Thursday, October 29, 2020

Professor Jo Jorgensen of South Carolina, the U.S. Libertarian Party’s 2020 presidential nominee, answered some questions about her campaign from Wikinews accredited reporter William S. Saturn.

Jorgensen is a psychology professor at Clemson University.   In 1992, with the Libertarian Party’s backing, she ran for public office, seeking South Carolina’s 4th congressional seat in the United States House of Representatives. She finished the race in third place with almost 2.16 percent of the total vote. Four years later, the Libertarian Party tapped Jorgensen to be its vice presidential nominee. She joined a ticket with the late Harry Browne. Browne-Jorgensen appeared on every state ballot and received a total of 485,798 votes, which was roughly 0.5 percent. This marked the best performance for the party since 1980 and would not be topped percentage-wise until 2012 when former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson attained 0.99 percent of the vote. Johnson bested that performance in 2016 as the party’s presidential nominee for a second time, earning 3.27 percent of the vote, the highest percentage for the party since its 1971 inception.

For the 2020 nomination, Jorgensen navigated through a primary campaign that featured the short-lived campaigns of former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee and Congressman Justin Amash of Michigan, the first sitting Congressman to be a member of the Libertarian Party. At the virtual 2020 Libertarian National Convention, Jorgensen won the nomination on the fourth ballot, edging attorney Jacob Hornberger, performance artist Vermin Supreme and activist Adam Kokesh, among others. Podcaster Spike Cohen, originally the running mate of Supreme, was picked to be the party’s vice presidential nominee. Cohen spoke to Wikinews back in June. The Jorgensen-Cohen ticket has since secured ballot access in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

As a libertarian, an ideology that advocates for lesser government, both in the social and economic realms, Jorgensen’s issue positions include a mix of traditionally liberal and conservative stances. She supports both LGBT rights and gun rights. She opposes the police state and the taxing authority equally. And, she supports an open immigration policy while arguing against the welfare state.

With Wikinews, Jorgensen discusses her background, COVID-19, her potential cabinet, gridlock, and an assortment of issues including climate change, foreign affairs, free speech, and race relations.

Sunday, June 29, 2008

While nearly all coverage of the 2008 Presidential election has focused on the Democratic and Republican candidates, the race for the White House also includes independents and third-party candidates. These prospects represent a variety of views that may not be acknowledged by the major party platforms.

Wikinews has reached out to these candidates throughout the campaign. We now interview Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Kent Mesplay.

Why do you want to be President?

I run for president to help improve society, pointing out that we are more secure when we live in a sustainable manner. As of this writing our culture is based on the consumption of limited materials such as petroleum, coal and uranium with great emphasis placed on the consumption of “goods” that are produced and purchased with little regard for the well-being of future generations. Government, ideally, provides an independent, objective forum through which solutions to the needs and wants of our time can be raised, discussed and implemented in a thoughtful, respectful manner. In contrast to this ideal, our current central, national government exists largely to protect and preserve the status quo of relatively few stake-holders, having undue political influence and acting in a manner not in the best interest of the majority of people. We cannot blindly consume our way to peace and stability.

A Green presidential administration would put the needs of current and future generations above the rude demands and expectations of the well-heeled political donor class. It is not important that we have a new president bearing the face of change. We need vital, core change to our political institutions to decentralize control, empower rational science-based decision-making and cut the damaging influence of corporate money on public policy. This change is unlikely to arise from within the current two political parties that are intrinsically corrupted by the ubiquitous “greased-palm” bribing handshake with corporate entities. We need to only ask how many corporate media conglomerates regularly advertize the question, “Should a corporation have the legal status of a super-person?” to realize the extent of the current dilemma. A corporation should never have been considered to have the legal rights of an individual. The Green Party is independent from business interests. This political arm of the environmental, peace and justice movements represents meaningful change to public policy and to our fragile, centralized, short-sighted way of life.

Green solutions are largely local solutions: more community gardens and small farms, reasonable use of fresh water, grey-water and waste-water, including more water storage and community responsibility for the entire water stream, energy-efficient housing and transportation, health care for all, protecting besieged ecosystems. Practically, what this means is a higher base-line of essential services with the costs shared and supported broadly. To be clear, our basic physical security deserves support, not gaming at the hands of profiteers. A common wealth for all citizens is possible, with local regional flavors in commerce and culture atop this “baseline” of security. To be danced out of the way, one finds the current heavy-handed players of agribusiness, pharmaceuticals, energy, insurance and the congressional-military-industrial complex all dependent upon “corporate socialism” for subsidies and protection from real, meaningful, positive change and shielded from probing questions as to why, for example, we so frequently go to war.

Mottos include “sustainability is security” and “freedom to debate.” I run to help define, popularize and grow the Green Party, to be an advocate for: single-payer health-care, renewable energy, increased energy efficiency, rail transport, organic local agriculture, indigenous rights, wise water use, banning lobbying/bribery, over-turning the legal fiction that a corporation is a person, and equal media exposure for all political candidates, having open debates between all political parties and beating those “swords into plowshares” by focusing on improving diplomacy, communication and basic physical security in water, food and energy in particular to mitigate the negative effects of global climate change and to provide emergency readiness. Also, I get bored easily and this keeps me busy.

Have you ever run for political office before? (President, senate, congress, city councillor, school trustee… etc.) Have you ever been a member of a political party, other than the one you’re currently in?

I ran for president in 2004 and 2008, being one of the four “finalists” at the nominating conventions. Also, I ran for U.S. Senate in California as part of a contested race in the Green Party Primary Election in 2006. I plan to run for U.S. Congress in 2010 and I am now taking the steps to begin running for the 2012 presidential race. I have been a member of both main U.S. parties and I cannot adequately express my disgust for them both. I encourage people everywhere to register Green, vote Green and support Green Party efforts at achieving and maintaining ballot access within the current hostile political environment. Ideally, we can together displace one of the two major parties; such is the near-majority level of disapproval of the antiquated mainstream parties and the desire for a true alternative.

Have you ever campaigned for another political candidate?

In 1996 I helped organize a press conference for then-presidential candidate Ralph Nader, after having helped support efforts to draft him as a candidate.

What skills or ideas do you bring from this position, or previous positions, that will benefit the Oval Office?

I believe in the separation of power within government, including economic power. Due to the influence of money in politics and within government we do not have a political system that works well to advance the needs and concerns of “we the people.” There are few, muted voices within our government supporting the dispossessed, the disenfranchised, the “left out,” the lower echelon within our socio-economic strata. Especially now, with high energy costs, questionable food supplies, shredded social safety nets, job loss due to outsourcing and other losses, loss of civil liberties and rights, the consolidation and concealment of governmental power, the “fascist” confluence of military-industrial business with governmental power, threats of unstable weather, retaliation by terrorists and opportunistic foreign governments following our model it is a good time to not be silent. I have lived with and among many different cultures, religions and peoples, I have a multi-cultural background and a mixed ancestry, I value art, music and science, I am both intuitive and analytical and I enjoy solving problems. Our nation would benefit greatly from my services. Plus, I am not “on the take.”

Campaigning for the American presidency is one of the most expensive exercises in the world. How do you deal with the cost and fundraising?

Small contributions from many people not expecting a return of favors approximates public funding of campaigns. In order to “get the word out” about my existence as a candidate it is necessary to adapt and adopt alternative, low-cost strategies. With my campaign team steadily growing I anticipate utilizing modern low-cost communication methods to help “spread the word.” Fund-raising is among the least palatable activities that I have to endure as a candidate and I will be the first to admit that I have done very little fundraising. The reader who is a U.S. Citizen of voting age is encouraged to support my candidacy by visiting my web site, www.mesplay.org, and making a small donation in accordance with Federal Election Commission guidelines. Also, simply e-mailing friends helps tremendously with these small campaigns.

What are you/were you looking for in a running mate?

My running mate would likely represent a demographic that I do not, such as being female and non-white, since I am a white male. As to character and experience, I would want to be supported by someone with great practical public experience who has remained in integrity with the original idealistic hopes and dreams that once drew them into the public eye or political arena.

Can you win the 2008 Presidential election?

I can win the 2008 presidential election by becoming the Green nominee, by inspiring otherwise non-voters to register Green and to grow Green Parties in those states where they are not yet granted ballot access and to subsequently vote in some creative, time-urgent manner circumventing the severe limitations put on candidates and parties by the secretaries of state through the country. I would have to win many of the states where the Green Party is on the ballot and I would have to find a manner allowing erstwhile green voters to legally vote in those states where we are not on the ballot.

If you can’t make it into the Oval Office, who would you prefer seeing taking the presidency?

I cannot support candidates who foolishly support nuclear power and weapons, who do not recognize the need for peace and who do not offer real, meaningful, substantive systemic change.

What should the American people keep in mind, when heading to the polls this November?

When heading for the polls this November U.S. citizens should support Green Party candidates, policies and values. Thank you.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

Tony Blair today launched the Labour Party’s 112 page manifesto for a third term, entitled “Britain: Forward not back”, at London’s Mermaid Theatre this afternoon, promising not to increase income tax or VAT.

Blair, with Chancellor Gordon Brown, described the manifesto, which focused on economic policy, as “radical”, “quintessentially New Labour” and giving people the “chance to succeed and make the most of what they have”.

As well as economic promises, the manifesto pledged better social housing, increased funding and reform of education and the National Health Service and the introduction of community police patrols. The manifesto does not promise a freeze on National Insurance, the income-linked tax which funds the NHS and pensions.

Conservative leader Michael Howard said that the British people had “heard it all before”, and reiterated claims that Labour would have to increase taxes significantly in the third term.

Deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Menzies Campbell, whose party was the only mainstream party consistently against the Iraq war, said Labour would “not be judged by their promises, but by what they have done”, adding that Labour have not kept their previous promises.

The Conservative Party and Green Party launched their manifestos yesterday, and the Liberal Democrats launch theirs tomorrow.

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Charges against the five rail bosses accused of manslaughter on four people who died in the Hatfield, England train crash, have been dropped at the Old Bailey.

Alistair Cook, 50, Sean Fugill, 50, Keith Lea, 53, and two executives from Balfour Beatty — Anthony Walker, 46, and Nicholas Jeffries, 53 — all denied the manslaughter charges. A charge of corporate manslaughter has also been dropped against the engineering firm Belfour Beatty.

But the five men and their employers, Balfour Beatty and Railtrack, still face health and safety charges under the Health and Safety at Work Act.

Four people were killed and many more were injured when a high speed train travelling from Leeds to London derailed just outside Hatfield on 17 October 2000. An investigation after the crash found that a cracked section of rail caused the train to come off the tracks.

After five months on trial, the judge Mr Justice Mackay told the jury to find the men not guilty, saying:

“It is not open to you to convict any of the six defendants on charges of manslaughter”

He added: “I must ask you to accept my ruling, which does not affect one way or the other the important decisions you will have to make when considering verdicts on the health and safety counts.”

Mr Justice Mackay made the decision after reviewing the evidence and listening to submissions.

The collapse of yet another high-profile corporate case will more than likely put pressure for changes to current laws to make it easier to prosecute in corporate manslaughter cases. Work on new corporate manslaughter legislation has been under way for more than a decade in response to the problems encountered in bringing successful prosecutions. The latest proposals would criminalise gross management failure and the government has promised legislation before the end of next year.

Thursday, December 7, 2006

The New Zealand Government has tabled the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill, despite unprecedented political opposition.

In 2003 the Hon Annette King signed a Treaty with Australia agreeing to hand control of the natural health products sector over to an Australian regulatory body, however she needs to pass enabling legislation in New Zealand. “This will be a world-class joint scheme designed to regulate the safety, quality, effectiveness and promotion of therapeutic products in both New Zealand and Australia. That includes the regulation of complementary and alternative medicines, over-the-counter and prescription medicines, medical devices, blood and blood products and tissues and cellular therapies,” Ms King said.

Twice the Bill has been thrown out by select committees, but the Government is determined to ram it through Parliament, according to the New Zealand Health Trust.

“Late tonight the Bill was finally tabled, with no announcement from the Minister,” said Amy Adams, spokesperson for the Trust, “Clearly the Minister is keen to sneak it into Parliament under cover of the silly season, in the hope that she can keep it under the public’s radar.”

“I welcome the support of a majority of the House who want to see the Bill go to Select Committee where New Zealanders can have their say,” Ms King said.

The NZ Health Trust conducted research earlier this year which showed 62% of New Zealanders used natural health products. “This Bill represents a massive and irreparable change to the way we make rules for New Zealand dietary supplements,” Mrs Adams said.

“Under the proposed regime, well over a million New Zealand consumers would find the choice of products adversely affected, and experience cost increases. So you can see why the Government is trying to sneak this into the House without any fuss – they don’t want the public to know.”

All the political parties except Labour have pledged their opposition the proposal, despite some intense lobbying by Australian and New Zealand officials.

“It is a very serious thing to hand sovereignty over your country over to another nation,” Mrs Adams said. “And all the other political parties see the sense in making sure the sector is regulated from New Zealand – not as a minor state of Australia.”

Ms King said: “The Bill… ensures that New Zealand will have an equal say in the setting up and running of the new Authority and joint scheme.” The new authority will be like a crown-owned entity and will have to provide an anuual report and a statement of intent to parliament each year.

Thursday, November 8, 2007

The opening ceremonies for the 2007 Baseball World Cup (2007 BWC) were held Tuesday. Torrential rain, however, made Panama vs Spain the opening match of the 2007 BWC in Taichung Intercontinental Baseball Stadium. The original opening match of Chinese Taipei vs Italy was postponed until next week and will be played at Tianmu Baseball Stadium.

“Recently, we got into a sticky situation while constructing a dome due to some protests by non-governmental people, but we’ll try to overcome these difficulties in order to present high-level sports to the international market.” Chin-chi Wu, the Director of the Taipei City Bureau of Education, remarked at Tuesday’s opening ceremony.

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

The United Kingdom Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Right Honourable Gordon Brown PC MP, in a speech to the British House of Commons today presented his ninth Budget, what is very likely to be his last Budget before the next UK General Election. This opened the parliamentary debate on the 2005 Finance Bill, and was followed by responses from the opposition parties.

In a 48 minute long speech, the Chancellor presented a Budget of “tax cuts that are reasonable, spending that is affordable, and [economic] stability that is paramount”, that was “the prudent course for Britain”. There were few surprises that had not already been indicated in his 2004 pre-Budget report. The increase in the threshold on stamp duty was greater than that forecast by commentators, as was the amount of the Council Tax rebate to households with pensioners.