A dispatch by RT News

The Ministers of Foreign Affairs of (L-R) Peru, Rafael Roncagliolo, Ecuador, Ricardo Patino, Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, and Colombia, Maria Angela Holguin, answer questions to the press after an extraordinary meeting of the Council of Ministers of UNASUR in Guayaquil, Ecuador on August 19, 2012 (AFP Photo / Rodrigo Buendia)

The Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) has unanimously adopted a seven-point resolution supporting Ecuador’s right to grant Julian Assange asylum and condemning British threats to raid a sovereign state’s embassy in order to arrest him.

Foreign ministers of the 12-member bloc took part in an extraordinary meeting in Guayaquil, Ecuador’s largest city. A resolution was adopted just eight minutes after the session began, and was read out by Secretary General Ali Rodriguez.  Rodriguez’ readout of the resolution was met with loud applause.

The document reaffirmed the sovereign right of any country to grant asylum and condemned threats to use force, stating that the bloc’s foreign ministers had taken into account the aide memoire Britain sent to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London on the eve of the announcement of the decision on whether to grant Assange asylum.

The resolution reiterated “the inviolability of embassies” and the Vienna Convention, saying that principles of international law could not be overridden by domestic laws, such as the Diplomatic and Consular Act of 1987, which grants the British Secretary of State discretion to revoke immunity to ambassadorial premises.

The organization vowed to encourage all parties to the Assange case to continue dialogue to find a solution within the framework of international law. The importance of refuge and asylum for the protection of human rights was also reaffirmed by the South American foreign ministers.

After the session, Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino addressed the press.

He noted that while the United Kingdom was a country far more powerful military-wise than Ecuador, the small Latin American country had the high ground in terms of its understanding of international law.

“Reason does not call for force,” Patino stated. “The force may be as different and as distant as a small country and a country which has atomic bombs. But here, reason is with us.”

Patino thanked fellow Latin American nations for firmly supporting Quito on the issue and said he was pleased with the fact that Julian Assange knows that the region respects international law, the right to personal integrity and the freedom of expression.

He also said he was waiting for a resolution expected to be adopted at a similar foreign-minister level meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS), which is scheduled to meet next Friday.

Ecuador convened a number of regional meetings following the threat to storm the country’s embassy in London.

On Saturday, representatives of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) adopted a similar eight-point resolution condemning Britain for its “intimidating threats” to violate the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

On Friday, a special meeting of the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States, which comprises countries from North, Central and South America, voted to hold a meeting of the member states’ foreign ministers in order to discuss the same resolution filed by Ecuador.

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

By Kristine Mattis

And as it was in the beginning, so shall it be in the end
That bullshit is bullshit, it just goes by different names …

Paul Weller (The Jam)

Scott Walker's triumph reflects not only the enduring power of money in US politics, but the confusion among voters in all parts of the nation, and a general disgust with Democratic party politics due to numerous betrayals.

We all know the old Albert Einstein adage that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. What does that say about Wisconsin? June 5^th 2012 saw an exact rematch of the 2010 gubernatorial election between Republican Scott Walker and Democrat Tom Barrett – and the exact same result, the only difference being that Walker won by an even wider margin than before.

While pundits have been pontificating about the causes of such a seemingly absurd victory by Scott Walker after the enormous groundswell of citizens fighting for sixteen months against the governor and his Tea Party Republican administration, most of the discussion has been shallow and fraught with inaccuracies. Furthermore, mere speculation on the causes of the Walker win only point to the ease with which our society retreats back to often unfounded conventional wisdom. Walker outspending Barrett 7 to 1, an ignorant electorate hell bent on voting against their own interests, and poor “messaging” by the Democratic party/candidate may all have played a part in the crushing Walker win, but these observations only scratch the surface of the problems facing Wisconsin, the country, and the world and serve to fuel the media’s incessant focus on the horse race. This insistence on focusing on the superficial always serves, by design, to impede the discourse on substantive issues.

The following represent some of the points directly and indirectly connected to the Wisconsin election which I failed to hear in the media discourse on the subject:

In Wisconsin:

• Scott Walker did NOT originally campaign on taking away collective bargaining rights. Thus, when he and his cronies claimed that he just carried out his campaign promises, they lied.

• The right to collective bargaining has nothing to do with and does not preclude balancing a budget.

In America:

• The fact that private sector and non-union employees do not have living wages, full benefits and access to health care is a travesty, but their friends and neighbors in unions in the public sector are not to blame. ALL workers should have such benefits, which all humans should be entitled to. By demonizing fellow workers who have these basic human rights, we only allow the elite to sit back with their excess riches while the rest fight for scraps. The haves promulgate the falsehood of entitlement abuse through exploiting the fear and selfishness of the have-nots. It is a divide and conquer strategy through which the elite pit the working class against one another in a race to the bottom. In reality, the hoarding by the super-rich few is to blame for the lack of basic resources for the many.

• An entitlement is a right, not a “handout.”

• The decline in wages and benefits across all sectors has mirrored the decline in unions in America; when unions are strong, ALL WORKERS benefit.

• Blind support of Democratic candidates by unions over the past several decades has resulted in no gains or benefits for workers. On the contrary, in the country as a whole as in Wisconsin, Democratic candidates have erroneously blamed public employees for financial woes and have demanded concessions from public workers while remaining unwavering in their support for corporations and the wealthy.

• The budget crises facing our governments on all levels are due to the enormous expenditures on subsidizing already wealthy and large corporations, the lowering of taxes on the rich, the virtual raping of the citizenry and our federal government by Wall Street millionaires and billionaires, and the unrelenting military spending on illegal and immoral wars and on redundant and unnecessary weapons.

• Corporate subsidies only enrich corporations and their upper management, not their rank and file employees and not citizens. Increased tax breaks and monies to corporations do not trickle down to workers. Corporations do not create more jobs through such measures as lower taxes and increased subsidies; they simply create more wealth for themselves.

• While Democrat and Republican politicians stress their minor differences through their socially more liberal or conservative beliefs, these amount to little in terms of concrete societal change, as both parties adhere to the identical dominant economic, plutocratic, oligarchic paradigm which is destroying the nation and the world. It is not by chance that all of the presidents of the past twenty-four years have been Ivy League graduates, as the next president will also be. The vast majority of these people are not admitted to elite institutions based simply on their merit; they are admitted due to their family wealth, power, and/or prestige. And for those like Bill Clinton who do not come from such pedigrees, the only way they are able to sustain their status after having been accepted into the power elite is by implicitly promising to maintain and propagate the dominant paradigm and the status quo.
   
• For those who decry the lack of a clear, cohesive, and compelling message by Democrats to counter Republicans, there lies a simple answer: Democrats do not have their own message because their message is the same as that of Republicans.

In the world:

• The ritual of voting is illusory; the pretense that it represents democracy is a complete fabrication. When people do not have choice in their candidates, as when the elite of the moneyed political parties choose their “electable” politicians, voting is simply an exercise in futility.

• The poor have always been and continue to be marginalized by all major political parties. Vast majorities of people around the world – including the poor themselves –  have bought into the false propaganda revering wealth and equating it with quality of character, while demonizing poverty and equating it with depravity. As psychological studies have shown, the exact opposite is true. The growing number of poor in the shadow of the more highly concentrated rich is a local and global concern addressed by virtually no one in politics.

• Wealth inequality is an immoral blight in our society. The obscene concentration of wealth in America and around the globe is emblematic of the lack of democracy, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as, “the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.” We absolutely do not live in a democracy, not in the U.S. nor in the world community.

• Until ecology is prioritized ahead of economy, all other points are moot. Our already occurring global ecological decline will soon eclipse any of our current economic crises. We cannot live without ecological resources and we will poison ourselves to death in our quest to further create synthetic resources that do not fit within our natural ecological systems and our biosphere. NO ONE will dare address this reality in political circles.

While Scott Walker’s administration represents one of the most morally bankrupt, scientifically inept, and socially despicable governorship seen in recent decades, real change was not to be found among any of the Democratic candidates who opposed him, just as it is not found among the Democratic governors of other states in this nation.

By utilizing electoral politics as our source of change, our choice becomes thus:

We can be shoved off the cliff by the Republicans while being told that free-fall is freedom, or we can be coaxed along the path toward the cliff, while being distracted by trivialities and assured that the cliff does not exist (and when the cliff is in sight, being told that those who led us there really tried their best not to do so) by the Democrats.

Change can be very difficult, which is why people tend to cling to their jobs, their towns, their bad marriages even as they move toward dysfunction. We humans, particularly we industrialized, “civilized,” American humans, are creatures of habit, and we fear an alteration of our rituals. So we try our best to remain in our comfort zones, even as they become increasingly more and more uncomfortable – sometimes even untenable. That is why last year’s uprising in Wisconsin, like the entire Occupy movement across the country, was so remarkable. People changed their routines, relinquished their security, and finally stood up after enduring decade after decade of servitude, abuse, and disrespect. They said to their corporate overlords – at the state capitol of Wisconsin, on Wall Street, and in Washington – that they were not willing to complacently stand by and take it anymore.

 But apparently people are not mad enough to realize that the real change they may be seeking will never come through the voting process. It will never come through returning to “normalcy.” It will never come through adhering to and worshiping the inverted power structures that have been erected to maintain our complacency and servitude. These structures created the economy, the educational system, the workplace, the industrial infrastructure, the electoral process, and the law. Only when enough people – including all of us who intellectually, ideologically, and physically remain complicit – understand that our entire system is the problem will we have enough people power to work toward the genuine solution: changing our society.

 True change is extraordinarily difficult. It generates tremendous amounts of uncertainty, distress, and fear of the unknown. But it has the potential also to produce the most profound joy, creativity, and opportunity. And at this point, it may be our only chance at survival.

 So, what next?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

David Graeber

The Answer May Surprise You”  is food for thought regarding what is possible. Via the Anarchist Library:

Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. But it’s one that the rich and powerful have always found extremely dangerous.

At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two elementary assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. The second is that power corrupts. Most of all, anarchism is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions. Odd though this may seem, in most important ways you are probably already an anarchist — you just don’t realize it.

Let’s start by taking a few examples from everyday life:

If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?

If you answered “yes”, then you are used to acting like an anarchist! The most basic anarchist principle is self-organization: the assumption that human beings do not need to be threatened with prosecution in order to be able to come to reasonable understandings with each other, or to treat each other with dignity and respect.

Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don’t those people all feel exactly the same way about you? Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it’s necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible. It’s all a vicious circle. If people are used to being treated like their opinions do not matter, they are likely to become angry and cynical, even violent – which of course makes it easy for those in power to say that their opinions do not matter. Once they understand that their opinions really do matter just as much as anyone else’s, they tend to become remarkably understanding. To cut a long story short: anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that make people stupid and irresponsible.

Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?

If you answered “yes”, then you belong to an organization which works on anarchist principles! Another basic anarchist principle is voluntary association. This is simply a matter of applying democratic principles to ordinary life. The only difference is that anarchists believe it should be possible to have a society in which everything could be organized along these lines, all groups based on the free consent of their members, and therefore, that all top-down, military styles of organization like armies or bureaucracies or large corporations, based on chains of command, would no longer be necessary. Perhaps you don’t believe that would be possible. Perhaps you do. But every time you reach an agreement by consensus, rather than threats, every time you make a voluntary arrangement with another person, come to an understanding, or reach a compromise by taking due consideration of the other person’s particular situation or needs, you are being an anarchist — even if you don’t realize it.

Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free — and therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails. This leads to another crucial point: that while people can be reasonable and considerate when they are dealing with equals, human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others. Give someone such power, they will almost invariably abuse it in some way or another.

Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don’t really care about the public interest? Do you think we live in an economic system which is stupid and unfair?

If you answered “yes”, then you subscribe to the anarchist critique of today’s society – at least, in its broadest outlines. Anarchists believe that power corrupts and those who spend their entire lives seeking power are the very last people who should have it. Anarchists believe that our present economic system is more likely to reward people for selfish and unscrupulous behavior than for being decent, caring human beings. Most people feel that way. The only difference is that most people don’t think there’s anything that can be done about it, or anyway — and this is what the faithful servants of the powerful are always most likely to insist — anything that won’t end up making things even worse.

But what if that weren’t true?

And is there really any reason to believe this? When you can actually test them, most of the usual predictions about what would happen without states or capitalism turn out to be entirely untrue. For thousands of years people lived without governments. In many parts of the world people live outside of the control of governments today. They do not all kill each other. Mostly they just get on about their lives the same as anyone else would. Of course, in a complex, urban, technological society all this would be more complicated: but technology can also make all these problems a lot easier to solve. In fact, we have not even begun to think about what our lives could be like if technology were really marshaled to fit human needs. How many hours would we really need to work in order to maintain a functional society — that is, if we got rid of all the useless or destructive occupations like telemarketers, lawyers, prison guards, financial analysts, public relations experts, bureaucrats and politicians, and turn our best scientific minds away from working on space weaponry or stock market systems to mechanizing away dangerous or annoying tasks like coal mining or cleaning the bathroom, and distribute the remaining work among everyone equally? Five hours a day? Four? Three? Two? Nobody knows because no one is even asking this kind of question. Anarchists think these are the very questions we should be asking.

Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?

It doesn’t matter who started it.” “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” “Clean up your own mess.” “Do unto others …” “Don’t be mean to people just because they’re different.” Perhaps we should decide whether we’re lying to our children when we tell them about right and wrong, or whether we’re willing to take our own injunctions seriously. Because if you take these moral principles to their logical conclusions, you arrive at anarchism.

Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?

If you answered “yes”, then, well, it looks like you aren’t an anarchist after all. But if you answered “no’, then chances are you already subscribe to 90% of anarchist principles, and, likely as not, are living your life largely in accord with them. Every time you treat another human with consideration and respect, you are being an anarchist. Every time you work out your differences with others by coming to reasonable compromise, listening to what everyone has to say rather than letting one person decide for everyone else, you are being an anarchist. Every time you have the opportunity to force someone to do something, but decide to appeal to their sense of reason or justice instead, you are being an anarchist. The same goes for every time you share something with a friend, or decide who is going to do the dishes, or do anything at all with an eye to fairness.

¶

 ADVERT PRO NOBIS
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

IF YOU THINK THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA ARE A DISGRACE AND A HUGE OBSTACLE
to real change in America why haven’t you sent at least a few dollars to The Greanville Post (or a similar anti-corporate citizen’s media?). Think about it.  Without educating and organizing our ranks our cause is DOA. That’s why our new citizens’ media need your support. Send your badly needed check to “TGP, P.O. Box 1028, Brewster, NY 10509-1028.” Make checks out to “P. Greanville/ TGP”.  (A contribution of any amount can also be made via Paypal and MC or VISA.)

THANK YOU.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

By Krell, Roundtree7

Democrats: A leadership completely in the pocket of the plutocracy, as their "foes", the Republicans, but with a different approach to fooling the masses.

A Zero-sum Game is a situation in which one side will have results of a gain or loss that exactly balances the gains or losses of the other side. Sounds more complicated that it really is.

Arm wrestling would be a zero-sum game, one person is going to win, the other person is going to lose so it equals out.

Another example may be a chocolate cake that needs to be divided up into portions for a Scout Troop. One way that the events may unfold, I will call it the “That’s not fair” scenario is that the first person takes ALL the cake and runs away.

This means all of the other Scouts get nothing. It’s still a zero-sum game because any gain by one individual means a loss to someone else.

There is a point to this discussion as it applies to presidential elections with a little thought experiment. I’m sure that everyone has heard this argument.. not supporting Obama is a vote for the Republicans. When you think about it on the surface, that may seem correct. Not voting for Obama is a vote for Republicans.

BUT… that is a short sighted zero-sum near sighted viewpoint.

Of course, the political parties would certainly like to keep the political thoughts along those lines, it’s a powerful force to maintain the continued party loyalty and gain the advantage in a presidential re-election bid.

But here’s a idea…. don’t think of each presidential election as starting the game with a clean slate. For example, the day after a presidential election when everyone comes out of the woodwork with their own opinion of why it went this or that way. Of course, political party specialists are way more sophisticated with their miles of data, statistics and analysis techniques of the election results.

They’ll break all the votes into demographics, geographical locations, even smaller sub-groups of a demographic group. Political think tanks that will pour over the problem for months at a time. Very detailed reports will be created. The reason they do this is for the power of information. They want to learn every nuance of why they lost or won. They want to know the hot issues for these groups and sub groups and sub.. sub.. groups, so they can have a better understanding of how to get their candidate in the next time.

So what happens when a party loses? They change slightly to make it more probable to win the next time. If they lose again, they will make even more dramatic adjustments to better their odds of winning. If a party is not winning, believe me when I say that even more dramatic changes will occur to better the odds of winning next time. They will change for survival. That’s politics and it’s NEVER a clean slate.

When you are voting for what you actually believe in, you must think beyond the short term zero-sum game, beyond the current election. It’s NOT a clean slate each time… more like a constantly evolving chameleon. You are voting for the evolution of the party, to shape the party by pressure to become the party of the majority idea by using your vote, cast with your beliefs, to create a ever so slight pressure to change that party. The more people that do the same, the more pressure.

When you vote just to maintain the party in power, the evolving of the party doesn’t stop. No, it’s just evolving into a party that doesn’t have to pay attention to ideology and opinions of the majority anymore.

Think about it.. casting your vote because of what you believe in. Not because the other political side is “crazy” or blind party loyalty for decisions that would be completely objected to….. if the other party were the ones doing it.

So which mode do you think is better for the long term future of the political process?

A mode that if a party candidate doesn’t get elected because a particular group expressed their different opinions by vote, we must bring the wrath of the zero-sum game upon them… blame, guilt, and calling them traitors to get them in line with the party march.

Or a mode that if the party candidate didn’t get elected, perhaps the party candidate doesn’t represent the ideas that the majority of its members believe in. The fault is not placed on the voter, but the Party and its CANDIDATES that didn’t represent the voter. The voter becomes the true master and the political process becomes its servant.

Sure.. one may say that the party is so far from what it needs to be that it will take a long while to effect change. But change will never occur if the first step is not taken. Wall Street investors are always saying that financial investment requires not the panic of day to day swings….. but a long term view to create that successful portfolio.

Isn’t that something that could be applied to the political parties and the process in general. Don’t look at the short term gains and losses, the zero-sum game.

Look to that long term vision and goals for success in your investment, your country.

SELECT COMMENT:

osori says:
July 28, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Excellent rebuttal to those who put party loyalty above policy. Prime example would be Wisconsin – the Democratic party did not deliver to its base, it lost voters and lost seats. Rather than chastise the party for failing its base and resolving to force change, partisans instead blamed the base for not accepting the party’s betrayal and continuing to vote Democratic.

The lesson taken from Wisconsin from party partisans is this – always vote Democratic, no matter what. If you don’t vote Democrat, the result will always be bad. The lesson taken by the party leadership is this – never do anything for your base, because the partisans will vote Democrat regardless – what’s more they will serve as junkyard dog for the base, attacking them for not toeing the party line and voting for anyone with a (D) next to their name. This enables the party to take money from both big business and whatever the base can scrounge up. They can deliver Republican policy because their neutered and gutless partisans will fight for that Republican policy as if it actually benefited them.

¶

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENTS

Notice to our audience: All comments suspended until further notice due to spamming and defamation/harassment threats. Check Facebook’s Links for the Wild Left for comment threads on our articles.

Links for the Wildly Left

 ADVERT PRO NOBIS
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

IF YOU THINK THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA ARE A DISGRACE AND A HUGE OBSTACLE
to real change in America why haven’t you sent at least a few dollars to The Greanville Post (or a similar anti-corporate citizen’s media?). Think about it.  Without educating and organizing our ranks our cause is DOA. That’s why our new citizens’ media need your support. Send your badly needed check to “TGP, P.O. Box 1028, Brewster, NY 10509-1028.” Make checks out to “P. Greanville/ TGP”.  (A contribution of any amount can also be made via Paypal and MC or VISA—see our right column for that.)
THANK YOU.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________
PROMOTIONAL MESSAGE
A TOOL IS USELESS IF IT’S NOT USED.
Don’t just sit there…introduce a friend or relative to The Greanville Post and help us expand the reach of remedial ideas and information. If each of you brings merely ONE additional reader to the table, we will be able to double our circulation!

____________________________________________________________________

Editor’s Note: Unfortunately this film is only available on HBO, a premium channel, and still well outside many people’s budgets. Look for it, however, in DVD format, buy it used if necessary. The issues covered concern the question of so-called “frivolous lawsuits”, the astroturf “movement” for tort reform (setting limits on corporate responsibility), and jury “punitive caps”—all critical areas of law heavily interfered with and opposed by practically the entire roster of Fortune 500 companies and their allies.

By Ken Tucker
Just a quick heads-up: If you can, watch Hot Coffee on HBO (currently also available on demand). Remember the 1994 court case of the woman who was awarded $2.9 million for spilling a cup of McDonald’s coffee on herself? It even became a plot point in an episode of Seinfeld. Well, you don’t know the half of it.

Hot Coffee is a documentary that will leave you both stunned and enlightened about the misconceptions we have about civil lawsuits, in this case, and in general. Stella Liebeck, 79 years-old, suffered third-degree burns within seven seconds of opening a cup of McDonald’s coffee while sitting in the passenger seat of a parked car. All she asked for in bringing a lawsuit was the difference between what Medicare paid for and her medical bills. (Liebeck required skin grafts and other operations.) It was a jury that awarded her the large sum — which the jury noted represented a mere two days of McDonald’s coffee sales. The judge reduced that sum, and the case was settled out of court.

Liebeck’s story is eye-opening enough, but Hot Coffee goes on to present three more cases in which ordinary citizens were severely wronged by private companies, the medical profession, and political operatives. (There’s a rape case here with a corporate response to it that will chill your soul and make your blood boil.) Watch Hot Coffee and you’ll learn more about the pernicious effect of tort reform, damage caps, and how state supreme court judges campaigns are sometimes conducted. (Hint: Follow Karl Rove throughout this film.)

Watch Hot Coffee and you won’t be so quick to dismiss something as a “frivolous lawsuit” again.
—end—

¶

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENTS

Notice to our audience: All comments suspended until further notice due to spamming and defamation/harassment threats. Check Facebook’s Links for the Wild Left for comment threads on our articles.

Links for the Wildly Left

 ADVERT PRO NOBIS
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

IF YOU THINK THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA ARE A DISGRACE AND A HUGE OBSTACLE
to real change in America why haven’t you sent at least a few dollars to The Greanville Post (or a similar anti-corporate citizen’s media?). Think about it.  Without educating and organizing our ranks our cause is DOA. That’s why our new citizens’ media need your support. Send your badly needed check to “TGP, P.O. Box 1028, Brewster, NY 10509-1028.” Make checks out to “P. Greanville/ TGP”.  (A contribution of any amount can also be made via Paypal and MC or VISA—see our right column for that.)
THANK YOU.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________
PROMOTIONAL MESSAGE
A TOOL IS USELESS IF IT’S NOT USED.
Don’t just sit there…introduce a friend or relative to The Greanville Post and help us expand the reach of remedial ideas and information. If each of you brings merely ONE additional reader to the table, we will be able to double our circulation!

____________________________________________________________________