I spent most of today (3/04) at a public hearing at the State House. Hundreds of people attended and about 100 testified against the Govenor’s proposed devastating budget cuts, and pleaded with the legislators to save their programs.

A few of us came and offered plans to increase revenue in a progressive manner (more funds from the rich and tax cuts for most of us).

Below is my written testimony. I also had my 3 minutes to make a speech.

Mike Heichman, GRP State Comm. member and member of the Greater Boston Chapter

“We are at war.”

-Chuck Turner

The other day I finished reading a book that I want to recommend. The thesis of James Douglass’s book, “JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters” is that after the Cuban Missile Crisis in November, 1962, President Kennedy moved to improve relations with the Soviet Union, was opening up a dialogue with Cuba and decided to withdraw US troops from Vietnam. These policy moves were bitterly resisted by the “National Security State”, and as a result, the CIA, military, FBI and Secret Service conspired to assassinate the President and then cover-up the truth and their crime.

This book is the first volume of a projected trilogy.  Orbis Books has commissioned James W. Douglass to write three books on the assassinations of the 1960’s.  The second will be on the murders of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, while the third will be on the assassination of Robert Kennedy. I believe that the upcoming books will come to similar conclusions about who deserves responsibility for their assassinations.

I was reading the book in the courtroom on January 25, the day of Chuck’s sentencing. Others who were present have commented that on their arrival there were US Marshals outside of the courthouse armed with machine guns. Some have speculated that this was a message that was deliberately connected to Chuck’s trial, while others have cautioned against jumping to conclusions, and that there may have been another reason for the “military” presence.

by Jason Pramas (Staff), Dec-06-10

   * OMB Editorial

A few days ago, I watched Chuck Turner get thrown off of the Boston City Council by a near-unanimous vote of his peers as I took photographs of the sad scene for Open Media Boston. The fact that he got shown the door that day surprised no one. One had only to look at the stony faces of most of the councilors as Turner made his final defiant speech to them to know that he was definitely going down. The feds were handing his political head to them on a silver platter. And there was no way they were going to pass up that opportunity. They had the eight votes they needed – even if the more progressive councilors didn’t vote yes. And that was that.

Councilor Charles Yancey did a fine job trying to defend Turner on procedural grounds – convincingly demonstrating that the council had no authority to expel the democratically-elected Turner under the council rules. And pointing out that no councilor in the long and nasty history of the Boston City Council had ever been expelled in such a fashion before. Of course, virtually none of those other councilors were black – but we’ll sidle past that ugly fact for the purposes of this editorial.

Once again Jason Pramas from the Open Media Group has written a wonderful piece. This one in support of Chuck Turner. mikeheichman :: article in support of Chuck Turner Keep Chuck Turner Out of Jail and Let Him Serve Out His Full Council Term

Originally I held up this week’s edition until today to cover yesterday’s rally in support of Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner. The event was announced on understandably short notice after Turner was found guilty on charges that he took a $1000 bribe in 2007 and later lied about it to federal agents. He faces up to 35 years in prison at his sentencing hearing on January 25th. My plan was that I’d write a straight news piece about the rally, and then a short editorial about Turner’s verdict. So I went and covered the rally as planned. And then I sat in front of my computer for a while. And then I thought, “what’s the point of doing a news piece on the rally?” Right? What can one say at this point that hasn’t already been said? Turner lost the trial. His supporters called a rally. A multiracial crowd of over 100 attended. Turner spoke. Said a lot of political and some spiritual stuff. Said he was going to fight to keep his council seat. Said he is going to fight for probation instead of jail time. Councilor Charles Yancey showed up in his support, and said some nice stuff. And that was basically it. The rest of the Boston press corps has already weighed in on the rally. I can’t say much different in a news story. So why bother?  

Once again Jason Pramas from the Open Media Group has written a wonderful piece. This one in support of Chuck Turner.

Dear Green Mass Group:

Below is a letter from Chuck Turner, who is asking for our support.

Please spread the word through your networks and do what you can to support Chuck.

Thanks,

Mike Heichman

Continue reading Support Chuck Turner

THE GREEN – RAINBOW PARTY OF MASSACHUSETTS, BOSTON CHAPTER SAYS: CHUCK IS INNOCENT OF ALL CHARGES!

On October 12, 2010 the federal government will put on trial the most prominent elected official affiliated with the GRP, neighbor and friend, Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner. It will attempt to convince a jury that he is guilty of extorting $1,000 and lying to FBI officials.

Chuck Turner is an honest man who has never extorted a penny from anyone. He has championed justice for everyone, especially the residents of District 7 in Boston, Massachusetts.

Chuck maintains his innocence. He will use the trial to expose the unethical and immoral behavior of those who have conspired to silence him.

Members of the Boston chapter of the Green-Rainbow Party have known and worked with Chuck Turner for many years. We Believe in Chuck and stand with him during this time of government and media persecution.

We believe that Chuck’s re-election, after being falsely indicted on these false charges, is proof and evidence that his peers and constituents know that he is innocent. We also demand that President Obama’s Justice Department immediately drop the false charges brought by the Bush Administration.

Chuck Turner has been a community organizer and civil rights activist in Boston since 1966. Since his first election in 1999, he has been an outstanding City Councilor. He played a major role in the fight that brought reform to the Cori laws at the city and state level. Other legislative accomplishments have included the banning of carrying machetes as well as the selling of “crack pipes” in Boston as well as giving voters the right to bullet vote in At Large Elections.  

What are our positions on the 3 statewide ballot questions that will appear on the November 2 ballot?

At the last meeting of the GRP State Committee, it was decided that these were not “easy” questions, and that we did not have the time to properly research and debate these questions in time to make a contribution to the public debate. Given our limited resources, it would be best that the State Party not play a role this time.

The article below is is from Jason Pramas from the Open Media Group. I invite others to contribute their own ideas. Let Green Mass have an open discussion.

Mike Heichman

Below is the media consortium letter sent to the Stein campaign on August 10.  It says that they will admit Jill to their debates only if she meets three criteria.

– – –

August 10, 2010

Daryl Sprague

info@jillstein.org

Jill Stein for Governor

           This is an invitation for Dr. Stein to participate in two Massachusetts gubernatorial debates sponsored by a consortium of news media outlets in Boston and shared with broadcast stations in other cities in the state. The sponsoring media outlets include The Boston Globe, WCVB-TV (Channel 5), WHDH-TV (Channel 7), WGBH-TV (Channel 2), New England Cable News (NECN), WBUR, WTTK-FM, WBZ-AM, and Gatehouse Media.

           The first debate will be held at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, September 21. The second debate is scheduled for 7 p.m. on Tuesday, October 26. The venues and formats will be determined in short order.

           This invitation to participate is contingent on your candidate fulfilling all of the following criteria:

1.     The candidate must have an established campaign headquarters with at least three paid staffers and communicates, on a daily basis, with recognized non-partisan media outlets such as television stations and newspapers.

2.     The candidate must have raised at least $100,000 between January 1 and October 1 for the purpose of running for governor. .

3.     The candidate must receive 5 percent in a poll conducted by a media organization or academic institution that is recognized by the Boston Media Consortium.

           I’m sending this to you in your capacity as campaign manager. Could you acknowledge receipt, let me know who will be handling debate matters, and respond to the invitation as soon as possible? I’m reachable at the return email address, or at 617-929-3059.

           Thanks very much.

Brian McGrory

The Boston Globe

Below is the media consortium letter sent to the Stein campaign on August 10.  It says that they will admit Jill to their debates only if she meets three criteria.

– – –

August 10, 2010

Daryl Sprague

info@jillstein.org

Jill Stein for Governor

Stein Campaign Response to Debate Exclusion

Submitted on Sun, 09/12/2010 – 6:45pm

Category:   Campaign News and Information

(In response to Media Consortium Letter.

August 20, 2010

POSITION OF THE STEIN CAMPAIGN ON DEBATE INCLUSION

This is the position of the Jill Stein campaign on debate inclusion:

All candidates that have qualified for the ballot under the election laws of the Commonwealth should be invited to participate in debates that use the public airways.  We also think that fair treatment of all candidates is to be expected from the media corporations that are taking advantage of the privileges our society accords to journalistic enterprises.  Those privileges are based on an assumption that journalists will contribute to the free and open dialogue that is essential to a healthy democracy.  Journalists should refuse to be parties to any attempt to restrict the flow of information that voters need and deserve.