In response to my previous diatribe (on the MD Green Party listserv) about Nader, 9-11 and the November elections I got an email from a Green. The writer asks:s Who would I support when Kucinich and Sharpton are no longer running? (In this likely scenario McKinney will continue to be refusing to join the Greens. Also, Nader is running as an Independent.)

I'll assume that the reader is familiar with the arguments about why 9-11 was a fraud that had nothing to do with Muslims. (If not, some recommended links are at the bottom.) In addition, that the reader understands the stakes involved this year. Without trying to being overly dramatic about it, the 2004 elections in the US are shaping up to be the most important in world history. The outlook for most of the world if Bush and the neoconservatives are not removed from power is exceptionally bleak.

At this time I don't have a strong feeling for whether I'd vote for Nader or Dean. One votes for Dean to stop Bush now, for Nader to save the country over time. Both are credible goals. We know what the cost is to vote for Nader. (In Democrat-safe Maryland the cost is neglible. Elsewhere in the country it is not a vote to remove Bush from office.) It is also hard to determine at the present what the cost will be to vote for Dean. (Just how close to Bush Dean really is unclear. At this writing, Dean has a very similiar foreign policy. Still, there is some sign that Dean might be the leading candidate for the subject of 9-11 to be critically discussed in public. Also, Dean's poll numbers soared when he opposed the Iraq war. If he gets in trouble perhaps he'd appeal to the antiwar movement to regain his political strength.)

Greens should understand there is a limited lifespan for the "not voting for the lesser of two evils argument." There is no known Green Party in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. The speed with which this country is moving towards a dictatorship suggests that life very shortly may compare to living in those places. With the understanding that "whom one should support in 2004" means not simply voting, but actually working for, I'm not working for any candidate who isn't making the integrity of the 2004 election his or her top issue. That may mean that I won't be supporting anyone in particular.

The Most Important Issue in 2004

This an election about information. The only way that Bush and company can be stopped is if the Internet (and word of mouth) can generate a grassroots movement to save the 2004 US Presidential election. The general public, exposed to politics exclusively from the mainstream media, receives too narrow a range of expression for democracy to exist. That seemingly makes the task of the Bush regime sponsoring another 9-11 (or a much less elaborate hoax) in order to declare martial law very easy.

I believe a race is on between the Bush regime and the democracy-minded activists. That race is being conducted largely over the Internet. If another 9-11 is pulled off before activists can expose to large numbers of people what the Bush regime is doing--they win. If not, democracy may win. At this writing the outcome of this contest is uncertain.

When tens of millions marched against the upcoming war last February (2/2002) democracy was winning and the Bush regime was clearly losing. The amount of constructive information that circulated prior to those marches was staggering. It was far more impressive than all of the feet that made it to the marches--although obviously they were a big plus.

Let's be clear about the Bush regime's intentions. A concentration camp in Cuba is holding hundreds of men and teenagers taken from a battlefield on another continent, held indefinitely in open-air cages for two years. They are continuously interrogated, with no access to any courts for relief. Thousands more immigrants have been swept up, imprisoned without access to a lawyer. They are locked away seemingly forever. US citizens are being detained indefinitely with no access to attorneys, with no charges ever brought forward, arrested solely on the word of the Chief Executive. The government has given itself the ability to extract pretty much any fact known about you without a warrant. Voting machines produced by a company whose leader boasts in a fundraising letters of his ability to produce votes for the ruling party, etc.

That sounds to me like a police state is near.

Ralph Nader

The problem with Greens and Independents supporting Ralph Nader is very little of his message is tailored towards the #1 issue (i.e., the 2004 election. By the way, I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000 and am a Green Party member since 1996.) Nader tells every audience not to worry about the possibility we're heading rapidly towards a police state; instead focus on his ideas about excessive corporatism, environmental racism and degradation, economic inequality, health care, pensions, etc. It is a great message. However, it comes at the wrong time.

Nader won't change his focus, either. I spent some time in his company (with 30 or so others) recently and he made it clear he won't raise alarms about the 2000 election theft, 9-11, the concentration camp in Cuba and other subjects of maximum immediate concern.

We cannot work very hard for someone who isn't working on behalf of the integrity of the next election. If that leaves us with no candidates to supprt then so be it. This election is not about campaigns. It is about the ideas that must be conveyed if a free election takes place. Candidates aren't Messiahs; we've got to build this movement ourselves.

Beating Bush

We can beat Bush. We did it in February, 2003. The neocons were out of their twisted minds at seeing tens of millions marching around this tiny blue ball of fun.

To beat them we must tell people about Guantanamo, Jose Padilla, the immigrants detained, 9-11, etc.

September 11 remains the greatest Achilles Heel they've got. Even if one accepts the cartoon story of the 19 homicidal, suicidal Muslim hijackers flying Boeings into buildings there still is the issue of negligence. No captain of a ship is allowed to stay in charge if he makes a serious mistake in the line of fire (John F. Kennedy not withstanding). So too, no one should expect that the Commander in Chief shouldn't receive some form of court martial for his terrible example of negligence.

Those who are willing to get more involved with 9-11 should support Ellen Mariani's lawsuit against the Bush administration.

One doesn't have to know every detail of what the 911 Truth Movement is dealing with to spread Ellen's website around. It takes unimaginable courage to do what she's doing. So pass Ellen Mariani's site along, progressives! Support her!

For those who insist in getting even further involved with 911--by researching or writing about it--check out the three websites below. Then keep on exploring until you find other people who have the same interest you do.

If you can't bring yourself to discuss 9-11 at all then concentrate on the other aspects of the encroaching police state. There are millions of people in the US that must be reached. Meanwhile, the sands are falling from the hourglass very swiftly.

peace,
Scott Loughrey Top

Muslims Suspend the Laws of Physics

The collapse of the Twin Towers

Why did WTC 7, a 45-story steel building, suddenly collapse?