From The TESR Test Kitchen

Does food have to be fattening to taste good?

Most of us would say, "Yes! And the more fattening, the better tasting." But then there's our Jess, raised vegan. He's never tasted meat.

So he eats healthy foods. Or does he?

Amy's Kitchen is organic and all the things that are supposed to be so good for you.

But what's up with the calories, Amy?

Veggie burgers were the plan to celebrate spring.

And we grabbed Amy's Kitchen's California Veggie Burger only to wonder about the 150 calories?





Gardenburger's Veggie Medley offered up only 100 calorie per patty.

Upon cooking them, we learned that Gardenburger also tasted better.

And we then looked at the calories for other Amy's Kitchen products. Whether it was pizza or soup, Amy's Kitchen always had more calories than any other vegetarian competitor. And, as Dona pointed out, on at least one item, even non-vegetarian Banquet beats it.

A Banquet Turkey Pot Pie is 410 calories -- that is a lot. But Amy's Kitchen's Vegetable Pot Pie is 420 calories and the Broccoli With Cheddar Cheese Sauce has 460 calories.

We're more than a little confused as to how 'healthy' food can have more calories than its meat equivalent from Banquet.

Choose your bed partners wisely

Yes, it appears to be time for war on Syria.


President Barack Obama is in his fourth year of office and has damn little to show for it. The nightmare that is ObamaCare is before the Supreme Court. It may be overturned and it's what he's repeatedly pointed to as an accomplishment. The other thing he can't shut up about, being the Mouser President, is the death of bin Laden.

For those who've forgotten, Barack Obama did not capture bin Laden nor did he kill bin Laden. Barack was in DC watching (or not, depending upon the source) it on closed circuit TV.





But damned if he didn't then and continue to now pretend like he had accomplished something with his own bare, well tended hands.

And where's the glory in that kill? If bin Laden was still a threat (hiding out in Pakistan for over a decade calls that into question), then he had information. Even if he wasn't a threat, he had information. Why wasn't he captured and interrogated? Why wasn't he put on trial?

As Amnesty International noted:

US officials have said that five people were killed and two women were injured – one of whom was identified as bin Laden’s wife – and that at the end of the operation the injured women were left at the compound along with at least six children.
CIA Director Leon Panetta said on 3 May that US forces had full authority to kill Osama bin Laden but that they were to capture him if he had surrendered.
The White House has said that Osama Bin Laden was unarmed but resisted capture.
"Given that he was not armed, it is not clear how he resisted arrest and whether an attempt was made to capture him rather than kill him,” said Claudio Cordone.
"Amnesty International believes that US forces should have attempted to capture Osama bin Laden alive in order to bring him to trial if he was unarmed and posing no immediate threat."


The alleged professor of Constitutional Law showed no respect for the rule of law. He acted like a mafia don, even. And now he thinks this is something to be proud of? And his sycophants act like he did something amazing.

The same way they pretend the unconstitutional Libyan War was actually legal.

With nothing else left, he appears to think the answer to increase his popularity is war. How very Bully Boy Bush of him. Over the last months, the only question has been would Iran or Syria be his Mystery Date?

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told ABC News today, "We think [Syrian President Bashar al] Assad must go. The sooner the better for everyone concerned. [. . .] There has to be a timeline. It can't go indefinitely. And we're not standing still as you saw coming out of the meeting here in Istanbul."

Clinton spoke of providing assistance -- including "technical" to the so-called Free Syrian Army. This morning David Ignatius spoke with Rachel Martin (NPR's Weekend Edition -- link is text and audio) about this group:

This Free Syrian Army, as it calls itself, really is a pretty motley group and the Syrian opposition has tended to be localized, city by city, not organized in a national fashion. So, if you were going to proceed with ideas for a military solution, the first thing you'd have to do is give these people some training. Where would you do that? Would you pull them out of the country, would you create a zone inside the country where they can be trained? If you did that, you'd have to take out the Syrian air defenses. And then you get into the whole series of complicated questions in the United States about whether we want to get into another war in this part of the world. Clearly, the answer today is no, but the U.S. is being pushed in that direction.

And, as The Institute for the Study of War pointed out, "The emergence of al-Qaeda-linked terrorist cells working against the regime poses risks to the United States and a challenge to those calling for material support of the armed opposition." RT reported in February:
The US spy chief has told the Congress President Bashar Al-Assad is fighting against Al-Qaeda of Iraq. James Clapper is the first top US official to acknowledge US might indirectly support insurgents. ­Since December there have been Bombings in Damascus and Aleppo that "had all the earmarks of an Al-Qaeda like attack," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday. He added that Syrian opposition groups, fighting against the existing regime of President al-Assad may have been infiltrated by Al-Qaida. “However likely without their knowledge”, he said. Clapper said the lack of a unified opposition group could leave a power vacuum that extremists could fill if the Syrian government falls, a potential development he called "troubling."



And now Barack, in a desperate attempt to win re-election, is ready to get in bed with al Qaeda in Iraq.






Illustrations are Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts' "Funding Terrorists" and "The Mouser and Glory Hog."

We won't have what she's having

Speaking to ABC News this morning about war on Syria, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared to have an orgasm or orgasms as she contemplated death and destruction.

Surprise victory of the week

George Galloway Tweeted, "Nick Cohen, David Aaronovitch . . . EAT your treacherous hearts out. I WON! #bradfordwest."




He had every reason to be thrilled. While Tony Blair was facing more Iraq War revelations, Galloway, the man Labour kicked out, had a triumph. Eddie Buckle and Robert Hutton (Bloomberg News) noted that he won 56% of the vote and was re-elected despite predictions that he would lose. Anindya Bhattacharyya (Great Britian's Socialist Worker) added, "George Galloway has pulled off a spectacular political comeback by winning Thursday's Bradford West parliamentary by-election by a landslide." Nicholas Watt (Guardian) reports:

Ed Miliband was facing renewed criticism of his leadership of the Labour party after George Galloway swept back into parliament, achieving one of the greatest byelection upsets in recent history.

As Miliband said he would learn the lessons from the defeat in Bradford West, the shadow public health minister, Diane Abbott, said Labour had underestimated the popularity of Galloway and the Iraq war remained "unforgotten and unforgiven".

The US government's secret trial

Last week on Law and Disorder Radio -- a weekly hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights), Michael Ratner explained how the US government is conducting a secret trial.

Michael Smith: I want to ask you about Bradley Manning. I know you've been down in Fort Mead observing the proceedings -- the legal proceedings that the US military is using against him. Give us an update on that.

Michael Ratner: Last week, I again went to some of the hearings regarding Bradley Manning. There's been no trial scheduled yet. They're thinking of a trial in August. I think it will much more likely be in the fall. As our listeners know, Bradley has been indicted on 22 charges or charged in the military on 22 charges including aiding with the enemy. I did my usual trying to get to Fort Mead. But of course it was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on Thursday. I had to get on a train that night, then get on a car to get to Fort Mead. And when you get to Fort Mead, of course, they practically tear your car apart looking for who knows what? Explosives or something else. You get in, they then make you wait for about an hour before you go through a trailer where you go through one of those metal detectors. You're not allowed to bring into the courtroom any cell phones, any way of communicating other than a pencil and a paper. The court room is small. There's only about 20 of us in the court room. The media is in a separate media room where they can have their computers -- nothing with the internet, but they can at least use a computer. So in any case, I went to Bradley Manning's hearing. It was Thursday and Friday. It was quite extraordinary. Michael and I have always talked about the expression "Military justice is to justice as military music is to music." Well it's even worse than that. I mean, this was ridiculous. I mean, that they are trying probably the most well known case in the country on aiding the enemy or really what amounts to -- according to the government -- a sort of espionage case, in this two-bit little court room with military prosecutors that the defense runs circles around. David Coombs is actually doing a very good job. It's amazing. I'll just relate a couple of stories. The first thing that happens is the defense counsel asks for what's called a bill of particulars. In criminal cases, that's "Please tell the defense counsel more about the charges you have against my client Bradley Manning. Give a few specifications." And the first one they asked about is: What do you mean by aiding the enemy? He says to the prosecutor -- of course, it's all done on paper but he says it in court as well. And the prosecutor then says, "Well, aiding the enemy? The enemy is al Qaeda and al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula." Well that just sounds ridiculous. Bradley Manning -- who supposedly, allegedly, uploaded various documents regarding the killing of Retuers journalists, 15,000 Iraqi civilians who were killed which the US hadn't recorded, many, many War Crimes like that -- is accused somehow of aiding al Qaeda or al Qaeda on the Peninsula. Well you think, what is it? Is it because it embarrassed the United States that we're aiding them? What is going on here? So then the defense counsel continues, "Well aiding al Qaeda and al Qaeda on the Peninsula, how did he aid them?" And then the prosecutor gave one of the shallowest, stupidest answers you want to hear: "Well he aided them by uploading the documents onto the WikiLeaks website." I mean, it's not the trial yet so the defense counsel just says, "Okay," and we move on from there. But you're sitting there in the audiences saying, "This is crazy. This 22-year-old, now 24-year-old, kid has supposedly aided al Qaeda by giving documents about War Crimes to WikiLeaks?" That's nonsensical. It'll never stand up. Most commentators think that charge in particular, which is the most serious charge -- it's life imprisonment, death penalty possibly, prosecutors said they won't ask for a death penalty but llife in prison, and I think the judge could even give the death penalty -- that charge I don't think will hold up. But the interesting part then happens next. Three weeks ago, when I was at the court, the prosecutor complains that he is not getting any of the e-mails sent by defense counsel or by the judge. And those are obviously important e-mails. The defense counsel is responding to motions and arguments, sending briefs. The court is sending scheduling orders, etc. And the prosecutor three weeks ago says, "Well I haven't gotten anything so I can't respond to those." Sounds pretty bad. Fishy. But then the prosecutor says, "We will fix it in three weeks from now." And that's when I was there last week. And the prosecutor gets up and says, "Well up until March 10, we didn't figure it out." Just a few days before the Bradley Manning hearing. "And we found it out, here's the answer: Many of the e-mails from the court and the defense counsel are going to the prosecutor but they're going to the spam section of the computer. They're being filtered out as spam." Let me just say, this is the most important single military courts-martial case they've had probably in the last 50 years, maybe 100 years. And the e-mails from the court and the defense counsel are going into the spam of the prosecutor? I mean, this is just Mickey Mouse or worse. So they said, "What we're doing now," the prosecutor says, "is, because they're going into spam, every morning at 10:00 a.m., I'm checking my spam folder to see what e-mails have come in." So I'm sitting there in the audience saying, "Why are they checking their spam filter? Why aren't they just fixing the problem?" And then, a half an hour later, the defense counsel gets up and, in speaking about many issues, he addresses why the e-mails haven't gone to the prosecutor. And he said they didn't go to the prosecutor because any e-mail with the word "WikiLeaks" in it anywhere -- subject matter, in the substance [body of the e-mail], anywhere in an e-mail from the defense counsel or the court that says "WikiLeaks" is automatically spammed by the prosecutor's filter on his computer so he doesn't see them. And you say to yourself, "Wait a second, this entire case is about Bradley Manning allegedly uploading documents to WikiLeaks. If the prosecutor, government computers, are using that as spam, this is ridiculous. This is not a trial, this is just a charade." And then you realize, taking another step back, that most likely every government computer in the United States and in the world spams anything to do with WikiLeaks because the fact that many of our listeners out there, you and I, Michael, the New York Times, and everybody in the world looks at WikiLeaks documents and the government still considers them to be stolen documents, still classified and no one in the government should ever be allowed to see them. So here they go, they're doing this entire investigation of WikiLeaks and everything is treated as spam. So that's just one of the oddities of what they're calling a trial, etc. Two other points -- and we'll be talking about this as I continue to monitor that trial for WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, the Center for Constitutional Rights represents them, both WikiLeaks and Julian Assange for purposes of monitoring the Bradley Manning case -- two other interesting things came out. One is the access to documents. Now this is supposedly a public trial, by law it's a public trial, the First Amedment requires it to be a public trial. You and I, the press, the spectators, are all allowed to go in the court room to watch the trial unless there's some section that's classified. And normally in a trial -- as you know, Michael, being a lawyer -- that when you file papers, they go into a court docket and you can get access to those papers whether they be motions or briefs or whatever you file. And, of course, that's what happens in this case, at least the first part, you file papers or the prosecution files papers, defense counsel files papers, decisions are made -- but nobody has access to those papers [in the Bradley Manning court-martial] except for the counsel. I can't get those papers as a lawyer. The press can't get those paper, No one can see the motions or anything else. So you're sitting in the court room and they're arguing about various documents which have been filed and you feel like you're going in completely blind. You don't understand half of what's going on because you can't read the papers. It's like being in Plato's cave where you only see the shadows on the wall and not the actual substance so we've been making an effort over the last few weeks, how do we get these papers? And we know that ultimately we'll get them. We'll have to have a system set up with the clerk where they give press and WikiLeaks and Julian Assange and the public access to public motions that were filed but we're probably going to have to wind up going to federal court to get them. I mean, it's horrendous. This is ridiculous.

Michael Smith: It's like state secrets.

Michael Ratner: It's like state secrets except they haven't claimed state secrets.

Saturday Guilty Pleasure

The Firm started off too convoluted and eager not to resolve anything. It did have a stunning performance from Juliette Lewis. Weeks later, she's still stunning.

But the thing is, now the show is as well. That includes Josh Lucas who has grown considerably in the role over 13 episodes.

All the disparate strands are coming together to form a lean and taunt thriller.

NBC has moved to the show to Saturdays because they don't believe it but that's actually a gift to those who've long wished that the networks would return to programming Saturdays.

Those who can't catch it on Saturdays for whatever reason should remember you can stream The Firm online at NBC.

Asking the Pentagon about rape

US Senator Richard Blumenthal (above surveying Hurricane Irene damage in Connecticut) had an important exchange in Wednesday's Senate Armed Services Committee with the Pentagon's Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Jo Ann Rooney.

Senator Richard Blumenthal: [. . .] I want to focus on one though that may not be directly related to the budget, I know the budget consumes a lot of time, but you've discussed in your testimony, Secretary Rooney, the issue of sexual assault which I know troubles you and the Secretary greatly, a great concern to you and there's a zero tolerance policy, it's a leadership issue. You say in your testimony that the estimates now are about 19,000 sexual assaults a year which is down from the estimate of 34,000 in 2006. Are you suggesting that the rates are numbers of sexual assaults has been reduced over the last six years.

Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: Sir, the way we get to that number is that we look at the number of reported sexual assaults as a percentage of the overall force and then actually multiply it. The number appears to come down but quite frankly, as you indicated, our concern is that there are any. And 19,000 is 19,000 too many or whatever the exact number is because, again, that was extrapolated from actual reported numbers. So while we believe that the attention being focused, the programs being put in place and, frankly, the leadership taking this on as such a critical area to be able to address because it goes right to the heart of what our military believes in terms of their work and their respect for each other, that that number will come down but we realize we have a lot of work to do.

Senator Richard Blumenthal: But it may not have come down in the last six years. Obviously, you're objective is to make it come down. But I'm just asking whether you have confidence in that number because, quite honestly, I'm not sure that I do.

Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: I believe that number indicates that we have a substantial problem yet. But, again, it's not a specific number. It's extrapolated from those reports we have.

Senator Richard Blumenthal: Of the defendants who reported and in those incidents 3,192 in FY '11, what percentage faced court-martial?

Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: Sir, I'll take that question for the record and get back to you on the specific.

Senator Richard Blumenthal: The information I have is fewer than 21% and I was going to ask you --

Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: That percentage is correct.

Senator Richard Blumenthal: What is the reason that they are not brought to court-martial?

Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: Often, sir, it's many of the same challenges that we see on the civilian side which is, in order to go through the court-martial, obviously we need to be able to get the evidence and make sure that our folks are trained to be able to prosecute those particular cases. Those are specific areas we are working on now -- to make sure people are trained in the specific areas of how to be able to not only get that evidence but be able to present that forward. And that's often the road block.

Senator Richard Blumenthal: So you're upgrading the procedures for collection of evidence. And what about retention of evidence?

Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: Uh, yes, sir. We actually are retaining the evidence at this point -- if it's an unrestricted report, for fifty years.

Senator Richard Blumenthal: And are you making efforts to speed the process? In one instance that has been reported to me -- and I can get you the name and perhaps you can give me more details -- there was a three year gap -- and, by the way, I'm very familiar with the defense in the civilian area since I was -- [Attorney General of the state of Connecticut from 1990 through 2010]

Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: I know you are, sir.

Senator Richard Blumenthal: -- involved in it so this is by no means to say you should use it as a model necessarily. But I know the military sets its own standards for what excellence is and you have your own goals. But that three year gap, as you know, makes evidence, even if it's collected -- that is the eye witness testimony that, if provided, may prove more difficult to get [three years after when memories are less fresh] and I just wonder what steps are being taken to make sure that these cases are brought to court-martial -- brought, in effect, to trial -- more quickly?

Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: Actually, we're working directly with the services on this and the Joint Chiefs [of Staff] have been actively involved in looking at how do we not only streamline the actual court process but also streamline from the point of reporting to -- we have such things in place now, as you know, as expedited transfers -- so all through the process making sure that we are able to protect due process, if you will, for the accused. But move that through the system from the first report through. So that's something that we're actually engaged right now with the services to do.

Senator Richard Blumenthal: Do you have numbers as to the median or average length of time it's taken and what percentage involves eventual findings of guilt, culpability? And also what the eventual penalities are in those cases?

Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: Sir, we do have those numbers but if I could take that for the record and give them to you as opposed to trying to get them from memory. But we do have them. I have seen them, sir.

Senator Richard Blumenthal: I would appreciate that.

Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: We will.

Senator Richard Blumenthal: And do you also -- Can you also provide percentages as to what numbers -- in what rate you give defendants the option of a discharge or a resignation in lieu of court-martial?

Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: I can get the information as to what the eventual resolution was. As to whether that was a negotiated plea or something in that regard, that will be a little harder. But I can certainly tell you Article 15 and various section penalties.

Senator Richard Blumenthal: And finally on this subject, can you tell me when [Defense] Secretary [Leon] Panetta is going to be releasing the recommendations? He's going to be having both administrative and legislative. Do you know?

Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: Actually, we've been working on the possible legislative proposals as recently as today. So I'm expecting those to be coming up soon and then, within the next three to six months, we'll also have some additional ways forward on specific recommendations coming out from the services as well as follow-up on the ones we mentioned -- the expedited transfer and the document retention.

Senator Richard Blumenthal: Thank you. On the issue, and you raise it in your testimony, concerning suicides, can you talk a little bit about what steps are being taken to address this issue?

Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: Absolutely. And you're right that the numbers right now -- despite many of our efforts -- have not shown a significant decrease. But what we have done in fact is -- taken the task force that had their report forward, one of their recommendations was to create a specific suicide office which we have done in the last few months. And the purpose of that office is not to create yet another layer but it's to look across all the services and actually be the conduit for what are our best practices, where are we missing some opportunities, getting rid of some of the redundancies. So that has, at this point, a temporary staff. But in the fiscal '13 budget, we have the full appropriations we're requesting on that to have that staff stand up. In addition to that, we're working directly with the services in each of their component areas to see what practices they have in place. The next thing, and I think you've seen it also from the medical side, we're embedding behavioral health not only within the units but also making it available to the families through a number of our family programs. And, again, we're continuing to monitor what has been the outreach and where have we seen some successes or not, as it were. So those are the steps at this point with many more coming forward. And, also, collecting data has been a big challenge that we've had. Contemporaneous data. So we're working closely with the VA, in particular, at this point to share information not only from the DoD side but also what the VA is getting. We're doing a lot of joint work with them. So we're getting data that is between thirty and sixty days old as opposed to a year or two -- which is what we had been getting because that's the way states are gathering it -- and sharing that information and trying to trend directly with the VA. So those are some of the ideas.

Michigan Green Party comments on the race

From the Michigan Green Party:

Ecological Wisdom • Social Justice • Grassroots Democracy • Non-Violence

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Green Party of Michigan

www.MIGreens.org

News Release

March 29, 2012

For More Information, Contact:
Green Party Elections Coordinator, John Anthony La Pietra (269)781-9478
Media Coordinator: Jennifer La Pietra (508)280-1360

Green Party Candidates Vie Without Vitriol

While the Republican candidates’ now infamous tv ads spew gossip, hatred and downright lies towards each other, candidates for the Green Party’s nomination are not shy in their respect for one another.



When a voter financially supports a political campaign, what does their money actually buy? In a recent article by ProPublica, candidates’ spending is clearly outlined in an easy-to-understand graph. Companies employed by the various candidates, as well as by Superpacs, are listed in order of how much the candidates spent on them.
Just as an example, how about a quick look over the facts. Four of the top five companies employed by the Romney Campaign are dedicated to advertisement in one form or another for a total of $31,995,768 of the total $55,824,004 which they have spent so far.


The Santorum campaign, while funded much more modestly, still spends a better portion of their spending on advertisements: three (maybe four - one of the top companies has little public information available) of the top five. Out of $10,021,936 spent thusfar, $6,437,978 has gone to these three companies alone.


The Democratic party is no stranger to vice. It has been well-documented that President Obama has many times the financial support of any on the Republican side. However, since Obama has few rivals for the Democratic nomination, he can save a better portion of his negative ad money for the home stretch of the race to the White House. Of $60,814,484 Only three of Obama’s top five companies have been advertising companies, though his ads are far from kind to his Republican rivals.


A voter is done a disservice if they’ve never heard of a candidate or don’t know whether they embody the ideals that voter would like to see in a president. However, the public is best informed by what a candidate will try to achieve in office, not by what one dislike about another candidate. If the advertisement was solely used to inform, supporters’ finances would be well-spent. However, as the candidates sweep the nation through primary season, these ads are overwhelmingly negative. Ken Walsh highlighted this trend as it continued in Chicago last week: “Romney and his allied political action committee have outspent his closest rival, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, by 7-to-1 in Illinois, according to a survey by Politico . . . [t]he overwhelming majority of that money went to TV ads, largely negative commercials against Santorum.” This is where both Republicans and Democrats differ greatly from the Green Party candidates.





As of the latest official report, the leading Green Presidential hopeful -- Dr. Jill Stein of Massachusetts -- has not yet taken a single donation over $1,000. In fact, she’s made a campaign commitment to only take money from people, not corporate sponsors. Right now, she is seeking to raise $5,000 each from at least 20 states, in individual donations of $250 or less, in order to qualify for matching government funding. As of the time this article was written, she has achieved this benchmark in five states, with several others well on their way. This kind of self-imposed restriction have been a hallmark of Green candidates running for offices at all levels of government.


Because of Dr. Stein’s modest funding goals, she hadn’t garnered the funding which would require her to report her spending to the FEC at the end of the last quarterly reporting period in January. Even without the official report to turn to, one can clearly see what the Green candidates are not spending their money on: negative ads. The main focus of Green campaigns is the open, honest and fair government the people of the United States have shown a clear desire to obtain.


Instead of spending millions on tearing down the competition, Roseanne Barr who is also vying for the spot on the Green ticket, had only the very highest opinion of her opponent. As the Washington Post wrote:

“Does the sitcom queen really expect to be nominated? Not so much. She wrote on Twitter, ‘I run in support of The Green Party & probably of Jill Stein—hopefully I can be of service by speaking on media about a viable choice 4 voters.’ A Vice President Barr also doesn’t seem to be in the cards: ‘jill has already named a vice. i'm just in it to support the greens and their fine american message.’” (errors in original)


A campaign run for the good of the voters? As Jill Stein observed while in Ohio in early February: “It is great to have Roseanne Barr on the Green Party team. Let’s bring down the house!” Unlike the divided Republican party, the Green Party remains unified in their goal making government what it should be: the voice of the people.

# # #

Sources:

FEC financial disclosure from the Jill Stein campaign: http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_ind/C00505800/

Published comment about Roseanne Barr from Jill Stein, February 7th http://progressgreen.wordpress.com/page/2/

Washington Post article where Roseanne Barr voiced support for Jill Stein: http://www.jillstein.org/wash_post_roseanne_barr_supports_jill_stein

ProPublica’s graph of campaign spending by Democrats, Republicans and Super Pacs:
http://www.propublica.org/special/a-tangled-web

Ken Walsh Article in campaign spending in Chicago:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ken-Walshs-Washington/2012/03/20/mitt-romney-fills-illinois-airwaves-with-negative-ads

created/distributed using donated labor

Green Party of Michigan * 548 South Main Street * Ann Arbor, MI 48104 * 734-663-3555
GPMI was formed in 1987 to address environmental issues in Michigan politics. Greens are organized in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Each state Green Party sets its own goals and creates its own structure, but US Greens agree on Ten Key Values:

Ecological Wisdom Grassroots Democracy Social Justice Non-Violence
Community Economics Decentralization Feminism
Respect for Diversity Personal/Global Responsibility Future Focus/Sustainability