News tip to contact.ipr@gmail.com from Tom Blanton:
http://www.sanderhicks.com/truthparty.html
DEBUT OF THE TRUTH PARTY
This Sunday will be historic.
We are talking about starting what will soon become a major political force: something optimistic, smart, and savvy.
We will win elections. We will change the world.
As many of you saw from my blog, I have left the Green Party. But I learned a lot there, and it’s time for a new formation.
All good people are invited to an experimental, exploratory discussion and meeting, chaired by me, Sander Hicks, regarding the founding of a new political party. The working name of the party is currently “The Truth Party” but there’s also been some discussion of that name, see below.
WHERE: Ukrainian East Village Restaurant, on 2nd Ave and E. 1Oth Street
WHEN: 6 PM, Sunday, May 23.
RSVP: sanderhicksdotcom AT gmail.com
MORE THOUGHTS ON WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT:
I’m not talking about starting a “third party” or anything marginal like that. I’m talking about starting something that has great appeal, great politics, smart marketing, empowering culture, and a winning strategy.
The two big parties are going through twin identity crises: neither really understands what is going on with the global economic meltdown. Neither can tell you what they believe. So the GOP is doing this little dance with the Tea Parties, and letting unfocussed anger rule the day. Meanwhile, the Democrats have become the leaders of a bloody empire with wars too expensive to continue, with a dollar in decline, and mounting debts too big to service.
But our new party will be different. We are not going to be another “Left” sect. The Truth movement has taught me the power of organizing beyond the left/right divide. Now it’s time to take those politics into a new realm.
The mission of the Left is still inspiring: expanding rights, standing for peace, demanding economic freedom, and ending slavery. We need to smash the bonds that addict us to war, deception, and the systemic waste of the US Federal Government. But there are some lessons too to learn from traditionalist, right-of-center politics: the Bill of Rights is great because it protects our freedoms from an expanding Federal state.
Allow me to quote something I wrote earlier this week on my blog:
If we are positive about the positive aspects of the USA, we connect with a huge amount of people. We continue to refine the mission of the USA, as a country that was a creature of the Enlightenment. We were born in the pain of slavery, but we struggled, and we emancipated ourselves from slavery. Now we have to continue that mission.
The First Amendment is such a radical document, it could be interpreted as the first modern anti-war statement. The Founders saw that the combination of State and religious powers lead to endless wars in Europe. So, the First Amendment protects five freedoms at the outset. The free-flow of information is tied to the freedom of religious beliefs. If you give people free access to information, their essential goodness is allowed to flourish, and they can’t be manipulated into wars. The modern equivalent is to observe how the internet has empowered a movement that demands the truth about 9/11, Anthrax and the Iraq War. Without the free-flow of information, we are more susceptible to be manipulated into a false religion of “war without end.” Nothing could be less American.
TIME FOR YOUR COMMENT
I have been talking to a lot of people already about this, and here are a few comments I have gotten back:
“Not only is this NOT “tea party politics,” it is the antithesis of it! It is everything the Tea Party is not: principled, courageous, and focused on an actual issue as opposed to simply expressing existential angst (of which there is nothing wrong, but it is not a “platform”).”
–Rev. Ian Alternman
“A new party ought to be based on 9/11 Truth. With a large swath of the population already cognizant of 9/11 and the rest ready to be educated on it, such a party could dwarf the existing small parties, to the point of disrupting the Republican/Democratic balance…, Because 9/11 Truth is not a wedge issue and because the 9/11 censorship has been so universal, 9/11 Truth will potentially unite all people with a fair psychological hygiene, blow up the platonic cave it shows humanity to live in, and lead the human community as a whole towards a much brighter future.
– Dan Noel in Orange Co, CA
“9/11 does seperate the wheat from the chaff, doesn’t it. If your in politics nowadays and you do not at least want another investigation into 9/11 you are either:
A) an idiot
B) a scared little mouse
C) a complete liar and tool for the elitist agenda of war, famine, population decimation and full spectrum dominance.”
–Die Ratte mit ner Latte
NOTES ON THE NAME
I have gotten a little bit of advice (two people) who don’t like the name “Truth Party”
But no one has actually suggested anything better, yet. This is up for discussion on Sunday…..and I am convinced something great will come out of the group. It always does.
Personally, I like the name. But we need to indicate that we believe in the Truth, but do NOT claim to have exclusive access to it. We are searching for it. Don’t want to be too strident and claim to be perfect. We are all flawed. But we all share some great powerful ideas.
Variations to Consider:
The American Truth Party
The Peace and Truth Party
OK! see you Sunday?
WHERE Ukrainian East Village Restaurant, on 2nd Ave and E. 1Oth Street
WHEN: at 6 pm, on Sunday, May 23.
RSVP: sanderhicksdotcom AT gmail.com
applaud the effort
I'm not against the idea of a 911 Truth party but I wouldn't 'join'. For me, the demand for the truth is an independent endeavor and not a political issue. It is un-negotiable and shouldn't be mixed in with political issues.
Second, I'm pretty sure I do not trust Sander Hicks as a spokesman for 9/11 Truth. Hicks, it's seems to me, has always pushed some pretty shady information and I feel has wasted a lot of my time with the stories like those mentioned below.
http://www.sanderhicks.com/vreeland.html
Vreeland was arrested for claims to have written warning notes about the 9/11 Attacks while in prison in Canada. Apparently he wrote these notes in August that described multiple targets including the WTC, the Pentagon and the White House. He also wrote the words "bin laden" and "Let one happen, stop the rest" on his warning messages.
http://www.sanderhicks.com/glass.html
Sander uses the story of Randy Glass in The Big Wedding. Randy Glass is an ex-con who apparently went undercover as a weapons dealer selling shoulder fired rockets to a guy claiming to be a Pakistani ISI agent and claimed to be tight with Bin Laden. Allegedly, this agent told Randy Glass, after dinner, that the twin towers were going to be brought down.
http://www.sanderhicks.com/grahamreport.html
A dentists in Shrevport, LA claims to have seen a few of the alleged 9/11 hijackers names on boxes at the residence of an Arab man he was secretly investigating. He claims that he was meeting with a shady Arab that he had met and was doing survelience on him by pretending to be interested in a business deal to get into the guys house. While at the mans house, he claims to have met three men who he claims to have matched up to men on the FBI's hijacker list. He also claims that one man said something like "How is Bin Laden father?". I can't remember the exact quote.
GNN Is A Psyop
http://www.smartamerican.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=450&highlight=&sid=3...
Anthony Lappe' used to own and was the editor of GNN.tv and wrote the book True Lies. Gnn.tv worked with foundations like the Ford Foundation to produce movies, books and other new media. 3 years prior to 9/11/2001 Lappe' worked for the United States Information Agency (now run under a different name under the State Department) whose sole responsibility was to spread US-positive propaganda around the world. Lappe' wrote the forward to Hicks' 9/11 book The Big Wedding.
I feel a little uncomfortable that much of this stuff points to the patsies and refers to them as 911 Master minds. The fabled enemy, "Islamic Extremism" was a pre-determined patsy and much of Sander's work seems to compliment other work by people like like Colleen Rowley and Tony Shafer / Able Danger, all of which seems to reinforce the theory that 'Islamic Extremism' was responsible for the attacks on 9/11/2001.
Don't take my word for it. Research these topics and make up your own mind. If you only look at one thing then read the story of Dr. Graham. Read 'The Graham Report' in it's entirely and I am certain you will ask your self "how the heck did this stuff get taken seriously?". I would also say that none of this provides evidence that anyone is purposely spreading disinformation or purposely leading the truth movement astray. But I can't help but notice and point these things out.
Speaking for myself
...the path is for truth and toward justice.
We should not aspire to gain political power, but rather to make power hear us and fear us enough to do right most of the time.
...
For the record . . .
Too bad Sander chose to trash the Greens on his way out, just because he was not chosen as a candidate by them. Could it be immaturity? He sent an email out far and wide with a link to his blog post making numerous false claims about the party while claiming to not harbor any ill will. Now why would he do that?
For example, he says --
------------------
"Let me clear the air. I bear no malice. I am grateful to Greens "
------------------
But follows that with --
------------------
"Anyone fresh and new to the party is treated with suspicion. The GP resents new ideas"
"the GP NY has not refined itself, but coarsened itself, by alienating the good and re-nominating losers"
"The GP NY is slouching towards silent suicide"
"Last time was a disaster. Now the party's smaller. The GP NY will have a smaller disaster"
"the GP NY is shrinking in size, yet can’t break out of its dysfunctional practices"
"I was getting all the signals that the nomination was mine. Then, there was a quick decision, made somewhere behind the scenes by the old guard, to reshuffle the deck, and put two black ladies into the slate as the US Senate candidates. This decision was made suddenly, in a non-transparent, invisible way, and it was based in part on politics that rely on a shallow, PC-level understanding on race and gender. Don’t get me wrong: Cecile Lawrence and Collia Clark will make fine candidates . . . "
"I think it’s time for a new party formation that is miles away from the authoritarianism, the pseudo-socialism, the close-minded-ness, the ultra-leftism, and the PC politics of this Green Party."
------------------
Fascinating that Sander is so interested in being nominated to a party that is apparently so dysfunctional, small, loser-nominating, pseudo-socialist, authoritarianist, etc.
But more interesting to consider is that remember, this is one of the few parties which -- each and every year -- calls for a new investigation into the 9/11 attacks. This is the party which chose Cynthia McKinney as their presidential candidate -- the only congress person to confront Rumsfeld directly about the 9/11 attacks.
By writing up this series of attack claims, Sander alienates them from 9/11 activists and our cause. What good does starting a whole new party do when you are burning the bridges as fast as you can with existing parties who are already doing a LOT for 9/11??
And the fact is, most of his claims are utterly false.
For example, Sander says that new people are treated with suspicion. What??? Any Green who does organizing and is active at meetings knows that Greens are delighted whenever new people come on board. We are frantic for membership to grow the party -- which has been decimated by the wave of Obama mania, as have all the smaller parties. As an elected Green, I've never witnessed suspicion of new people, rather, excitement and relief.
Spreading false claims about a political party helps no one, and should cause concern to anyone considering a party created by Sander Hicks. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
"Could it be immaturity? He
"Could it be immaturity? He sent an email out far and wide with a link to his blog post making numerous false claims about the party while claiming to not harbor any ill will. Now why would he do that?"
Could be projection--there's been a concerted efforts, particularly followers of Lyndon Larouche, to infiltrate and co-opt the Greens.
http://www.advantagecreations.com/clients/bgp/
One thing you notice after a while is certain disruptors start to accuse people of doing what they themselves are doing...
Thanks Vic. With Sander
Thanks Vic. With Sander Hick's name attached to a new party I won't be waiting with bated breath. , I can only wonder what is going on in his mind. The Truth Movement is already saddled with too many burdensome tasks to take on yet another gargantuan task. Organizing a new political party is no small job. Lately it seems the movement is experiencing an onslaught of diversionary tactics from infiltration and mismanagement of its most important organizations, to in- fighting over the Pentagon issue. If we could just focus on a few things we might actually get something done, like enabling a meaningful legal strategy, continuing to expand the amount and level of our scientific efforts and engaging in sophisticated media and lobbying efforts. This latest move indicates to me anyway, the overall movement's lack of a cohesive action plan.
Thanks, Victronix -- here's some more perspective
Yes--one wonders how long he would have been content to keep all these negative views to himself if only they'd given him what he wanted.
Greens are supposed to value decentralization, and not surprisingly they can vary from one state or region to another. I have been active in the Green Party in New York, and I can vouch that the party has been struggling to become an effective organization. However, I don't know why Sander was apparently so confident that a U.S. Senate nomination was his. His chances may have been pretty good early on, but the competition got thicker as the nominating convention approached. There was no 'decision' made 'behind the scenes.' One candidate who had first been seeking the nomination for Governor decided her opponent (the eventual nominee) had too much support, and thought her chances would be better seeking a nomination for Senate. Another candidate had been seeking nomination for Lieutenant-Governor, but it turned out she had a problem meeting the state residency requirements that apply to candidates for that office (having briefly lived out of state not long ago), so she also switched to seeking nomination for Senate, where such requirements do not apply. By the day of the convention, the level of competition had shifted considerably. Sander contested for the nomination to oppose Kristen Gillibrand (Hillary Clinton's appointed successor), and was defeated by Cecile Lawrence (the former of the aforementioned candidates). I think the vote in her favor is simply a reflection of her having made a better overall impression than did Sander on the voting members, up to and on the day of the convention. She has been active in the movement to ban the natural-gas drilling practice known as 'hydrofracking' (pioneered by Haliburton, FYI), which poses a serious hazard for local water supplies, and which increasingly has been threatening communities in upstate New York. Although one committee member did put out a statement expressing concern regarding Sander's views on 9/11 just prior to the convention (much to my dismay, this person is still under the delusion that 'incompetence' is a satisfactory explanation for all that went wrong on 9/11, even though agreeing that we need answers to all the unanswered questions--go figure), no one else joined in when he sought to raise the topic the day of the convention. What poses a problems for Greens in NY isn't the issue of 9/11 per se, but rather of having a candidate who specializes in it, has it as a main issue, and who doesn't do so well when it comes to addressing other concerns on the minds of the voters (at present, at least), much as he may try to do so. He can point to other points on his platform, but articulating positions and issues in a way that wins their confidence and support can be a lot more difficult than that.
As huge as the issue of 9/11 is to me, even I am not necessarily looking for a candidate who has 9/11 truth as a special emphasis. And if I did, I think I would only be drawn to those who I thought were exceptionally good at presenting the issue to audiences who may largely be newcomers to it. I think it's better to have candidates who can already connect with sections of the electorate on other issues, but who also recognize that we haven't yet gotten the truth about 9/11 and that it is important--when campaigning--to include this ongoing coverup among the topics of discussion, and to relate it to other problems of war and official lawlessness that continue to plague us.
I'm in the dark here. . .
I don't get it, and never have.
Having followed politics in my home town (NYC) since the mid-sixties, and even becoming involved for awhile, I am of the opinion that taking part in the political system is probably the least effective way of affecting real change for society. It is a game. It is a childish game made for the profit of friends and cronies.
Adults do not play games. Not with matters this important. They take action. They do things, not ask others to do them for him/her. Political games playing is simply and only that: a game.
I don't know Sander Hicks except for some bits and pieces strewn on Youtube and what has been written here, and what concerns me is that he (or anyone else, for that matter) believes that there are "political" answers to the questions and issues we face, that "the system," is still there, so to speak, to aid anyone or any party willing to join in the fun.
For Sander Hicks to believe that his new party is going to change the world is naive, at best.
But, I will wish him luck in his endeavors.
I am interested in learning more and
signing up.
Thanks for the idea, Sander and good luck-
MG
At a time when "party politics" are breaking down...
...and appropriately so, it seems strange to upstart another party.
However, in the end the only lasting tool that we have to make changes is the voting booth to change governances. So, one way or another the 9/11 Truth for Peace Community will eventually affect politics and governances or it will wisp away into the breezes of time as an interesting footnote.
Personally, since the beginning of my public involvement in 9/11 Truth seeking, I have been promoting 9/11 Truth for Peace ...and lately, for "9/11 Truth World Peace and Justice"...
I suggest the following concept noted below...and take whatever resources, energy and people power that this idea accumulates and figure a way to get it to the voting booths...aka...by throwing all the bums out and replacing them with good caring human beings...
"9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice Coalition"
This should create a nice large canopy under which millions, if not billions of people can coalesce to make important changes in the directions that humans on planet earth are now headed.
The events of 9/11/2001 are the best example of what has gone wrong with the world's ruling oligarchy ...EVER! This is an amazing opportunity for making good things happen...and I trust that Sander's efforts are so aligned.
As I have often stated before...the "9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice" shoe fits, so lets get to the shoe store and get some long lasting shoes [jogging sneakers most likely] because unseating the world's oligarchs is gonna be a long haul with many twists and turns along the way.
9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice
Love, Peace and Progress...
Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
"The events of 9/11/2001 are
"The events of 9/11/2001 are the best example of what has gone wrong with the world's ruling oligarchy..."
...
9/11 truth is for letting them know that we know. Justice? They deserve no less. Peace? We deserve no less.
I am not particularly interested in Sander Hicks' personal ambition. I'm not particularly interested in gaining power that no man should have.
...
9-11 is not a party issue
It strikes me that 9-11 truth seeking is not a party issue, just as, say, criminal justice itself is not a party issue... or education, for that matter, or scientific endeavor.
Hold cover-up parties accountable
While the 9/11 truth movement is made up of people from various backgrounds politically, I hope that all who care about getting at the truth recognize that it is a mistake to give their votes to candidates of parties that have shown themselves to be fully committed to continued concealment and cover-up and exploitation of the uncontested official narrative for purposes of continued wars abroad and repression at home.
I left the Green's and the Left.....
I hate politics these days...my opinion is that I don't know what to do or say here...my first comment was pointless so I took it down:)
I should elaborate....
In Australia the Greens won't touch 9/11 Truth with a ten foot barge pole:)
In the USA the Green's have been very helpful:)
Kind regards John