Every day the candidates compete to prove they are friends of business. They brush over the plight of the working class people they should be representing as if it is an embarrassment.
So candidate Andy Burnham makes much of his campaigning over the NHS but declares, “In my Labour Party, the entrepreneur will be as much our hero as the nurse.”
The bosses’ paper the Financial Times is relishing such talk.
An editorial last week said Labour needs to “treat the private sector as a potential ally in the delivery of public services rather than spinning horror stories of profiteering and abuse”.
And Burnham has said he would advocate welfare cuts somewhere “in between” zero and the £12 billion the Tories want to drive through.
There is no candidate of the left as none could secure the 35 nominees needed to take part.
Despite this, left Labour MP John McDonnell argued, “We do have the intellectual resources to dominate the ideological and policy debate in this leadership election.” The reality is that the right is shaping the debate.
The Labour left says that “the main forms of effective resistance will be on the streets, in occupations and on picket lines”.
Yet this is still in the context of winning people to Labour.
Instead we need to offer a credible alternative to the left of Labour. Right now the left is too divided to provide such an alternative. Socialist Worker has consistently argued for unity to build effective opposition to Tory attacks.
We see the organised working class as having the potential power to defy Tory rule.
The problem is that many union leaders have been unwilling to lead effective action, or have retreated at key moments when strikes could have pushed forward and won.
The priority for socialists today is not picking the best of a very bad lot in the Labour leadership election.
Instead we need to build every fight that can challenge the Tories over austerity, racism, union rights and all the other attacks.
The People’s Assembly demonstrations on 20 June will see thousands descend onto the streets of London and Glasgow to march against the Tories.
This can bring together trade unionists, welfare campaigners, school students, anti-racist activists and everyone else who was gutted to see the Tories win.
If they are big it can give confidence to many workers that a fight against the cuts is possible.
The Tories face many problems in pushing through their programme with a small majority.
We need to build the sort of resistance that they can’t ignore.
by David Ferreira
Municipal and regional elections took place in Spain at the weekend, with platforms rooted in social movements making significant gains – particularly in Barcelona where anti-eviction activist Ada Colau has been elected the new mayor. Since Syriza’s victory in January, these elections have been touted as a weathervane not only for Spain’s political trajectory ahead of the national elections later this year, but also for the feasibility of any future ‘anti-austerity bloc’ at EU level. Here are David Ferreira’s reflections:
1. Left-wing citizens’ platforms are on the rise.
The big results of the night that grabbed international attention were the performances in Barcelona and Madrid by left-wing platforms which involved high levels of neighbourhood and community engagement as well as backing from traditional and emerging parties of the left. In Barcelona Ada Colau, former spokeswoman for the renowned anti-home eviction network PAH (Platform for Mortgage Victims), led Barcelona en Comú (Barcelona in Common) to victory with 27% of the vote.
In Madrid, a similar political initiative, Ahora Madrid (Now Madrid) won 32% the vote, finishing just behind the ruling right-wing Popular Party (PP). Ahora Madrid is better positioned to govern should it reach an agreement with the Spanish socialist party, PSOE.
2. Madrid and Barcelona weren’t the only major cities to bring thrills to a left sick of the dominance of PSOE and PP.
Those results were more or else expected. The shock came in the third biggest city, Valencia, where Compromis, a regionalist and left alternative party, polled in second place with 23% of the vote, just shy of PP’s 26%. Opinion surveys just a week ahead of the elections had PP winning 31% and Compromis at 16%. Benefitting from the left majority elected in the city, Compromis can govern with the support of the Spanish socialists and Valencia en Comú.
3. The results don’t stop there.
In the fifth biggest city, Zaragoza en Comun (Zaragoza in Common) won just shy of a quarter of the vote. In Palma de Mallorca, leftist formations MES-APIB and Som Palma got a combined 30% of the vote. In Alacant, Guanyar Alacant won 19% of the vote and Compromis 9%. Crowds celebrating the result there chanted “Not one more home eviction!” when they saw the results.
One of the most decisive results came in Cadiz where two leftist formations won 36% of the vote. In A Coruña, Marea Atlantica (Atlantic Tide) came first with 31%. These are extraordinary results for leftist formations which are in most cases barely a year old. Their high levels of participation made them flexible and best suited to their local cultures and conditions, in sharp contrast to national parties.
4. It wasn’t all city elections, however.
One of the most compelling results came in the Valencia regional elections. There, the infamously corrupt PP crashed from 48% of the vote to 26%. They still finished first but have no hope of governing after the Socialists, Compromis, and Podemos took 55 of 99 seats. This isn’t just a politically significant result. It also has cultural and historic resonance as a party like Compromis – situated ideologically in the Valencian nationalist left – is poised to enter, if not lead, a left coalition government. Just this past October on the Valencian national holiday, Compromis members were subjected to vicious abuse by Spanish fascists who consider Compromis a Catalan fifth column. The ruling PP fuels this hatred, having shut down the only public Catalan language channel in Valencia, RTVV, and blocking the signal of Catalonia’s public TV channel. Thousands in Valencia celebrated both the regional and city results, and the unemployed RTVV workers were among the joyous crowds.
5. In Navarre, there was an equally if not greater defeat of the ruling political order.
The conservatives of UPN (Navarrese People’s Union), which has governed for most of the last two and a half decades, had their worst result since 1987 – 27% of the vote. Crucially, a number of leftist and Basque nationalist parties now hold a majority. One of those parties, EH Bildu, is a left-wing, pro-independence party that was at one point outlawed by the Spanish government.
One of Bildu’s main figures is one of the most prominent political prisoners in Europe today, Arnaldo Otegi – jailed for his purely political efforts to organize a party of the Basque pro-independence left. Bildu participating in government in Navarre is one of those worst case scenarios for the Spanish right that may play out in the coming days.
6. No summary of local elections can neglect the CUP (Popular Unity Candidates).
This formation of the Catalan far-left is ideologically committed to municipal politics, despite making the leap in 2012 to the Catalan parliament. Sunday’s elections were a big result for CUP, winning 374 seats in city councils, making it the fourth-largest formation in Catalonia. It also entered Barcelona’s city council for the first time, winning 7.4% of the vote and three seats.
Ada Colau of Barcelona en Comú has expressed her interest in working with CUP, which can deliver some essential votes on her more left-wing policy ambitions such as stopping home evictions and aiding families who can’t afford utilities. CUP’s success in Barcelona and in other cities shows that the choice between Catalan independence and leftist ambitions is a false one: those in CUP would argue the two go hand in hand.
It strikes me this is worth posting if only to stir a bit of comment and controversy. Who would be on your list? And who would be on your list of most inept or ineffective Presidents? Calvin Coolidge, anyone? How about U S Grant? Millard Fillmore? Gerald Ford? You choose…
LARRY SCHWARTZ, ALTERNET 23 MAR 2015
It is difficult to distinguish an evil act from an evil person. Few people, for example, would argue that Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, and Josef Stalin were not evil men. But if killing lots of people is the criteria, Abraham Lincoln was a pretty evil guy, too; he just happened to be on the right side of history. As the saying goes, history is written by the winners and, it seems, the winners get to decide who is evil. For a long time, we Americans have thought of ourselves as a shining beacon of goodness. Ronald Reagan stoked that mood with his “Morning in America” administration. Meanwhile, those bad guys over there in the Soviet “Evil Empire” were wreaking their havoc. Only, the rest of the world does not quite see it that way. Distrust of America is growing and we are seen as one of the biggest perpetrators of evil and bloodshed, the“Great Satan” to some. This confuses Americans because that’s not what we see when we look at ourselves in the mirror, and through the lens of American exceptionalism.
The point is, objective truths are hard to pin down, and subjective truths are many and contradictory. Adolph Hitler was evil because he killed people out of spite and a bankrupt and hate-filled ideology (although he also probably didn’t see himself as evil when he looked in the mirror.) Lincoln was not evil because he was forced into the position of killing people for the preservation of the country. But many Germans worshipped Hitler, and many in the Confederacy despised Lincoln.
No one sets out to do evil, U.S. Presidents included. Our most murderous, warmongering presidents did not intend to become killers, but they did end up committing acts that are considered evil. Here are six of the most evil Presidents in our history (followed by a healthy list of runner-ups.)
1. Andrew Jackson
Andrew Jackson, Old Hickory, our seventh president, was beloved by the common people of the United States. He was a populist who railed against the federal banking system, a man who grew up poor and climbed the ladder to ultimate power, a war hero, a romantic who pined for his wife who passed away only days after he won the presidency. He was a slave owner who believed in the morality of owning human chattel (although many of our early presidents owned slaves and felt similarly). What set Jackson apart, and places him high in the “Evil President” ranks was his actions against Native Americans. Simply put, Andrew Jackson never met an Indian he liked or felt obliged to respect. Appointed by President Thomas Jefferson to wage war on the Creek and Cherokee tribes in order to gain their territory, Jackson was a brutal Indian killer whose nickname Sharp Knife was well earned. At his command, his troops killed not only vast numbers of male Native Americans, but also women and children. Millions of acres of land was stolen from the tribes during his campaigns. In 1818 Jackson and his men invaded Spanish Florida and incited the First Seminole War, killing Seminoles and capturing escaped slaves who lived among them. As he illegally swept through Florida, he, “violated nearly every standard of justice,” wrote historian Bertram Wyatt-Brown. Long before ethnic cleansing became a term to describe the terrible war crime, Jackson perfected the practice. Supporting and signing, as President, the Indian Removal Act in 1830, over 46,000 Native Americans were forcibly removed from their homes and lands east of the Mississippi River and marched to reservations in the western territories. In one such forced march, which occurred after Jackson left office, 4000 Cherokees died during the infamous Trail of Tears. Millions of acres of Indian land was seized and handed over to the white slave aristocracy. Old Hickory carried his actions against Native Americans out despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” cried Jackson.
2. Harry Truman
Famous for the sign on his desk, “The Buck Stops Here”, Harry ”Give ‘Em Hell” Truman never shied away from his decision to drop the A-bomb on Japan. Debate has raged ever since. In 1945, Truman ordered the U.S. military to drop atom bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Was his action, which literally incinerated many thousands of civilian men, women, and children, and crippled and mutilated many thousands more, justified in order to end World War Two and save the lives of a million American soldiers, who would have had to invade mainland Japan otherwise? That is the argument in favor of the decision, but that turns out to be disingenuous. Japan was willing to surrender to the United States in July of 1945 with one condition, that the Japanese Emperor Hirohito not be tried as a war criminal. The truth was that Japan was virtually helpless by this time, its military in a shambles, its cities bombed, and its people starving. Truman ignored the offer, and in August ordered the bombs dropped. Since the U.S. ultimately granted that condition anyway, the dropping of the bombs was unnecessary, and the horrific death and destruction that resulted was also unnecessary.
3. William McKinley
When most people think of William McKinley, our 25th President, they are most likely to think of America’s fattest president. Weighing in at over 300 pounds, McKinley was a mountain of a man. He also was a man with blood on his hands, the blood of hundreds of thousands of Filipino people. At the conclusion of the Spanish-American War in 1898, in which the United States defeated Spain, McKinley found himself with the question of what to do about the Philippines. The Filipino people had expected to be given their independence, which they had fought with Spain over prior to the war. Instead, McKinley decided, “that we could not leave them to themselves – they were unfit for self-government – and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain’s was; and…that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God’s grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died.” Thus, under McKinley’ mandate, the U.S. brutally put down the Filipino insurrection in a war that lasted until 1902. “I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn: the more you kill and burn, the better you will please me,” said one of McKinley’s generals, General Jacob H. Smith. Tens of thousands died in direct combat in the guerrilla war, and hundreds of thousands more from disease transmitted in the concentration camps where Filipino prisoners were herded.
4. Ronald Reagan
Today’s Republican Party may remember The Gipper as a saintly figure, but it is doubtful that many in the gay community share the sentiment. In the 1980s, an unidentified disease began decimating the gay community, and in 1981 it was identified as AIDS. While not specifically a gay disease, it was the homosexual community (as well as intravenous drug users) that was primarily infected with it in the United States at first. Reagan’s attitude towards homosexuals was well known. While campaigning for President in 1980, Reagan referred to gay civil rights: “My criticism is that [the gay movement] isn’t just asking for civil rights; it’s asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I.” His beliefs carried over into his administration, and he virtually ignored the AIDS crisis for the several years as it ravaged and killed thousands of infected people. Even his old Hollywood friend Rock Hudson’s death from the disease did not sway him from his indifference to the suffering. Reagan’s Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop was specifically prevented from speaking out about the ways to minimize contracting AIDS. When he did speak about it, The Great Communicator actually served to inflame the crisis. Despite the Centers for Disease Control issuing a report that casual contact did not pose a threat to contract AIDS, parents in many parts of the country spoke out against allowing children with AIDS (who mostly contracted AIDS through blood transfusions) to attend school. Rather than soothing these fears, Reagan stoked them. “…medicine has not come forth unequivocally and said, This we know for a fact, that it is safe. And until they do, I think we just have to do the best we can with this problem.” It was only after organizations like ACT UP, and celebrities like Elizabeth Taylor, began pressuring Reagan to acknowledge the crisis that he allowed Koop to issue a report in 1986, a full five years after the disease was identified. Even then, his Administration was ultimately at odds with Koop, as the report went way beyond what Reagan wanted, rejecting AIDS testing and urging use of condoms and sex education.
5. Andrew Johnson
Andrew Johnson, 17th President of the United States, was just not a worthy successor to Abraham Lincoln. Maybe anyone succeeding The Great Emancipator would suffer in comparison, but Johnson energetically earned his incompetence with deeds that the African Americans in the former Confederacy could truly consider evil. Considering the fact that Johnson was a fervent racist, and pre-Civil War slave owner, who believed in the inferiority of African Americans, it was no surprise that the Reconstruction of the South, post-Civil War, did not go as Lincoln would have liked. “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men,” wrote Johnson in a letter to the governor of Missouri. In 1867, in his message to Congress, he said, “…wherever they [black people] have been left to their own devices they have shown a constant tendency to relapse into barbarism.” In order to minimize the influence of newly freed slaves, and to prevent the redistribution of land to them, he pardoned all but the most egregious Confederates, and they quickly began grabbing the seats of government. Soon after, they began passing “Black Codes”, laws that, while granting some rights, effectively made African Americans second-class citizens. Radical Republicans in the Congress passed a civil rights bill, which Johnson promptly vetoed, claiming the bill unfairly favored people of color over whites (the veto was overturned). In response, the Congress created the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, giving African Americans equal protection under the law. Johnson vehemently campaigned against the amendment.
6. James Buchanan
There’s a lot not to like about our 15th President, James Buchanan, not the least of which is that he fiddled while Rome burned, i.e., he allowed the country to slide to the brink of civil war, which it did shortly after his successor, Abraham Lincoln, took office. The issue that the American Civil War revolved around was, of course, slavery. During Buchanan’s administration, the debate in the air was whether slavery would be legal in U.S. territories, or would only be decided once statehood was imminent. Northern interests leaned towards territorial decision, where the decision could be made before significant numbers of slave owners arrived. The South preferred that states make the decision, believing that at that point, slave owners could flood the soon-to-be state and vote it pro-slavery. Buchanan sided with the southern states on the issue, and saw an opportunity to have the courts decide the matter. On the Supreme Court docket was a case involving a slave, Dred Scott. Scott sued for his freedom, based on the claim that he had lived for a period of time with his owner in Illinois and Wisconsin (at the time, part of Minnesota), both free under the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (which had limited slavery primarily to Southern states and had diffused the issue for several years). There were five southern justices on the Court, but they let Buchanan know they were inclined to allow an earlier lower court ruling stand and not make new federal law. However, Buchanan was informed that if northern judge Robert Cooper Grier could be persuaded to side with the Southerners, the Court would agree to rule on the matter. Improperly infringing on judicial territory, Buchanan proceeded to write Grier and request that he side with the Southerners, which Grier agreed to do. The resulting Dred Scott decision declared that slaves were not citizens and could not therefore sue. Secondly, it said that slaves were property, not people, and were therefore protected by the Constitution in all territories and could not be prohibited there. The decision invalidated the Missouri Compromise. The President of the United States, James Buchanan, colluded with the Supreme Court to eliminate territorial barriers to slavery, opened the door to the expansion of the “peculiar institution”, and ultimately set the stage for the Civil War.
Some Evil Runner-ups
George W. Bush: For invading Iraq under false pretenses (“Weapons of Mass Destruction”), resulting in the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens.
James Polk: For starting a war with Mexico under the doctrine of “Manifest Destiny” (the belief that the United States was destined to expand and acquire land), resulting in the deaths of 25,000 Mexicans and the theft of most of southwest North America.
Franklin Roosevelt: For the imprisonment of over 100,000 Japanese American citizens for the crime of looking Asian.
Lyndon Johnson: For expansion of the Vietnam War while lying to the American people about both the reasons for the war and the prospects for victory.
Richard Nixon: For further expanding the Vietnam War after promising a secret plan to end it, and illegally spying on American citizens perceived as political enemies.
Dwight Eisenhower: For authorizing the overthrow of the Iranian government via the CIA, resulting in the coronation of the Shah, countless subsequent political murders, and ultimately the rise of Muslim extremism.
By Shaun Harkin on 25th April 2015
A recent article by Eoin Ó Broin in Sinn Féin’s An Phoblacht criticised the SWP for condemning the Stormont House Agreement, claiming socialists who put forward any arguments against their role in the North were “shouting in the service of the system”.
Authors: Michael Collins and Shaun Harkin
A recent article by Eoin Ó Broin in Sinn Féin’s An Phoblacht criticised the SWP for condemning the Stormont House Agreement, claiming socialists who put forward any arguments against their role in the North were “shouting in the service of the system”.
Ó Broin’s attack on Eamonn McCann is in many ways reflective of the ever growing contradictions in Sinn Féin itself. Presenting itself as a radical opponent to austerity in the South, they now face the worrying prospect of a resurgent anti-austerity movement in the North, with 50,000 workers taking strike action against the impact of the Stormont House Agreement. This is a deal agreed by Sinn Féin and the DUP, which proposes unprecedented levels of austerity, and in its own words seeks to “reduce the size of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the wider public sector”.
Yet Ó Broin is as patronising in his dismissal of the thousands of striking workers, as he is of veteran socialist Eamonn McCann for highlighting their cause. The strike, Ó Broin claims, was not against austerity per se, but only focused on two aspects of the Agreement. According to him these were; 1. The plans to reduce corporation tax to levels of the South, and 2. The 20,000 redundancies being pushed through the civil service.
It is a lazy and dishonest assessment from Ó Broin, but even more so, an insult to the thousands of workers who took part. Ó Broin has, in fact, got the elementary facts of the situation wrong. First and foremost, it is legally impossible for Trade Unions to come out on the basis that the Assembly will reduce corporation tax alone. Thatcher’s anti-trade Union laws of the 1980’s seen to that, and Stormont hasn’t lifted a finger to try and remove these laws. There is widespread revulsion amongst Trade Unionists about Stormont’s plans to reduce corporation tax, but no one was specifically balloted on it.
As for his second claim: the 20,000 civil service redundancies (which the Assembly have borrowed £700 million for) affect only one section of workers balloted. Trade Unions are correct to condemn this scheme, which will see thousands of jobs go at the cost of hundreds of millions. But it was only one aspect of why people were striking. If the strike focused solely on voluntary redundancies, how does Ó Broin explain the fact that health workers were out, INTO teachers were out, Classroom assistants were out and transport workers were out? All of these groups of workers are facing redundancies, not just civil servants.
The Stormont House Agreement is the North’s equivalent to the EU-IMF Troika memorandum implemented in the South over the last few years. For that reason it has received widespread condemnation across the labour movement. The truth is Trade Unions were explicit in their reasons for taking strike action. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions took full page advertisements in every newspaper across the North stating clearly, “No-one voted for our elected politicians to do a deal like this. The Trade Unions reject the Stormont House deal. It is bad for workers, for all communities, for society, and for equality.’
Ó Broin argues that McCann and the SWP should give Sinn Féin ‘tactical’ support. When Sinn Féin speak against austerity, and oppose it by deed, they should be supported. But the deal agreed by Sinn Féin and the Democratic Unionist Party is an anti-working class deal. It will deepen austerity in the North. It will lay the basis for further privatisation of public services and the selling off of public assets. It will reduce the public sector so that the private sector can flourish, meaning a low wage, low tax economy for big business. The reduction of the Corporate Tax rate is not a demand of the labour movement but is a demand of profit hungry corporations.
In the North, there are daily reports on the impact of the cuts. Bus and rail services are to be reduced; library hours will be reduced; funding for arts, environment and poverty programs is being cut; student places and hundreds of teaching positions in our universities will disappear; education will suffer when teaching assistants are taken out of the classroom. This is why there is outrage. This explains why there has been mass resistance through strikes, protests, petitions and demonstrations. This explains why the resistance will continue, with Translink workers calling a day’s strike action
The reason why Ó Broin has lashed out at McCann and the Socialist Workers Party is because Sinn Féin is on the wrong side of this austerity budget, and are now coming under real pressure from social movements north of the border, which expose their inherent contradictions North and South. His claims that the SWP are ‘shouting in the service of the system’ fail to acknowledge one crucial point: in the North Sinn Féin are part of the system, and have presided over a power sharing government since 2007, of which public sector job losses, pay freezes, PFI schemes and privatisation have all been common features.
The SWP believe that we need to develop a Left, organised on both sides of the border, with a consistent opposition to austerity across Ireland.
(Source: awwdammit, via gnarrrgh)
courtesy of: rawstory
Americans Want Treason Charges For 47 Republicans Who Threatened Iran (PETITION)
Update: We’ve updated this article to more clearly define the definition of treason.
There are times when the word “traitor” is thrown around lightly. This is not one of those times. And while their actions may meet the legal definition of ‘sedition’ more than ‘treason,’ Republicans have consistently been trying to usurp President Obama’s authority by derailing negotiations with Iran. Though their invitation to Netanyahu doesn’t equate to treason, their directly contacting Iran’s leaders to stop the peace process violates federal law. And Americans aren’t taking it any longer.
REPUBLICANS THREATEN IRAN
When Republicans invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress, without even consulting the White House, it became obvious that they were trying to override the President’s authority. Netanyahu and the Republicans’ main goal in doing this was to hinder the negotiations process with Iran, which could prevent an all out war that would engulf the entirety of the Middle East.
The move was undoubtedly shady, but it wasn’t all that surprising. The real kicker happened when, as we reported, 47 Republicans in the Senate wrote a threatening letter to the leaders of Iran informing them that any deal reached with the President would be null and void if a Republican were ever to enter the White House. Also very disturbing is the fact that Tom Cotton, the freshman Republican senator from Arkansas who organized the letter announced he will be attending a major gathering of lobbyists for weapons contractors on Tuesday, where he will speak off the record. Pissed off yet? You and millions of others.
VIOLATION OF THE LOGAN ACT
Even the most staunch Republican cannot deny that directly contacting Iran, in an effort to derail the President’s authority, is downright shady and unethical. Unfortunately for those 47 Republicans in Congress, it’s also a felony.
As it turns out, The Logan Act is a federal law, signed in 1799 and last amended in 1994, which prevents unauthorized citizens from communicating with foreign governments for a variety of reasons. The text of the law is as follows:
“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.”
This means that Republicans outright violated federal law in an effort to usurp President Obama’s authority. They were in no way authorized to communicate with the leaders of Iran. Punishment under this law is a maximum of three years in prison.
Americans recognize this, and so a petition was created on the White House website to file charges against the 47 Senators who violated the law. As of this writing, hundreds of signatures were being added every few minutes.
The White House petition website works in a way that, when a petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the White House has to issue a response. The Republicans have undoubtedly overstepped their authority and attacked the integrity of the entirety of our country, and it’s time that they were held accountable.Note: There appears to be a glitch on the White House petition page which has frozen the number of signatures. Rest assured that the tally is much higher than it is showing.
Image courtesy Keith Allison.
By capper 3/16/15
In about three weeks, Wisconsin will have yet another important election regarding the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The incumbent is Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. Bradley has a reputation of enforcing the Constitution and making decisions based on the law and on what is just. She feels so strongly about this that a Supreme Corporate Injustice, David Prosser,…
via Pueo Eyes.
Punish the 47.