The slogan is “Wake Up and Stand Up.” The mission statement declares that the federal government is “not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges we face as Americans.”
I fall back upon my classic standards of political partisanship and playing to the left-base, but in truth I am not satisfied by this in the least.
We don’t need word-wars over labeling and branding, we need solutions for America that work.
We don’t need more spin and more talking points, we need honest debate and informed decision making.
What Coffee Party USA offers is civility and a place for democracy to take place in a honest fashion.
I encourage any person who has formed an opinion of me that is one of “ultra-left” to understand I was most moved by U.S. Army veteran Alan P. Alborn’s words that anything I have seen in a very long time.
I understand far more about what motives are behind conservatives and libertarians than I let on and ultimately my views are no different from Alborn’s views in regards to the matter of the free market or the size of government.
This is one element that was always part of what makes me “independent,” and I am tired of being brought nearly to tears dealing with these Tea Party activists who seek to do nothing more than rewrite history and stop all rational debate while neglecting the more important issues of health care and insurance reform.
The Coffee Party is the answer we have been looking for to send the message to Washington that we sent them there to get something done, not just play procedural games while Americans suffer.
We’ll see if they even want me around, they have a statement about “no pundits and partisans and strategists” … that’s me three for three. But punditry can be declared, partisanship can be avoided and they will want my strategies if they ever give me a chance to share them … so maybe I am reading too much into that statement.
I encourage you to join the Coffee Party, too!
We are a group of concerned Americans who want government “that responds to the needs of the majority of its citizens as expressed by our votes and by our voices; NOT corporate interests as expressed by misleading advertisements and campaign contributions.”
(other “dupe” web-groups have already begun to spawn in response to the Coffee Party, only these websites are Coffee Party Movement)
Under my understanding of American civics current President Obama is by no means taking on more than in possibly sustainable, in terms of policy changes and economic recovery efforts.
In fact in my estimation he has, in regards to national security and financial stability, done exactly what was and is needed to ensure success in our efforts to revive this bankrupt economy.
The issue of undertaking “too much“ comes primarily from the right wing. Though others may question the wisdom of taking on so many issues at once as wise it is exclusively the right wing that declares this unsound policy.
The concept of “political capital“ is primary in understanding the recent actions of President Obama in his first two months in office. Political capital does not remain in any politician’s favor for long.
The willingness to address major issues like Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Enhanced Interrogation and vigorous fiscal stimulus only prove to those who grasp civics that the President intends in make good on the many campaign promises made to voters like myself.
While many more issues abound, and ultimately I am one who says that Obama is not doing enough, the raw fact remains that the current administration is showing a genuine interest in fulfilling the will of the people beyond simply nationalist fever or populist outrage but to rather try and reach attainable goals in our time.
I am a Internet Proliferator.
Completely Non-Profit source of links, news, opinion and information.
I call this Internet Activism.
The fact that I suddenly started blogging in December of 2008, didn’t change my world view or political perspective.
While internet communication is less effective than real activism or even letter campaigns it still holds value in it‘s semi-permanent nature.
Nonetheless, here is a small piece of what it means to be contacted by a Non-Profit Blogger:
DONATE, IF YOU CAN AFFORD TO!
This is the only reason I call myself a Media-Watchdog, one of the last of the breed.
These are just some of my saved email contacts from my personal email account.
Just a sample, there‘s more. (Hot Air is highly partisan, by the by.)
Just making a point. And hoping you’ll input your own thoughts to these addresses.
Whatever good public emailing your my real name and address attached has, you can bet I did it.
And will do it again.
Most likely, standing while typing one-handed just like this. (Someone take a picture, I look journalistic!)
This post is just to dispel any confusion out there in terms of who exactly the real media-watchdogs of America exactly are.
That would be me, Eric Lightborn. The Non-Profit Student Blogger. And that’s pretty much it.
March 22nd 2009
A liberal, sure. First and foremost.
But I’m not running from being labeled a “populist.” Red-baiting doesn’t phase me anymore. Let those who attempt and fail at political understanding call me what they will. I am unashamed.
With the change of a single word in a historical quote from the first American Populist to run for president in 1896 you can sum up everything I have to say about the current condition of the American economy.
“You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold [credit].” – William J. Bryan
The cross of the middle class and the working poor should be bore no longer. The whips of old exchanged for bare hands.
This yoke of credit and credit approval has far too long strangled the workforce of America from advancing in social class. The burden by no means stops there. (Jim Cramer the economist & Jon Stewart the comedian)
The very integrity of the American worker has been bought and sold on the open market for far too long. The largest of institutions have had ultimate sway on matters pertaining to them for an age and a day too long.
The era of protectionism has taught us well. No market is isolated. No economy is independent of the strongest economy known to exist. Recent events have shown us this beyond any reasonable doubt.
But the era of ‘deceptionism’ has yet to be fully addressed, or even understood. No industry is without accountability. No private incorporation is fit to process a majority share of any highly successful venture.
I do not support a return to the Gold Standard as those like Congressman Ron Paul who I have much respect for propose. The credit system and the existence of credit lines themselves are not the source of the crown of thorns. I support instead fully nationalizing and reforming the Federal Reserve and the Federal Exchange Commission.
In the absence of abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service I propose reform into an agency that regulates the bank rating system and monitors the highest echelons of finance with previously unseen vigor and transparency in their actions.
Those who sought to lead us blindly into these days cannot be trusted. Those who hide the truth become party to a much greater misdeed. We cannot afford to stand silent any longer in the need for a truthful news media.
To those who came before us in days of Vietnam. We say to them we have seen your sorrows and known your pain. But we are not shedding blood nor issuing violence as our battering ram against authority.
We demand recognition that our tools are by the words, protests and non-violent actions. Choked of our very means of ways by the ever-expanding, all powerful monopolies across our markets. Let all who allowed this to transpire as such come only but to apologize before the public.
Let the regulators who took part in this only shamefully resign. Let the business leaders who did nothing to tell of the coming recession when many Americans, including myself and my father, were fully aware of its coming onslaught only plead for willingness to allow them near our political structure.
I say these words as member of the Progressive Movement and a registered Democratic voter in California. Let us never forget the modern progressive, or alternatively the modern liberal, was forged in the first Progressive Reform Movement of one hundred years past. And the Populist Movement stands the father of the Progressive.
While we do not resemble our forerunners we are much the same as they. There is no tolerance for absolutism in control over the means to obtain success and prosperity.
The concept of using interest groups to promote the agendas and ideals of a movement is, by this source, not exclusive to the liberal movement but heavily favored by it thus far.
President-elect Barack Obama may isolate himself from major liberal movement members if the proposed audit of Washington politics takes a lasting toll on the liberal lobbies. The next four years will certainly answer just how far this coming-administration is willing to go to remove corruption in public-interest group finance and practice but four years from now there will also once again be a national referendum on the highest office. Should the effort ultimately take power from once strong lobbies for popular liberal agendas, the informed American Democratic Voter could potentially face a struggle at the polls when considering a vote for the incumbent President.
The power of an interest-group, in a classic design, should expand as the number of members and contributors expands. The ‘funded & unoccupied lobby’ described in quote above as a law firm is a critical element of what causes the real disruptions in Washington politics.
The figures and organizations that form the American lobbies and public-interest groups of today are not necessarily the root of the problem so much as the agendas of the highest funded public-interest groups overriding the highest agendas in the court of public opinion and the highest wills of the people.
If the National Legal Center for the Public Interest (a weak lobby) were to receive a large increase in both number of members and in contributions. they should rightly increase in the voice and recognition in Washington and receive foundation grants in turn.
If the Environmental Defense Fund (a strong lobby) were to lose both member and public support their voice as a lobby should rightly decrease and even though they do not receive a majority in foundation grants they should be kept from taking them if they lacked any significant support in the public domain.
This is all within a classic definition of how the public-interest groups should work. Any number of factors can increase or decrease the power of a single lobby and for this reason most of us limit our discussion on public-interest groups, or lobbies, to the number of members that are well-known or outspoken and the money behind the group.
Lobbyists are not are always motivated by ill or by good, despite the fact the lobby they work for is focused on a critical social issue or an important national matter that concerns you or perhaps for a group with which you disagree strongly.
To speak broadly, they are like salesmen of political stances a person in Washington should take. They are not invested into the case they are making in every single case but rather deliver the best argument in favor of the lobby that they can devise.
Politicians and lobbyists are very much the same, in many ways. Without means to search the hearts of others to know for sure if they really believe what they contend or if they are simply going with the popular ideology to gain your favor, we will never know for certain if they stand for the people or if they stand for their own private interests.
We can only judge their actions in office as solid statements of policy.