The Nashville Peace Coalition

Nashville – The Nashville Peace Coalition invites the public to attend a panel discussion on current issues affecting Latin America.  The panel, titled, “Latin America Unchained” is an examination of the current left leaning shift of popular elections in Latin America.  Whether Americans are pondering the meaning of Hugo Chavez shaking hands with Barack Obama or the recent electoral victory of the FMLN in El Salvador, we can be sure that Latin America is changing. In the interest of providing the public with an opportunity to hear from local experts on the current trends in Latin America, the Nashville Peace Coalition has assembled a diverse panel to talk about current events. The Nashville Peace Coalition is a project of the Nashville Peace and Justice Center and is dedicated to promoting a peace and diplomacy as key aspects of US foreign policy.

The Bolivarian revolution, the economic collapse of Argentina, the election of Lula in Brazil and the persistent anti-imperialist rhetoric from the Hugo Chavez administration of Venezuela are hints that Latin America has tended to the left in recent years.  What is going on in Latin America and what role does US foreign policy play in this historical trend?  What effect has the North American Free Trade Agreement, the US Army’s School of the Americas and Plan Columbia played in shaping and influencing Latin America’s current governments?  “Latin America Unchained” intends to address some of these questions and engage in a community discussion  with the help of a panel of journalists, educators and community organizers to have a community discussion about the recent trends in Latin America.

Chairing the panel will be Lesley Gill, Vanderbilt faculty and author of the book, “School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence.”  Participants on the panel include Camilo Garcia who is an exiled Columbian journalist who works for the Spanish language newspaper “Latino”  and Karl Meyer, a Nashville peace activist who has spent six months in federal prison for protesting the School of the Americas, a military training facility in Columbus, Georgia.  Additionally the panel will include Joey King, a former army ranger and member of Veterans for Peace who recently returned from El Salvador as an election observer  and Juan Canedo, a community organizer with the Progreso Community Center and a native of Bolivia.

The event, which is being held at the Progreso Community Center at 478 Allied Drive off of Nolensville Road in South Nashville, will begin at 2pm.  Panelists will be given fifteen minutes each to address their area of specialty and then the lecture will be opened up to the general public for discussion and questions.  The event will conclude at 4pm.  Organizers of the panel hope to give the general public a better sense of what is happening in Latin America and what role US foreign and economic policy should play in current developments with our southern neighbors.

For more information please contact Chris Lugo of the Nashville Peace Coalition at or 593-0304

Event Info

Sarah Palin has stated she believes in a literal translation of the Bible; a literal translation of the Bible dates creation of the Earth at 4000 B.C. Is the U.S. prepared to elect someone who truly believes dinosaurs became extinct only 6000 years ago? Forget the fact that science has proven the age of the Earth to be in the billions of years through countless (independent of each other) disciplines. Is the U.S. prepared to give the nuclear launch codes to someone who cannot pronounce the word ‘nuclear’ and refuses to believe in the science that created it?

Sarah Palin stated that it was God’s will to have a pipeline in Alaska; she followed this statement by asking a church full of followers to pray for its manifestation. I may be wrong because I admit I am not a Bible scholar, but it has been my understanding that God’s design for the planet was perfect to begin with and ever since sin man has only been able to ruin it with greater ease. Wouldn’t that include destroying thousands of square miles to drill for oil? Shouldn’t a Christian ask in their prayers to end man’s destruction of the Earth and not to increase it?

Sarah Palin supports making abortions of all sorts illegal under all circumstances, yet when asked up front about it in an interview with Katie Couric she was unable to defend her position other than to say she would advise the hypothetical worst case scenario woman/girl not to seek an abortion. If you stand for something, stand strong, state your case and stand by it. This sort of political meandering is surely a sign of things to come. She supported a bill while mayor that makes rape victims pay for their own rape kits while under the care of the public health system(getting raped in Sarah Palin world= $1200 and 20 to life for an abortion, electing an idiot= Priceless). Is this the sort of compassion America needs in a leader?

When Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin what periodicals she has read that have influenced her world view, first she replied that she had read them again (therefore at least twice), then afterward when asked to give an example said “uh… all of them, uh… any of them” and was unable to give a single example after an awkward moment of silence followed by a diversion about Alaska not being a foreign country…? WHAT? I have heard rhetoric like this before usually immediately followed by my saying in a loud voice “LIAR!” Really, if you cannot answer the question, ‘what magazines do you read’ honestly, what else are you going to lie about?

Click here to view the embedded video.

Sarah Palin supports Hamas seriously? She would rather say Hamas needs our support before admitting she doesn’t know what it is? This makes a good leader? Since when is more obfuscation what Americans need?

Basic Geography: You can see Russia from the outermost Alaskan Islands

While commenting on what qualifies her having ‘foreign policy’ experience by way of Alaska’s proximity to Russia, Sarah Palin explained that she could actually see Russia from Alaska. What? So I have seen dozens of countries; does that mean I have dozens of times more experience than Sarah Palin? By her definition it does. If she bases her qualification to be V.P. on such nonsense can we trust her judgment about accepting the nomination for V.P.?

In a discussion about whether or not the U.S. has the right to invade Pakistan to stop Al Queda without the approval of their government, Sarah Palin said she would not even blink before she invaded. This was actually in complete contradiction to John McCain, whose platform has been not to invade without prior approval and should in no way be acceptable to the American people. Are we about to elect a V.P. who thinks we have the right to invade any sovereign nation in the world without blinking?

Sarah Palin spent 48 million dollars on a road that literally goes nowhere! Yet she gave her speech dozens of times claiming to have championed the fight against useless spending: is it ignorance or boldface lying? Which is worse?

Unfortunately, we should all know where this is headed. After eight years of leadership(or something), Bush has brought the U.S. success and pride in the Justice system, Iraq, the writ of habeas corpus, the hunt for Osama bin Laden, the hurricane Katrina disaster, preventing terrorism, the economy, torture, interpretation of the constitution, and general overall prosperity and good fortune across the globe (when was the last time Americans were so well liked?). If Sarah Palin, oops, I mean when Sarah Palin becomes President I am sure more great successes just like these are in store for Americans and the rest of the world, God bless.

70 is the new 40, vote Mccain 08!

The format for the debate will consist of policy and platform questions concerning the economy, foreign policy, health care, the environment, civil liberties, the federal budget, reproductive rights, international trade, gun rights, campaign finance reform, immigration, education and race and gender.  Each candidate will be given two minutes to make introductory statements and then one or two minutes per question to answer policy and platform questions.  The debate will end at 8:30pm with a candidate’s reception to follow in the lobby of the Stephenson Center.

For more information about the Presidential Candidate’s Alternative Debate visit their web site.

Attending this event will be Charles Jay of the Boston Tea Party, Brad Lyttle of the US Pacifist Party, Frank McEnulty of the New American Independent Party, Brian Moore  of the Socialist Party, Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party and  Gloria La Riva  of the Party for Socialism and Liberation.  Bruce Barry  will serve as moderator for this event.

Debate Format:

7:00 PM:    Introduction and Opening Statements (2 Minutes Per Candidate)
7:15 PM:    Policy and Issue Questions (1 or 2 Minutes Per Candidate)
8:20 PM:    Closing Statements  (1 Minute Per Candidate)
8:30 PM:    Debate End and Candidate’s Reception

Ground Rules: Candidates are encouraged to keep within time limits announced. A time keeper will present placards to candidates showing time limits of response. Once over time moderator has discretion to close comments and move on to next candidate.  Moderator has discretion to clarify candidate’s response and encourage dialogue between candidates.

Topic List: (Data Source: Project Vote Smart)

The Economy: Americans are concerned about the safety of their retirements, pension and ability to obtain a mortgage.  The value of the dollar is dropping and investor confidence is at an all time low, what will you do to improve our nation’s economy?  What will you do to reduce our national indebtedness and in doing so restore world confidence that investing in America is a good option?  What is your solution for the thousands of Americans who are facing foreclosure or have lost their housing? Do you support increased funding for national job-training programs that retrain displaced workers or teach skills needed in today’s job market?  Would you support an increase in the federal minimum wage?  What are your feelings about the rights of workers to form unions?

Federal Budget: Americans want to know where their candidates stand on the federal budget.  The allocation of funds for federal programs is one of the most important roles the president plays in shaping public policy.  How would you have voted on a federal bailout of Wall Street?  What conditions would you attach to such a bailout?  What are your budget priorites on federal issues such as defense, education, the environment and health care? Do you support requiring the federal budget to be balanced each year?  Please indicate your plans for the social security system?  Would you work to ensure the viability of the social security system?  Would you raise the retirment age for individual eligibility to receive full benefits?

Foreign Policy: What is your foreign policy agenda for the United States?  Would you support an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan?  What would you do if elected President regarding US relations with Iran?  What are your feelings about pre-emptive use of military force as an instrument of national policy? Do you support long-term use of National Guard troops to supplement the armed forces in assignments overseas?  Should the United States provide leadership in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process?  Should the United States support the creation of a Palestinian state?  Do you support greater economic and diplomatic sanctions against North Korea?  Finally, should the United States be involved in peace keeping activities in countries like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Somalia and Burma?  Do you support the United States granting aid to countries when extraordinary circumstances cause disaster and threaten civilian lives?

Health Care: The issue of access to quality, affordable health care is a concern for many voters.  Nearly fifty million Americans do not have access to health care but at the same time some people advocate that the United States has the best health care system in the world.  What are your thoughts on the issue of access to health care?  Do you support universal single payer health care? What would you do to reduce the costs of prescription drugs for Seniors? Do you support the legalization of medical marijuana?

Education: Please indicate your policy platform on the issue of education. Would you support increased funding of our nation’s k-12 public schools. What are your feelings about mandatory standards and testing requirements for students?  What are your feelings about the use of vouchers?  What will you do regarding federal funding and support for our nation’s public college students? Do you support increased or decreased funding for pell grants for college students?

Abortion and Reproductive Rights: Many Americans have strong feelings about issues related to reproductive rights and abortion. Do you feel that abortion should always be legal, should only be legal within the first trimester, when the woman’s life is endangered, in the case of incest or rape, or should always be illegal?  How do you feel about federal subsidies being used on abortion procedures? Do you support federal funding for research on existing embryonic stem cell lines?  Do you support federal funding to create lines of stem cells from new embryos?

Same Sex Marriage: What are your feelings regarding the issue of same sex marriage?  As a candidate for federal office, do you believe that same-sex couples be allowed to form civil unions?  Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry or do you support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman? Should sexual orientation be included in federal anti-discrimination laws?

Crime and Punishment: More Americans are incarcerated now than at any point in our history, what role do you believe the federal government should play on issues of crime and punishment?  Do you support programs to provide prison inmates with vocational and job-related skills and job-placement assistance when released?  Do you support mandatory jail sentences for selling illegal drugs?  Do you support programs to provide prison inmates with drug and alcohol addiction treatment?  Would you support the decriminalization of the possession of small amounts of marijuana? How do you feel about reduced prison sentences for those who commit non-violent crimes? Do you support the elimination the use of the death penalty for federal crimes?

Race and Gender: Race and gender continue to be defining issues in federal policy.  As a candidate do you believe the consider race and gender in government contracting decisions?  Do you support affirmative action in public college admissions?

Campaign Finance Reform: As you know, campaign finance reform has continued to be an issue of importance to voters.  Currently seven states have adopted some form of campaign finance reform which involves the allocation of public dollars for candidates.  On the federal level one candidate has said that the current system of public campaign finance is broken, while another candidate has accepted campaign finance limits.  How do you feel about the issue of campaign finance reform and elections?  Do you support campaign finance reform of the current election financing system? If elected would you support public taxpayer funding for candidates who comply with spending limits?  Do you support instant runoff voting or election day as a national holiday?

The Environment: What would you do regarding the environment and energy policy?  Please indicate your policy issues regarding offshore oil drilling and drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge.  What will you do to move America towards a clean energy future?  Do you support strengthened fuel efficiency standards on all gasoline and diesel powered engines?  Do you support the use of ethanol as an alternative fuel?  What will you do to increase development of alternative energy?  Do you consider nuclear energy to be an alternative energy source that needs to be developed for national energy security? Do you support international mandatory emission targets to limit global warming?

Gun Rights: Please indicate your position on the issue of the second amendment.  Do you believe that Americans should be allowed to carry conceal weapons?  Should current enforcement and restrictions on the purchase of guns be strengthened?  Should individuals be allowed to carry guns on college campuses?  Do you support a ban on the ownership of handguns except by law enforcement or other government officials?

Immigration: Please indicate your policy platform on the issue of immigration.  Would you support amnesty for undocumented workers who are already working in the United States?  Do you believe that undocumented workers should be offered a path to citizenship?  Do you support harsher punishments for employers who knowingly hire immigrants who are not in this country legally?  Do you believe that people who are not here legally should be returned to their countries of origin, even if it means breaking up their families?

International Trade: Please indicate your position on matters of trade?  Do you support economic globalization and free trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT?  Would you work to withdraw the US from international free trade agreements?  Would you support the continued participation of the United States in the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund and World Bank?  Do you support the United States imposing economic sanctions on China for human rights abuses?

Civil Liberties: Civil liberties are of the utmost concern to many Americans.  The Bush administration has argued that there must be a balance between respect for civil liberties and the need to fight the terrorists.  Should law enforcement agencies have greater discretion to monitor domestic communications?  Do you support a repeal of the patriot act?  What role should the department of Homeland Security play in national affairs?  Would you support the creation of a federal level Department of Peace?

For more information contact Chris Lugo, 615-593-0304, ; Elizabeth Barger, 931-964-2119, ; or Eric Schecter, 615-414-4572, .

What she really meant was that God “has a plan” and that this “Plan” includes rightness, goodness, and “certain inalienable rights” including “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

I wonder if the missionaries took it that way?

I also wondered, immediately, how Palin could possibly expect anyone with three live brain cells to believe that “God has a Plan and it includes a war in Iraq” … means anything other than, “God has a Plan and it includes a war in Iraq.”

Palin repeated the “inalienable rights” comment at least three times during phase one of her interview with noted softball pitcher, Charlie Gibson. Interestingly enough, Johnny McSame used the exact language on several occasions during the course of his “prepared remarks” to what at least the freshmen in the audience at Columbia University thought were cold questions, during the course of his portion of a Forum on Public Service, where McScripted appeared in advance of Barack Obama.

Viewing the Palin love fest with Gibson, where virtually every answer to each puff question included the tossing of hair, the wringing of hands, and the recitation of the name “Charlie” no less than six times … and the McOscar performance of Johnny War Hero at the Columbia Forum … it is abundantly clear that neither Candidate will answer any question, on any topic, which has not been fully and completely drill, drill, drilled into them by their collective gaggle of professional handlers.

With the ten pound tomato questions that Gibson lobbed at Palin, we still don’t know anything other than that she doesn’t blink, she is sure she is ready to be President, and she is more than willing to go to war with Russia to defend Georgia.

Sarah Palin hadn’t even gotten out of the chair of her first campaign “interview” before the crack staff of the Johnny McOops Campaign had surrounded Charlie Gibson and was eyeing him up as though he was the Dingo who had just eaten their baby.

Gibson had asked Palin a question about whether she was in agreement with the so-called Bush Doctrine involving the use of pre-emptive strikes against nations who make us really nervous.

Actually “Charlie” didn’t take the time to explain the Bush Doctrine in the body of his question. He correctly assumed that the Republican Vice-Presidential Nominee should have at least some idea of the specific foreign policy directives which she might have to interpret, or God forbid employ one day, in the event that Johnny McAlzheimers starts pissing himself and forgets where he lives.

Unfortunately, Gibson had given Governor experience a little too much credit for doing her homework.

Palin was thoroughly confused and gave an answer which bore little if any resemblance to the original question. Being a tough interviewer (cough), Gibson made an effort to re-phrase the question in such a way as to permit Palin to properly redeem herself. Either that, or he just wanted to hear Sarah call out his name another six times.

Either way … Palin still had no idea what Gibson was talking about, and gave an equally irrelevant and borderline nonsensical response.

Not even the third time being a charm in this instance, Gibson finally gave up on getting an intelligent response to his question. He moved on … and the bodyguards of all things policy, moved in for the post-interview kill.

Apparently, Palin was “confused” because Gibson had phrased his question in the form of a “hypothetical”. Either that … or the Republican Vice-Presidential Nominee was simply clueless on Foreign Policy? Hypothetically speaking…of course.

~~ You can view this commentary and more great new postings at www.theprogressivepolitico.com.

About the author: Lionus, in his ownh words, is a “Multi-degreed professional with an extraordinarily broad-base of worldly experience. Member of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Lawyer, Published Author, Screenwriter, former Working Professional Standup Comedian, All-Around Bon Vivant AND “Man About Town.” You can hear Lionus Unleashed on Blog Talk Radio or visit Lionus at  http://www.myspace.com/lionusunleashed

The people of the United States must acknowledge the role we play in the current crisis in Israel, Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq. Our responsibility lies in our support of the state sponsored agression by our government and the government of Israel against innocent women, children and other non-combatants.

The current round of actions against Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, which sets out the obligations of occupying powers and specifically prohibits collective punishments, “targeted” assassinations, and destruction of the infrastructure of an occupied territory.

Disregard for International Law Creates More Victims

The Israeli attacks constitute collective punishment of the entire Gazan population and the sovereign nation of Lebanon, and have created a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions in Gaza. While the United States should not support the actions of terrorists against innocent civilians in Israel, neither should it support the actions of a democratic state against innocent civilians in Lebanon and Gaza.

The current actions of the Israeli government must be condemned because they violate international law. It is unlikely that the United States will condemn actions which mirror its foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. The truth of the matter is that US agression against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan has been of a greater magnitude and the suffering caused by our foreign policy worse than the current crisis in the Middle East.

While this may be only a microcosm of the 300,000 killed in Iraq and the $324 billion spent to date, Americans have had an opportunity in the most recent crisis to see exactly how we are seen by the rest of the world. Although Israel does have a right to defend her territory and has a right to protect her people, global opinion is strongly against Israel’s actions, because once again, Israel is collectively punishing an entire group of people for the crimes of a few. There is essentially no difference between this behaviour and our collective punishment of the people of Iraq by destroying her infrastructure as well as our imprisonment, torture and murder of countless innocent Iraqi civilians.

Collective punishment is immoral, and United States policymakers have a responsibility to speak out against this aggression. The eyes of the Arab world are once again upon us and upon Israel. waiting for our response. Will we choose to step in line with international law and the Geneva conventions and deal with terrorism with common sense, or will we bomb airports, bridges, generating stations, water treatment facilities, schools, hospitals and private residences in our quest for revenge?

The odds are not good. We have already committed to spending $6 billion dollars a year to supply Israel with the most effective killing machines we can invent, as we have invested $324 billion to the same purpose in Iraq.

Additionally, the expansion of the military escalation to Lebanon represents a potentially serious threat, especially if there is involvement from Syria. The ongoing crisis is political, not just humanitarian. It reflects the failure of Israeli unilateralism, the failure of the “Roadmap,” the failure of the U.S.-orchestrated exclusion of the UN, and failure of the international community and the UN to intervene.

The Gaza and Lebanon escalation demonstrates once again the need for an entirely new, international (not U.S.-sponsored) diplomatic process based on international law and human rights, aimed at ending the occupation and establishing equal rights for all, the only basis for a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the region.