Friday, July 29, 2016


UP FRONT News        July 28, 2016
"The paper that won't be bought and can't be sold."
Published by Tom Weiss
Andrew Mazzone - Media Representative and Economics Advisor
Steven Gradman - Religious and Community Liaison
Allen Smith - Economics Reporter and Internet Advisor
  The views expressed in UP FRONT News are those of the publisher or of the contributing writer and do not necessarily represent the views of staff.



  Some of the major polls show that Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is ahead. Some polls show that Republican Party candidate Donald Trump I ahead. One poll showed that 20% of the voters are undecided.
  Many polls, however, show that a great many voters (a majority) find both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump "untrustworthy." Although no pollster has interviewed me, I am part of that majority that views the two leading candidates as profoundly dishonest. They lie a lot. It's not a choice involving "the lesser of two evils." It's a "choice" between the equivalent of two evils. 
  That generates the ironic reality that among the few times that Hillary and "The Donald" tell the truth is when each accuses the other of lying.
  It is therefore very reasonable to suggest that, with two "major party" candidates so thoroughly distrusted and disliked (when in 2008 during an Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton debate, he suggested to her, "You're likeable enough" he was wrong), this could be the year for a successful "third" or "fourth" party candidacy.
  In 1996 and 2000 the Green Party ran as its candidate the already famous consumer advocate Ralph Nader. Much of what Mr. Nader said about the corporate threat to American democracy was accurate and got some rhetorical support from the "socialists" on the left and some libertarian types on the right. It is also true that during Nader's campaigns, much of the power in the Green Party was exercised by ultra-left political extremists, some of them connected with the notorious, albeit aging, ultra-left/ultra-right/ultra-left megalomaniac, convicted federal felon, anti-Semite, past presidential candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche, and his populism-spouting ideological offspring such as the demagogic duet of "social therapy" cult leaders Dr. Fred Newman (who has since passed away) and Lenora Fulani. The Green Party in New York City was controlled by a number of activists such as Paul ("Zool") Zulkowitz, Jerry Kann, George Tatevosyan and Cathy Sadell, who spouted "peace", "revolution", "socialism", with some conspiracy theory thrown in, while claiming in 2000 that the Democratic ticket of Al Gore/Joseph Lieberman and the Republican ticket of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were "the same." The Greens, while based in New York and Washington, focused their vote-getting efforts for Nader - who ignored information that I (and perhaps others) gave him about the LaRouche-linked bunch in the Green Party - in some swing states, such as Florida. No amount of rhetorical gymnastics will disprove the arithmetical fact that Ralph Nader's relative handful of votes in pivotal Florida helped the Republican ticket "win" that state and thereby get the votes needed in the Electoral College to literally steal the election from Gore/Lieberman, who defeated Bush/Cheney in the popular vote.
   The cryptos (Sadell/Tatevosyan/Kann/Zulkowitz, et. al.) in the Green Party, under the direction of Fulani/Newman (to whom Green Party veteran Mitchel Cohen has whisperingly referred as "The Newmanites") ran the NYC Nader for President "meetup" in New York City much as, say, Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong ran their political meetings. I lost count of how many times I was threatened and in one case physically attacked (by Tatevosyan/Kann). The classic fascist electoral strategy, which had been used by fascists such as the (National) Socialist Adolf Hitler was to "outleft the 'left'" (in this case the Democrats) by rhetorically bashing the Democrat and Republicans equally, a tactic that helped the Republicans. A Bush/Cheney win was the desired agenda. Why? Because under the anticipated reactionary Bush/Cheney (actually Cheney/Bush), there would be a political and legislative attack on the poor and the marginal middle class, rewards for the one percenters, precisely the social and economic conditions that fuel mass anger (and sometimes violence), the ingredients necessary for fascism to succeed. The most compelling historical case example is of course post-World War I defeated and economically devastated Germany, whose masses of poor people responded to the "revolutionary" rantings of the oratorically spellbinding Adolf Hitler.
   And so, with the help of a relatively small number of ultra-"left" cryptos in and near the Greens and elsewhere on the left, Cheney/Bush "won" and things over the following eight years got much worse, generating the rise of Occupy Wall Street - which also became fertile territory for "ultras", such as those provoking violence and hoisting protest signs saying "The Jews Own the Banks."
  Although Ralph Nader's paltry vote totals on the Green Party line helped swing the 2000 election to the Republicans, his pre-election poll numbers were nowhere near enough to qualify him to participate in any of the three mandated presidential debates.
  This year, with a different Green Party, a different Green Party presidential candidate, Jill Stein, and with two majorly unpopular major party candidates, it could be different.
   Last October 2 I sent an email to Jill Stein urging her to endorse Bernie Sanders for president citing the major similarities in his positions (e.g. on economic inequality, global warming) with those of the Green Party. It took some time and a number of communication between me and Brooklyn Green Party member and Sanders supporter Mitchel Cohen before Ms. Stein responded with her agreement to urge the Green Party to endorse Bernie if he became the Democratic Party nominee, or, if the Democrats, nominated Hillary, to urge the Green Party to nominate him as its presidential candidate with her as his vice-presidential running mate. Bernie, after complaining bitterly - and correctly - that the Debbie Wasserman Schultz-led Democratic National Committee had "rigged" the entire nominating process to favor Hillary, folded and endorsed Hillary. If Bernie, after endorsing a candidate who became the nominee through a "rigged" process, really believes that his supporters are going to vote for Hillary en masse in November, he is probably wrong. Here is why.
  Bernie made his first major mistake in the campaign last October during the first Democratic candidates debate in Las Vegas when he belittled the mounting controversy about Hillary Clinton's privatizing of her State Department email correspondence, a major example of her penchant for secrecy and lying. The issue with Hillary is not so much how "liberal" or "conservative" she may be (as far as I am concerned, she is a de facto Republicrat); the issue is Hillary Clinton's trustworthiness and integrity. She does poorly on the ethics meter.
  To his credit, in response to my telephone and emailed lobbying of Senator Sanders on the Tibet issue, on May 21, 2015, he had his then Press Secretary Jeff Frank send me an email announcing his support for "self-determination for the Tibetan people." Sanders did not, however, follow up on that, thereby ignoring the fact that Bill and Hilary Clinton, both enjoying the benefits of the Wall Street corporations of the China Lobby, have for decades been directly and personally involved in the political coverup of what is the de facto Genocidal occupation of the formerly independent nation of Tibet by the government and military of the People's Republic of China. And it is a fact that for decades Bill and Hillary Clinton have been trying to intimidate me for my Free Tibet work and my exposure of their involvement in the coverup.
  U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton was not pleased about my decision in 2005-06 to run against her for the U.S. Senate as a Federal Elections Commission-registered candidate, my candidacy being reported in Newsday, The New York Times, several college newspapers and local and national broadcast media. (Visit That fact explains why at my 2006 appointment on a serious constituent matter with Robert Cataldo, the Chief of Staff to my NYS Senator Diane Savino (D.-Staten Island/Bklyn.) Mr. Cataldo went berserk and majorly threatened me for several minutes in Ms. Savino's Staten Island district office, which, in anticipation of my scheduled arrival, he had emptied of all other staff, thereby assuring him that there would be no witnesses to his planned de facto act of terrorism against me.
  I have since learned, as I suspected, that Ms. Savino is a pal of Hillary Clinton and that, to quote Staten Island Democratic Party official Mendy Mirocznik verbatim, Robert Cataldo is a repeat offender and that "Robert Cataldo is a member of the Sicilian Mob."
  The incident is recorded as "criminal harassment" in my complain to the NYPD #2006-120-8244.
  Because Robert Cataldo and Diane Savino have violated my Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights and because of the Mafia connection, at the requests of then U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District Loretta Lynch I have sent a detailed complaint to the U.S. Department of Justice. At the request of the FBI, I have send detailed reports to then FBI's Washington, D.C. and NYC offices.
 The entire Hillary Clinton-controlled Democratic Party establishment - from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, down to the Hillary Clinton-controlled largely white Staten Island Democratic Association(SIDA) and probably the largely African-American Staten Island Political Action Club (SIPAC) - are involved in the political coverup of the Hillary connected political mob vs. me in "The People's Republic of Staten Island", where the local mainstream newspaper, the Staten Island Advance, owned by a reactionary multibillionaire named Donald Newhouse, has been protecting the politically corrupt of both major parties for decades.
  I will not endorse or vote for a presidential candidate, in this case Hilary Clinton, who is obsessed with the accumulation of wealth in the pursuit of political power, who is indifferent to Genocide, who had violated my privacy and my civil rights and who is connected in any way to the Mafia.
  Mitchel Cohen has told me that at least some of "The Newmanites" have been separated from the Green Party. That is a positive development. There is at least one guy, (Green Party member?) often very belligerent, who was a visible and hostile to me supporter of a Green Party congressional candidate in an election last year in which I was also a candidate, and who made a couple of threats against me and an acquaintance at the recent event in Staten Island memorializing the police-inflicted death of Eric Garner.
  I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton and I'm not voting for Donald Trump. I am not inclined to vote for the candidate of a political party, the Libertarians, who, as far as I am aware, are philosophically opposed to rent controls.
  I will certainly consider endorsing a candidate who tells the truth, promises to attack the problems of economic inequality/poverty/homelessness, supports self-determination for Tibet, and is ready to discuss corruption involving presidential candidates and human rights in general. If Jill Stein does that, she should certainly be able to reach the 15% in the pre-election polls to be in the first presidential debate on September 26 at Hofstra University. Presidential debates can generate unanticipated results.
  At the very least, on stage debating Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Jill Stein will be a major breath of political fresh air.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home