Site Options
Proposed “Justice Party” Founding Principles (download PDF)
As co-founders of the “Justice Party,” we are joining forces based on a set of shared principles: ...
Justice Party Prospectus Action Plan 12 Dec 2011
RESOURCE: Justice Party Prospectus Action Plan 12 Dec 2011
| Topics: |  Organizational Documents |
The Author
Biodata, 15 December 2011
Dr. Paul Zeitz
Dr. Paul Zeitz is a tireless advocate for global justice and peace. During his career he has been active in strategic political advocacy for human rights, equal opportunity, and justice for all in the USA and around the World. It is in this spirit that he is a founding member of the Justice Party and is serving as the Chair (acting) of the Steering Committee for the Justice Party National Committee (JP-NC). In December 2010, he co ... (Full Bio)
38 Comments
Add CommentBill Samuel wrote:
You can't get to a good future on the basis of falsehood. You are starting with an idealized version of the past that is very far from reality. This country was founded by the elite merchant class (the equivalent of today's Wall Street) in violence as a slave country where only white male property owners could vote. It proceeded to engage in genocide against the native population. Early on, it started interventions in other countries, largely repressing the will of the people in those countries. Those are the facts. If you lie so baldly about the past, why should we trust you with the future? This is what the Republican and Democratic Parties have done. We don't need a third lying, establishment party. We need a real alternative.
John Boles wrote:
Why won't the formation of this party simply be a spoiler for the next election drawing votes from the Democratic party and ensuring a Republican victory?
John Wolfe wrote:
Objective 2: Electoral Justice I would add a return to physically countable paper ballots.
Jesus Dominguez Balcazar wrote:
The formation of this party will begin a true effort to make change in this country. Taking political and legal action by ourselves is much more effective than anything else. How are these sub-committees going to be formed? What can I do to provide support in California?
Scott Trimble wrote:
Bill Samuel, While you make a good point and are certainly correct in your assessment, most Americans are not fully prepared to see the entirety of the American experience as a sham pulled off by the elite. However, in this moment, a great many Americans are ready to see the current manifestation of both of the dominant political parties as corrupt institutions, if another vehicle can be created that can offer legitimate hope of altering the way things work. The Justice Party is brand new, and may turn out to be another Green Party that only attracts support from a very small proportion of the population, or it still has the potential (by virtue of not already having its name associated with a stereotype or a negative memory) of becoming the institution that replaces the Democratic Party in acting as the voice of the 99% (to use the vernacular of the moment), and unseating the Republican neoliberal regime that has dominated our political discourse for three decades. I hope the next era of American politics will be more participatory and more accurately representative, though it may still be too soon to hope for anything truly democratic (maybe that can be the next era to follow).
Cliff Lyon (Author) wrote:
Thanks Jesus, We WILL need your help. Dr. Zeitz is coordinating California personally. We'll contact you probably tomorrow. Things are crazy (good) right now.
Paul Donahue wrote:
Like Bill Samuel, I likewise am skeptical of using the language of the US exceptionalist mythos. Any rhetoric is created to get a population to fall behind an ideological objective. One cannot further an alternate ideology by using the same rhetoric as the status quo. It is dishonest, and only paints us in a corner. I understand that at this stage, only the most broad and general party objectives can be outlined, but the health care statement is striking in it vagueness and timidity. This statement should state unequivocally that access to medical care is a right, period. Numerous polls show a majority of US citizens support comprehensive, universally accessible, publicly financed medical insurance (AKA "single-payer") and will pay more taxes for it. Secondly, the outline objectives need a foreign policy statement and a statement regarding defense. I refer you to author William Blum's famous brief essay "If I were President" for guidance. Assuming that I end up agreeing with the Justice Party Platform i will gladly help get Rocky on the ballot in Pennsylvania. We will only need to get about 21,000 signatures to get a a statewide minor party candidate on the ballot in the next election - a record low number! - Paul Donahue Pittsburgh
Craig Daniels wrote:
* Excellent comments so far, and I'll 2nd Scott Trimble's. We'll have to endure some patriotic BS, but there's an upside: a lot of folks try to live up to the myths we've spun about ourselves. * My interest in the Justice Party will stop if, like during the 2004 Green Party run, I see anything like their statement: "In the battleground states that will decide the election, we understand if you won’t vote for our ticket this time." Craig Daniels
Craig Daniels wrote:
PS: Your posting system is identifying us by real names, not the "user names" we signed up for. That's okay by me (since I signed my real name to the above comment anyway), but we were promised privacy. It might needlessly embarrass and turn some folks off. Craig (aka: "Craig123")
Michael P Butler Sr wrote:
You guys gotta remember that being a new party they have to have a foundation to start building on and I believe that is where they are right now. People looking at joining this party need an overall fairly broad based picture of what the party stands for, however, they have left room for input from the members who come on board.
Kelly Everett wrote:
i'm ready to help in NM.
Paul Donahue wrote:
Kevin, Can you provide a comparative study that shows that the US Constitution strictly followed or not, has any potential to create "the most perfect form of government on the planet?" Me, I find the parliamentary systems of the UK and Commonwealth countries number of distinct advantages over the system of the US Republic. And the system used by the modern German Bundestag has advantages over both. By the way, the US colonies were not being ruled by a king, but by an elected parliament (albeit by only landowning males) since 1707. The rather dysfunctional belief among USAns that "everything we do is the best" is a dreadful impediment to progress and justice in the US. It is this atttiude that has fueled awful imperialist wars abroad and domestically, is leading the US to be left behind by the rest of the world in human and even many kinds technological progress.
John Jung wrote:
I would like to express my best wishes in creating the Justice Party. Rocky Anderson's interview on Democracy Now has, I am sure, spurred interest in the party. Bill Samuel's remarks are very important to acknowledge. The founders often describe a beautiful vision of democratic government. However we must always keep in mind the actions taken by our founders. The original constitution made African-American three fifths of a person in its condoning chattel slavery. This country denied African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Asian-Americans the rights of citizenship. Women were denied the right to vote and to own property. The Justice Party must address the sobering facts of the nature of our nation. One of these facts is racism. This new party must by action acknowledge the racism past and present of this country. It is unlikely you will succeed without the support of the all of us. It should be a core part of your vision. On another note, Paul Donahue commented on the tepid statement on healthcare. The Justice Party must take on the backwardness in this country's thinking on health care. You need to take on the challenge of breaking through the corporate lies about single payer. To hell with the avaricious insurance, pharmaceutical and medical corporations. People suffer and die for corporate profits. This is wrong, be on the side humanity. It already has been "branded", Medicare for All. I wish you well in establishing a new American consensus.
Jim Brattin wrote:
there is a lack here and in general of failing to distinguish causes from symptoms. we are failing to recognize, acknowledge, and address that the explosion of human population (which began about 1000 years ago), in conjunction with our seemingly insatiable and ever growing appetites for "economic growth", is resulting in the myriad of symptoms affecting the planet. seeing and speaking of the World through the paradigms of politics, economics, ideologies, and rhetoric creates a limited and distorted picture at best, even when honest. global warming is the tip of the melting iceberg. any political party that wishes to salvage the ship rather than just rearrange its furniture must recognize the population problem, the relationships between population and consumption per capita, and the resultant impacts on the ecology of the planet. all else follows from this.
Jessica Naomi wrote:
Not one word about the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. This is another heterocentric inequality party. Forget this shit. I am OUT of here.
Cliff Lyon (Author) wrote:
Jessie, You're being sarcastic right?
Vincent Pawlowski wrote:
Sorry, Jim. Your population argument does not hold water, nor CO2. You did get it with your statements on infinite economic growth. We in the resource hogging US must recognize we are the problem, not world population. In a society where we buy stuff, just to turn around and put it in storage, or throw it "away" in 6 months (the average lifetime of consumer goods), we need to point all ten fingers and toes at ourselves. "Blaming environmental problems on overpopulation scapegoats the world's poorest people, who are least responsible for carbon emissions. The richest fifth of the world's people consume 66 times more resources than the poorest fifth." http://popdev.hampshire.edu/
Jim Brattin wrote:
i am not scapegoating or blaming any particular group of people for anything. i agree that if we, especially those of us in the "1st" world, choose to subdue our selfishness, gluttony, and greed, the rate at which we are creating problems for ourselves will greatly diminish. it will not however disappear. even at some theoretical bare-minimum-to-survive consumption level, the population growth must at some point attain a state of relative equilibrium, or we will go beyond a tipping point, if we haven't already, and we will crash, one way or another. if you look at a graph of human population, even without any academic ecology, it is plain to see that in a finite environment, it cannot continue as it has for the last thousand years.
John Engel wrote:
Many people such as myself are searching for a serious political alternative to the Obama betrayal of progressive democratic ideals and the Republicans who flaut their allegiance to the 1%. I like what it is said in the founding prospectus and action plan with the one exception: the failure of the prospectus and action plan to strongly advocate ecological sustainability. There is the fourth objective of environmental justice -- fine,as far as it goes; but no recognition of the planet's limits and our need to pursue justice within those limits and in a way that restores the resiliency of the biosphere and its many ecosystems. Add this element and you will have a much stronger manifesto!
Craig Daniels wrote:
Dear Jim (Brattin), I have to chime in with moral support for your position on population. I've been advocating for 40 years toward a broad awareness that _any_ kind of growth: material, population, and even cultural/technological --is simply not sustainable (per: > http://webpages.charter.net/123goto/tct.htm#growth * That being said, and even though my own integrity requires me to continue witnessing: we don't stand a chance of heading off growth and its consequences. The establishment believes that the invisible hand of Adam Smith will provide (or they simply don't care). The religious right believes that God will provide. The traditional left thinks we simply need to redistribute the wealth/resources. Modern progressives will go on talking "sustainability" and "permaculture" until we're growing vegetables in our hair and taking turns breathing. So let's focus on what's politically possible --to make our own passage a bit more socially spiritual and humane --at least until the "great die off" does a "reset" on humanity. After that, I'm hoping that the time capsules I'm burying will find a more receptive audience for larger issues. Craig
Shandra OHaleck wrote:
I am excited to see another party to challenge the corruption of our country by wealth and corporations. Environmental issues are very important to me, and yes, we as a world contriubte to the climate change and disasters presently occuring. I have seen some talk about alternate energy being in cahoots with the wealthy---if this is a party stand, I and many others will probably not participate.
bridget grand wrote:
John Boles, I too am concerned about the 3rd party factor. Our electoral system, winner-take-all, codifies the 2-party tyranny. That's why i urge you to check out the ELECTORAL REFORM ACT OF 2012. The Electoral Reform website is http://reformact.org/ Robert Steele is running for President as the Reform Party candidate, but he is also encouraging ALL 3rd parties to work together for electoral reform. We deserve real freedom of choice, not just settling for the less evil. I don't know yet how I will vote, but I'd like my vote to count and not just be a protest, as it has been for the last 35 years.
bridget grand wrote:
Craig Daniels, Great post. You are right, we don't stand a chance. But what a gift we have, and since we can't know what will happen, I agree, why not do our best.
Jim Brattin wrote:
cheers to that I do think it's valuable to be aware of and honest about our situation, but dwelling in doom and gloom is no way to live. We all want to enjoy and appreciate life without feeling guilty for having been born. I would love to see this party succeed, for what it's worth. Anything to stimulate honest communication and raise awareness can only help.
Robert Weitzel wrote:
This is just the beginning . . . the start . . . some hope . . . let's just get done what needs to be done . . . we're doing it in Wisconsin . . . I've never seen people so politically energized.
Norma J F Harrison wrote:
Is there a platfom? Is there resolution to rid the world of the crime of capitalism, which is not a victimless crime, and is the consolidated attack against us all in favor of our Owners?
Anonymous wrote:
I have submitted an edited version of the current Prospectus and Action Plan of the Justice Party. I have minimally edited the text. My principle addition to the document relates to the position that I envision for the ethnoraces (the Biblical "nations") in a just, peaceful and natural societal order. The seven major ethnoraces in no particular order are the Judean, the Iberian, the Anglosaxon, the European, the Amerindian, the Asian and the African. The Iberian, the Amerindian and the African ethnoraces are forced imperial additions. The Judean, the European and the Asian ethnoraces have an immigrant origin. The Anglosaxons are the founding ethnorace. Will the ethnoraces emerge from this Justice Party sociopolitical exercise in full possession of their inalienable natural right to ethnocultural sovereignty within the territorial, political and economic borders of the present United States? Or will the ethnoraces continue on their downward spiral toward subversion, submersion, assimilation, incorporation and annihilation and perhaps rebellion? The majority European American ethnorace is the priority target of the Sabbatean cult that rules the planet and wishes to enslave the nation's ethnoraces as obedient and servile shabbat goyim. Mass genocide is the dark cabal's publicly stated intention toward that end. The oligarchy wants to cull the human herd down to one billion from the present seven billion as the way of preserving the planet's natural resources for themselves and their ethnoracial retainers while imposing sustainability conditions on the remnants of the surviving culled human herd.
Luis Magno wrote:
The Reality of Ethnorace There is no such thing as race without ethnicity. Race has to do with physicality. Ethnicity has to do with ancestral history and culture. Human beings have both. Animals have only physicality. The major ethnoraces in the United States are the European, the Asian, the African, the Amerindian, the Anglosaxon, the Iberian and the Judean. These seven ethnoraces have numerous sub-ethnoraces. The major issue associated with the ethnoraces is the lack of ethnocultural sovereignty. The African Americans have limited ethnocultural sovereignty. Native Americans, an Amerindian subset, have territorial sovereignty in addition to ethnocultural sovereignty. The Judeans have a full measure of ethnocultural sovereignty and are at the top of the ethnoracial power pyramid lording it over the "nations", the Biblical equivalent of the "ethnoraces". The Anglosaxons whose ancestors founded the USA automatically enjoy a measure of ethnocultural sovereignty because the country's history and culture started out as Anglosaxon and is still essentially Anglosaxon. This sovereignty has historically been conditioned and limited by the fact that the interests of the Anglosaxon oligarchy do not coincide with the interests of the majority of the Anglosaxons. Today this limited ethnocultural sovereignty is further limited and compromised by an oligarchy that is best described as Judeo-Anglosaxon. A Constitutional amendment and appropriate federal legislation is required to legalize and protect the ethnocultural sovereignty of all the ethnoraces including but not limited to that of the majority ethnorace, the European American. I have proposed such an amendment at http://www.opednews.com/LuisMagno. A major benefit of such an amendment is that it would dismantle the ethnoracial power pyramid and level the ethnoracial playing field.
Charles Ebert wrote:
@Norma you have fallen, as it is so easy to, into a trap set up by the right. I completely understand your position, however the use of such rhetoric gives news organizations the ability to quickly shut us down in the eyes of the voter and, more importantly, the ability to twist our positions. This is why the left has continuously failed in the US and this is why the Justice Party might succeed, by painting ourselves as legitimate politicians rather then rebellious rabble rousers (I'm sorry I spelt that last word wrong)
Liam Athias Babington wrote:
Ready to be involved from overseas....LET'S DANCE!!
thomas solomon wrote:
Posted by John Boles on December 13, 2011 9:06 am Why won't the formation of this party simply be a spoiler for the next election drawing votes from the Democratic party and ensuring a Republican victory? ------------------- It's a fundamental question which be asked over and over again. Here's the honest answer. Voting for your principles and concerns in a positive way, rather than voting for the lesser of two evils, ensures your interests are accurately registered in the political system. Whether we win or lose, the fidelity that results from voting for the party that most closely represents your interests causes politicians across the political landscape to take notice of what the electorate actually wants. In the long run, this shifts political platforms toward the actual interests of the people. Whereas if you vote for a Democrat like Obama, you are basically condoning war mongering, reaganomics, and anti-environmentalism; and the political system will continue to operate under the status quo. If that is not in your interest, a third party vote will help break the hegemony of the conservatism that's overrun the Democratic Party under Obama's leadership.
van mungo wrote:
This declaration of principles is a howling disappointment. There is not a plank in this platform that could not be endorsed by any centrist corporate Democrat--that's how empty of specificity and political content this declaration is. For example--on healthcare: the sine qua non of any truly progressive party right now is to point out that Obama's reform act (PPACA) cannot possibly control spiraling costs or guarantee universal coverage (in fact, in guarantees that 30 million people will remain without any coverage!). The only serious plan for reining in costs and guaranteeing coverage is improved and expanded Medicare for all--an clearcult progressive demand that is nowhere to be seen in this declaration. Likewise--on the issue of climate change and the environment: we get more watery rhetorical gruel--so where's the beef, like the demand for a carbon tax? Again--nowhere in site. Finally, on electoral justice--a call for "significant reform" (whatever that might be!) and "changing the way elections are financed." Again here we are served up vaporous cliches, devoid of political content. How about 100 percent public financing of elections of the sort that prevails in the rest of the industrial democracies? No guts, no glory. This declaration of principles is devoid of the guts to articulate even the most minimal progressive demands that would distinguish it from the charlatans of the Democratic Party. The American people are HUNGERING for a party with the guts to articulate SPECIFIC SOLUTIONS to the grave problems confronting this planet. This document is a sad exercise in equivocation--the kind of thing that we might expect from a PR agency, not from visionaries who are serious about challenging the status quo.
Joshua Budden wrote:
@ van mungo, I'd love to hear more ideas for specific solutions, why not hop on over to the forum and discuss them. It's a new party and needs input. Now's the time to help set it in the direction you want to see it go. http://americanidea.justicepartyusa.net/forums/
Douglas Hunter wrote:
We desperately need a third party in the US, and I am willing to work to achieve that dream, but: Cut out the crap about our great founding fathers and American Exceptionalism. We have, since our founding, repeatedly ignored the rights of others in pursuit of empire, in fact we might just be the most brutal nation ever formed.
Libby Bauter wrote:
"Posted by Kevin Schmidt on December 13, 2011 11:10 pm" Thank you, Kevin. Excellently said. I'm sick to death of the tired ol' BS attacks on the most sublime Constitution ever written or known to man. Regardless of personal lifestyle and choices of those who wrote it nearly 300 years ago the U.S. Constitution has,by it's very virtue, ALLOWED America to become the most free and prosperous nation in the world - ever.
Jerry Gerber wrote:
Hello, I am attempting to find information regarding the Justice Party's position on international law, and whether it agrees that our rapidly changing global landscape (political, environmental, economic) requires something more than "absolute national sovereignty" to grapple with the global problems that are bigger than any one nation, i.e. overpopulation, global warming, war, international finance and trans-national corporate power, to name a few. I am an American but I also consider myself first a World Citizen and feel without the authentic strengthening of global law--meaning enforceable, democratic global law, our planet is not going to achieve the peace, freedom (from war) and prosperity that a more lawful world would. Can anyone direct me to what the Justice Party's position is on these (and related) issues? Thanks! Jerry Gerber www.jerrygerber.com
Jerry Gerber wrote:
Posted by Libby Bauter on January 25, 2012 10:50 am I'm sick to death of the tired ol' BS attacks on the most sublime Constitution ever written or known to man. Regardless of personal lifestyle and choices of those who wrote it nearly 300 years ago the U.S. Constitution has,by it's very virtue, ALLOWED America to become the most free and prosperous nation in the world - ever. Are you certain you are not "fetishing" the constitution? Granted our American constitution was the most advanced legal document at the time it was written. But the world is changing rapidly and it is a mistake to think our constitution is perfect, free from defect, and most importantly, 100% relevant to 21st century civilization. Jefferson himself said the constitution should be revisited every 50 years, as he knew times, and human societies, change. For example, the Netherlands has a constitutional amendment that requires the government to protect the environment--certainly advanced and relevant to our times. Appreciating and upholding the rights the constitution gives us is one thing, forgetting that women, blacks, indians and white males with no property didn't have the same rights as wealthy, white landowning males is another--those rights were won much later and there are still rights that need to be enshrined. I think of the constitution as a living, breathing document, that must evolve, not just through interpretation but through amendments. Let's not turn the constitution into a fetish, like all things human, it must be revisited from time to time to ensure that it reflects the "better angels of our nature" as seen from a 21st century perspective. Jerry Gerber www.jerrygerber.com
Steve Juniper wrote:
Rocky's appeal could get a sharp uptick if the platform would include a bold step to deal with the enormous education loan indebtedness problem. I would suggest restoring those loans to dischargeability through bankruptcy. In addition to great appeal to indebted students and ex-students, this would force educational institutions to reduce their rates (much of which now has little to do with the actual cost of their education) to affordable levels. This would certainly garner Rocky publicity and encourage a discussion of this critical problem.