Support 911Blogger


We Are CHANGE - 200 Chapters Strong and Growing

We Are CHANGE - 200 Chapters Strong and Growing

In October of 2006 a small group of us got together because we wanted to make a difference. Living in NYC or the surrounding area, each of us had been greatly affected by the events on 9-11 and we wanted answers to the questions that the powers-at-be refused to answer. A month later we started C.H.A.N.G.E., The Coalition for Halting the Agenda of the Nefarious Global Elite. We liked having the word "change” to represent us because we all believed in Gandhi’s method of peaceful, non-violent revolution. It was also his saying, "Be the change you want to be in the world." that inspired us to no longer sit on the sidelines and to get involved. Soon after the website launched, we morphed into We Are CHANGE.

So now it is three years later and there are now 200 We Are CHANGE chapters. That is simply amazing and humbles all of us here who started this thing that cold October evening. We never dreamed of having chapters or that we could inspire a world-wide movement of so many wonderful people to take action and defend freedom. So at this time from the bottom of our hearts we wish to thank all you who have supported us. For every kind word, thank you! For every penny donated, thank you! For every chapter member who inspires another to action, thank you! Without all of you, there is no We Are CHANGE. Whether you are one person standing on a street corner handing our flyers or 100 strong putting on large events, all us together will create change.

Additionally, to those who criticize and attack us, we thank you as well. You keep us motivated and let us know we are on the right path. We might not be perfect but we know we're doing our best to do what's right to defend freedom. Your attacks disclose that there is still much work to be done and that we must never stop.

And lastly, to the global crime syndicate referred to as the New World Order and to all those who serve this evil...we have only begun to resist. We know you have already lost, we know that truth and love will prevail, and we will never stop resisting your tyranny until every right guaranteed to us in the Constitution of the United States is granted to not only all Americans, but every single person on planet Earth. These are inalienable rights guranteed to every man, woman and child, and no one can ever take them away!

Now is the time people, BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD!!

Those that do.......

find a way. Those that don't find an excuse. Thanks for the post !

way to go....

we are change!!

First time I met...

Luke Rudkowski...


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

We are change

We are change is the best of all the 9/11 truth groups bar none. What great work you guys and gals are doing. Please keep it up. I love ya all.

YES YES YES

WAC- you make my day! Keep Growing Stay Strong. You are all heroes in my book.

A few things got glossed over

"In October of 2006 a small group of us got together because we wanted to make a difference. Living in NYC or the surrounding area, each of us had been greatly affected by the events on 9-11 and we wanted answers to the questions that the powers-at-be refused to answer."

The founding of WAC started with Les Jamieson (of NY911Truth) throwing Luke out St Mark's Church. Then there were the meetings at the 5th avenue deli in which the people attending voted specifically that the meetings were not WAC. The "naming vote" was even done twice at Luke's request, probably because the vote did not go how he wanted.

At Luke's request we agreed to say that the meetings were "shared events" between WAC & the group named New York City 9/11 Truth. Boy was that stupid to agree to. Word of advice, never "share" meetings between organizations.

So after a while Luke asserted that the meetings were only We Are Change meetings and that no other organization existed. With the constant turnover & not writing things down, I was the only one that even noticed the elimination of previous agreements. When i pointed this out, people like Tom Fotti were quick to make excuses. This tactic of attending meetings & then misrepresenting what has been voted upon in order to seize power is actually a tactic commonly used by facists. Not saying Luke is a fascist, merely noting the similarity in organizational tactics.

The founding of WAC was ugly. dishonest and is in need of some public airing.

Rick Siegel?


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

If you have questions, I will try to answer.

If you meant to say, "Are you Rick Siegel?" The answer is "no".

It seems that people on this site are often more concerned with the messenger than dealing with the message.

Sounds more like the lost soul paul issac

NYSentinel's comments throughout 9/11 Truth channels are very similar.

Regardless, C.H.A.N.G.E is one of the great successes of our day. Citizens are now empowered to act like never before using technology, guts, and smarts. Honest journalism is returning as the public benefits. Curious what some of the other founding members have to say.

Power???

Power over what?

The simple fact is, whatever name the folks that are active in doing 9/11 truth want to call themselves is not relevant, the activism is. And that's what they are doing, and the people from the old days of New York 9/11 Truth that are still active work under the umbrella of WAC too. I have no problem with it at all, and I come from the early days.

"control" would have been

a better choice of word. In the case referenced above, control of the meetings & decisions.

My choice about what organization I belong to does matter to me.

As a founding member of We Are Change

I can say with certainty that the group's creation was a natural, organic process guided by a group consensus. Our original purpose was to be a youth group. We even had a rule - no one over 30. Eventually, the young people of We Are Change decided to split off from NY911Truth because of fundamental differences in approach. This was agreed upon by a group consensus of the most active members of Change, including myself. No one individual is soley responsible. And I am incredibly proud of the great work we have done along with all the other groups in this movement, as we continue to work toward truth and accountability.

Consensus My Ass

Hi, my name is Jonathon.
I was present in NY911Truth before Luke showed up. I was present at the meetings in the 5th Avenue deli. I actually take notes when attending meetings. I also currently live in a communal situation that is genuinely consensus driven.

The point of historical fact that i bring up concerns the meetings on 5th ave, shortly after Les threw Luke out of St. Mark's Church. (I was nearby that evening too)

My point is that the people (adults) meeting at that time and place voted twice that we specifically would not be called "We Are Change". During the discussion before these votes (note: voting <> consensus) it was mentioned that WAC was a youth group. That was the main reason the adults meeting felt they wanted their own group. Luke then asked if the meetings being held could be "shared". We agreed because we thought, all of us being activists, that we could be trusted not to screw each other over.

After a month or so of meetings it was announced that these were solely WAC meetings and further stated that no other organization was represented by those meetings.

As a result a vital alternative in New York City to either Luke or Les was effectively squashed. And also WAC continued through a time when it's survival was in doubt.

This is not about who does work and who does not. I do not do "bragging". This is about setting the record straight. ...truth and accountability indeed.

I was present at all the earliest meetings

and took part in all the votes. All of the most active members of We Are Change were in agreement to splinter off into our own group. There was indeed a consensus, with all due respect.

You seem to be misunderestimating the definition of consensus.

Voting is not part of the consensus process. There are concerns, stand asides and blocks. In consensus, if everyone is not in agreement the proposal does not pass. The very idea of splintering (or squashing) a group against any participants wishes and calling it consensus is ridiculous.

It is also my point that ignoring previous agreements is not only 'not consensus', it's not even democratic.

I notice you use the phrase "All of the most active members of We Are Change". This is very similar to Luke's justification of his behavior at that time. His catch phrase was "those who do the work make the decisions." He also tended to ignore the work done by those he disagreed with. This attitude is not egalitarian, democratic or even remotely consensus based.

I urge the readers of 911blogger to be aware of what happens in meetings and how they can be subverted or controlled through force of personality.

Don't trust anyone over 30!

That was a saying when we were trying to stop the Viet Nam War.

Now I'm 66 and have acquired a taste for Kentucky Fried Crow. ;-)

I went to a meet and greet with Amy Goodman and gave her a one page summary on the free fall acceleration of WTC 7. I tried to talk about 9/11 as we walked from the meeting room to the lecture hall. She was not there. At the end I told her i enjoyed her talk and asked her to talk about 9/11 if she could. I saw a glimmer of light. Perhaps compassion and support will move those in the media who would like to speak out.

Congratulations WAC

With you in the struggle.

I'm going to make a shirt with that saying

"Those that do find a way, Those that don't find an excuse. Brilliant.

Since WAC are in the NYC area

Are they going to get involved, directly, with NYC politics? I mean, either by running candidates, or supporting candidates. At some point, the people of America have to do what's necessary to get politicians elected to office who are actually sympathetic to the plight of the average guy, much more than they are beholden to moneyed interests.

NY state is one of the few states that has fusion voting. That makes it much easier for 3rd parties to have an influence, and, AFAIK, that is what's happening with the Working Families Party. The Democratic and Republican parties are so corrupted, it doesn't make sense to me, at this time, to complicate any efforts (such as they are) for honest citizens to take them over by injecting 911Truth and other 'high strangeness' issues into electoral campaigns for Federal office.

However, NYC elections are local, the bulk of 911 casualties were there, fusion voting is allowed, and the Working Families Party has already had notable successes. All of which makes NYC the logical place for the 911 Truth Movement to first make a serious difference in electoral politics, in the US.

Success in NYC politics will hopefully encourage WAC chapters outside NY to a) push for fusion voting and b) open the minds of the public to the possibility of achieving serious reform, via the ballot box.

Without better people in Congress, not just 911 Truth, but any and all worthy activist causes will be forever reduced to begging those people who are the gatekeepers to political power in the US.

Bad Congress Critters = Bad Government, incapable of serious reform

http://www.DemocracyABC.org
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org

Fusion not the answer

Since I've been in NYC, I've observed how fusion voting works in this state. With rare exceptions, all it does is help to provide the Dem or Repub-nominated candidates a veneer of 'independence' by appearing on the ballot line of parties other than the corporate parties. Voters who like to think that they're going 'outside' the system by voting for a corporate candidate under a different label than 'D' or 'R' are kidding themselves. The corporate parties are still able to use this fusion voting system as a kind of safety valve, to channel voter dissatisfaction with the status quo into support for their candidates running under different labels.

This isn't the first time you've promoted the WFP on this site, and I so I will restate what I have said before--that it is a sham 'alternative,' that it works hand-in-hand with the Democrats--a war and empire party--which is why every time I see the party receive favorable mention, the source is invariably a Democrat. Plus, in 2006, when Cindy Sheehan had endorsed the antiwar Green Party candidates, the WFP circulated a flyer that falsely claimed she had endorsed the Democrat/WFP candidate.

If you say the WFP is having a postive influence, I'd like to know: what demands is it making on the Democrats in return for their cooperation, and are those demands being met? Or is that simply a rationale for the party's existence, the true reason being to serve as a means of defusing voter discontent by channeling it into voting for the same old candidates?

To become truly independent of the governing system which continues to bring us wars and the ongoing 9/11 coverup, we need to be wise to all their devises--such as those of 'seeming' independent, which aren't really independent.

I understand that this thread did not begin under this particular topic, but when I see you (again) promoting fusion voting and the WFP as some kind of answers, I feel compelled to respond, based on what I have observed.

Nobody said it was "the" answer

I'm really not the best person to answer most of your questions

For one thing, I live in NJ, and have no first-hand experience with the WFP! My positive impression of the WFP is based not only on what I see on their web site, but also the favorable impression of some sophisticated posters at OpenLeft. But I will make a point or two, and also dissect some of your statements. If I make any mis-statements, feel free to correct them.

First of all, you completely failed to mention the fact that WFP voters can run their own candidates. That's a rather glaring omission, no? While doing so may create the impression that the WFP as only a lackey of the D and R parties, it completely obscures the WFP's stated agenda, which is given here.

Secondly, you made a claim about the D and R "corporate parties" using the WFP, but you produced no evidence of how they managed to do so, or why we should infer that there was no quid pro quo that they reasonably expected would help them attain their publicly stated agenda. If you have an argument, stronger than your suspicion that any party which would encourage their members to selectively vote for a D or and R must be controlled by the D's and R's, please produce said argument. ( I am essentially asking you to do the opposite of what you asked me to do, via "I'd like to know: what demands is it making on the Democrats in return for their cooperation, and are those demands being met?" But I cannot answer your question, due to my limited knowledge of the WFP. Since you imply that you know otherwise, I'm reflecting this question back at you.)

Third, you seem to pre-suppose that all Democrats are alike, and all Republicans are alike. Do you? I would remind you that Ron Paul is a Republican, and Dennis Kucinich is a Democrat.

Fourth, imperatives of a city's political culture are far removed from the national scene. Do you really think that the D's or R's active in NYC politics spend much time or energy on the post 9/11 wars? Aren't they, in fact, more concerned about local real estate deals, garbage collection, local schools and local jobs? When you talk about a Democratic machine, or Republican machine, you are indeed talking about mechanisms and relationships that extend down to a local level. However, AFAIK, the main concern is turning out the vote. I sincerely doubt that D's and R's that play at the national level give a hoot about garbage collection in NYC, though I think they care a lot about the contribution of NYC voters to D and R candidates for Congress and President.

Fifthly, and somewhat tangentially, I'll take a guess here and assume that you've not really thought through the implications of what an "independent" political party will go through as it grows large enough in size to begin influencing policy, and thus affecting the fortunes of well-heeled corporations and individuals. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty", no matter how much a party PR machine might want you to forget that. Thus, the question of how to deal with corrupting influences within and without Party X will always be of concern, when X is big enough to matter. Or, to put this another way, do you suggest that every time a new, 'independent' party is infiltrated by shills, that it should be abandoned, rather than marginalizing the shills? if your answer is "no", then what are your suggestions for dealing with shills, and why should those suggestions not work in the D and R parties?

Sixth, I've never heard about WFP circulating a flyer falsely claiming that Cindy Sheehan endorsed the Democratic/WFP candidate. Some questions: which candidate are you talking about, was this an official act of the WFP, and if not, what did the WFP have to say about it? Did they condemn it? How many flyers are we talking about? A small number like 100, that would suggest a lone hoaxer, or tens of thousands, that would suggest either the WFP was involved in a major way, or the Democrats were involved in a major way, or both?

Lastly, the fact that fusion voting is legal means that a new party (say, e.g., the Truth and Accountability Party) could become influential much more readily than in a state where fusion voting is not legal. 911 Truthers could look to lead within WFP, or start another party where they would then attempt to influence the D, R, and WFP via fusion voting.

I never suggested that fusion voting was "the" answer, or even the most important part of the answer. In fact, if you look at my other posts at 911blogger, you will see somewhat vague suggestions of vote bloc technology, which, I claim, is on the horizon, and which I suggest can lead to significant reform, quickly.

The proof of the pudding for vote bloc technology will be in the "eating" - i.e., actual implementation and adoptions of the technology. Certainly, not me blabbering about something that doesn't exist, just yet. Absent that, it is my belief that we will be in for a downward spiral, which may have to reach the level of the Great Depression of the 1930's to generate the sorts of movements which can (once again, in American history) lead to substantial reforms.

A Great Depression redux is something I don't want to see, although it did bring out the best in many Americans. That was possible, IMO, because of FDR, who actually cared about the plight of poor and hopeless Americans. It's also my belief that the moral fiber of Americans was much superior, then, plus their families and smaller communities were stronger.

Looking around, I don't see many FDR II's, and instead of strong families and communities, I see a divorce rate of 50%, and people who don't even know their neighbors. So it is my hope that we completely avoid the sort of instability that, this time around, could lead to sustained chaos.

http://www.DemocracyABC.org
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org

Reply

True, you did not say fusion voting was 'the' answer, and I'm sorry for implying that that is your view. But I do stand by my characterization of how I have seen it function in practice. A 'glaring omission' to not mention that a party like WFP can run its own candidates? Notice I used the phrase 'with rare exceptions', because that's how it is. True, they could run their own candidates, but in practice the truth is that only rarely do I see a candidate on their line who isn't also the Democrats' candidate for that office.

As for the flyer I mentioned, from 2006, you asked which candidates am I talking about? I'm not certain about all the candidates mentioned, but I defintely recall that, for example, it claimed that Sheehan was endorsing the Democrat/WFP U.S. Senate candidate Hillary Clinton, when she had actually endorsed the Greens' Senate candidate Howie Hawkins (unlike Clinton, a genuine antiwar candidate; who also, BTW, supported a real 9/11 investigation). How many were sent out? I can't say--but I received one and heard from others at different locations around the city that they had as well, so I doubted it was just chance that we just happened to receive them but was instead part of your typical campaign mass mailing. They looked professionally done, and had the same colors and logo as was on the posters that their members had posted around the neighborhood. So I don't think it was some lone hoaxer.

Do I think all Democrats and all Republicans are alike? No; but I do know which agendas consistenly prevail within those organizations. Which leads to the question, what sense does it make to have, say, a Ron Paul in the same party as a George W. Bush? A Dennis Kucinich in the same party as a Hillary Clinton? What kind of programmatically coherent choice can possibly be presented to the voters in this way? Or maybe that confusion and lack of coherence is the point. I see figures like Paul and Kucinich as having no practical effect whatever on influencing government policies; but very much having a practical effect in terms of public attitudes--one of keeping false hope alive in their respective party organizations, so that activist energy gets diverted in trying to defeat the rule of big money through the very organizations where big money has shown it always prevails over reform efforts. I think politicians like Paul and Kucinich would have a more positive and lasting impact if they were to use what influence they have to tell their respective supporters that these parties of war, empire, cover-ups and corporate rule are beyond reform, and that they would be better off organizing outside of these institutions. And if such efforts were to grow in numbers and support, to the point that they began threatening some powerful interests (as you were hypothesizing, 'when X is big enough to matter'); and if such political formations, at such time, began to accept corporate contributions, then yes, indeed, rank and file members should either replace their leaders or break with them and start anew. (For those who might describe this as 'purism,' I would reply--no, that's realism, there are limits to compromise; often what gets promoted as 'pragmatic' is nothing more than a captiulation that only serves to perpetuate what we are supposed to be fighting against.)

I believe it was former Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis who said that we can either have a democracy, or we can have a society in which wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both. For decades, we've tried to kid ourselves that we can have both. Efforts that serve to expose and confront this contradiction I consider to be positive; and I guess I see the role of Paul, Kucinich, and parties like WFP--supposedly independent but in most cases giving another place on the ballot to the Democratic candidate--as ultimately serving more to continue concealing rather than expose this contradiction.

Re Kucinich and Paul

For Kucinich, Paul, and their supporters - who keep returning them to office for repeated terms - I think it makes perfect sense for them. As long as they vote with their respective parties more often than with the opposing parties, they can still count on some support from their party, and not have to hurdle over whatever barriers the D/R duopoly has set up for those who refuse to go through the mainstream parties. They will also not lose sympathetic, but partisan contributors - yes, I'm talking about the non-corporate, small donation kind.

Indeed, I take the continued refusal of Paul and Kucinich to leave their respective parties as evidence against the notion of starting a new third party, as opposed to activists taking over the D & R parties, from below. In the case of Paul, he first ran for President on the Libertarian Party ticket.

An interesting question to put to both Paul and Kucinich is: if you were running for local office in a state that allowed fusion voting, would you then consider running as a 3rd party candidate?

For some perspective on political calculus that can cross party boundaries, while not suggesting anything about changing one's mainstream party affiliation, see Talk Me Down from Contributing to Rand Paul's Campaign

If a Democratic progressive seriously considers supporting libertarian Republican Rand Paul, because he expects that he will vote with the Democrats 25% of the time, it shouldn't surprise anybody if a progressive Congressman remains a Democrat....

http://www.DemocracyABC.org
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org

You're right about them rarely running their own candidates

From wikipedia

The party's sometime-position at the balance of electoral power and the threat of Republican endorsement has allowed it to influence the politics of local Democratic candidates and the state Democratic party. The support of the WFP is sometimes quite important in Democratic primaries, especially in areas where the WFP has a lot of volunteers, such as Binghamton.

In unusual cases, the WFP has put forward its own candidates.

From the above, it's clear that they've had a real influence over NYC politics, even though they normally cross-endorse Democrats. Being that they've only been around for all of 11 years, though, and they seem to be on the upswing, I would't downplay their potential. Also, they quote a NY Times article on their website:

Of the four incumbent council members who were toppled, three faced challengers supported by the Working Families Party.

“To say that it has vastly exceeded expectations would be an understatement,” Dan Cantor, the party’s executive director, said of the primary results. “Nobody saw this coming.”

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say that the WFP grows to the point where it can get as many voters to vote in either a Democratic or Republican primary, in NYC, as either the normal complement of registered Democrats or Republicans that normally showed up. In this case, even if the Democratic candidate most favored by the Democratic machine has the most cash, the WFP can guarantee him or her a loss.

This scenario is not as implausible as it may seem. For one thing, NYC is probably one of the most progressive cities in the country, and the WFP is labeled as "progressive". For another, only about a million people showed up in the last general election. That's a pretty poor showing. But the flip side is that it makes the work of dedicated activists, who have the task of getting inspire voters to show up for a primary vote, that much easier.

Just like it may take the WFP another 10 years to out-muscle the Democratic machine candidates on a regular basis, and make WFP candidates commonplace, it might take 911 Truth activists 10 years to make a 911 Truth-friendly party have the same level of influence in NYC elections that the WFP has, today. Either inside the WFP, or outside it.

But that's assuming they start soon.

Here's a question for you: if NY did not allow fusion voting, would the WFP have had any influence on which Democratic candidates prevailed in the primary mentioned in the quote, above? I realize that this question will be of no interest to you if you believe that ultimately, 99% of Democrats and 99% of Republicans will do the bidding of their (presumed) corporate masters. Although I consider both the Democratic and Republican parties to be disgraces, this is too extreme a view, for me.

Here's another question for you. If you really believe that 99% of Democrats, Republicans and WFP candidates in NYC will forever pursue a corporatist-driven agenda, do you still not concede that, nevertheless, it would be advantageous for a new, 911 Truth-friendly third party, to have fusion voting available to it? If you say "No", that implies that there will never be a single candidate from another 3rd party (such as Green or Libertarian) that the 911 Truth-friendly party could support. And that, I claim, would be an extreme view that makes little sense. At the very least, I think you should admit that having the option might be beneficial. Perhaps someday a Green or Libertarian candidate will come along, who is 911 Truth-friendly, and needs only a few percentage points to win - percentage points that could be supplied by the 911 Truth-friendly party in a fusion-voting legal state.

Finally, please note that fusion voting was made illegal by the mainstream parties. From the wikipedia page on Electoral Alliance:

Electoral alliance was once widespread in the United States. In the late 19th century, however, as minor political parties such as the People's Party became increasingly successful in using fusion, state legislatures enacted bans against it. One Republican Minnesota state legislator was clear about what his party was trying to do: "We don't propose to allow the Democrats to make allies of the Populists, Prohibitionists, or any other party, and get up combination tickets against us. We can whip them single-handed, but don't intend to fight all creation." (Spoiling for a Fight, 227-228). The creation of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party made this particular tactical position obsolete. By 1907 the practice had been banned in 18 states; today, fusion as conventionally practiced remains legal in only eight states, namely:

* Connecticut
* Delaware
* Idaho
* Mississippi
* New York
* Oregon
* South Carolina
* Vermont

In several other states, notably New Hampshire, fusion is legal when primary elections are won by write-in candidates.

The cause of electoral fusion suffered a major setback in 1997, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided by 6-3 in Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party that fusion is not a constitutionally protected civil right.

Since a hundred years have come and gone since then, it's a fair guess that outlawing fusion voting served both Democratic and Republican parties at those respective states quite well.

(emphasis mine)

http://www.DemocracyABC.org
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org

WAC could address a serious deficiency of the 911 Truth movement

And that is, political naivete, as I mentioned here. The point of my posting in a blog post whose subject is WAC is to (hopefully) get them started thinking about what it would take to really make a difference, politically.

They're obviously not shy about making trouble ( :-) ), so why not apply some of that energy to shaking up a moribund political system, that is choking the life out of America? By "shaking up", I don't mean shocking or embarrassing individuals who are powerful. (They already do that.) What I mean is altering the actual power dynamics, towards the general welfare and truthfullness.

You can't do that unless you affect changes in elected officials.

http://www.DemocracyABC.org
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org