clinton, was Charles Lenchner. Mr. Lenchner was one of the people committing physical acts of criminal harassment against me on behalf of a LaRouche ideo- logue by the name of Jonathan Tasini. Charles Lenchner, a camouflaged official of the so-called Progressive Democrats of America, also works for Lyndon LaRouche’s magazine, “Executive Intelligence Review.” As soon as I learned that the serpentine Lenchner had tapewormed his way into the John Edwards campaign, I politically “outed” him. I am glad to say that an experienced New York-based Edwards worker has separated this mole. And so, while the Greens, regardless of grass roots membership, are run by fascists (LaRouche/Fulani, Paul Zulkowitz, Gerald Kann & Co.), and the Republicans are run by Dick Cheney, and Hillary is run by the corporations, and Obama is just running, John Edwards is (relatively speaking at least), aside from being Democratic, also small “d” democratic. Indeed, this may be the first presidential race in some time where domestic “left” neo-fascism becomes a campaign issue - especially since Lyndon LaRouche has ties to Cheney/Bush.
When Mrs. Clinton accelerated her candidacy decision-making following the Edwards and Obama announcements, each was asked about Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Obama praised her
(suggesting that he harbors fantasies about being her running mate). When John Edwards was asked about being her running mate he smiled, shook his head, and said that he’s not interested. Definitely a new kind of Democrat.
* * * * * * *
posted by Tom Weiss at 3:06 PM
<< Home