Nebraska - Get Organized to End the Iraq War

A new age in political organizing has begun with the rise of online activism. The Internet has given people of like-mind the ability to work together like never before across any geographic expanse. This has proven especially effective for purposes of fundraising and sharing resources. Yet, it seems well understood that online influence and success does not necessarily equate with real people power in the physical world. Hence, the work of our contributor below.

As stated numerous times in the past, my own feelings on the Iraq War are quite mixed...precisely because it is such a mess, for which the United States is largely responsible. Our contributor writes about the goal of "responsibly ending this war." Of course, that's an idea everyone is going to support, but the trouble is everyone might have very different ideas of what exactly that entails.

But, enough from me. Take it away, John...and best of luck in your campaign.

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq
http://www.NoIraqEscalation.org

I am John Jensen, the new Nebraska field director for Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI). Americans Against Escalation in Iraq is a major, multi-million dollar national campaign to oppose the President's proposal to escalate the war in Iraq by sending more than 20,000 additional troops into a violent civil war. National Coalition partners include: SEIU, MoveOn.org Political Action, Center for American Progress, USAction, Win Without War, Vote Vets, Campaign for America's Future, and USSA.

I am looking to build relationships with local coalition partners, activists and opinion leaders to support the goals of the national campaign. I also want to develop and maintain communication with coalition partners and create a feedback structure.

Although I live in Omaha, these events are not limited to Omaha as this is a statewide effort.

Goal:
Seek to split off our Republican Congressmen’s support of the Presidents failed policies in Iraq while continuing to keep Senators Hagel and Nelson support for responsibly ending this war

Message:
We have a choice between ending this war and endless war. We choose to stop the escalation and to end the war in Iraq.

The House and Senate will continue working after the veto on a supplemental piece of legislation. It is unclear, given the lack of knowledge on the content front, if we will be supportive of the next piece of supplemental legislation or the legislation following. The initial vote provided an historic moment — the first vote to end the war — and we would hope that Congress has the courage not to backtrack.

As we continue toward future votes, supplemental and defense appropriations, we will seek out events and opportunities to organize.

All of our events and activities within a state will be directly tied to House and Senate targets.

Activities:
• Rallies
• Press Conferences
• Bird-dogging
• Breakfast meetings with reporters to pitch feature stories
• Host roundtable events
• Debates
• Small town halls
• Op-eds
• Letters to the editor

I Need Speakers – Three to four per event; taking points will be provided.

Looking for:
o Mom’s
o Vets (especially those who served in Iraq)
o Community leaders
o Religious leaders
o Students
o Teachers
o Political office holders (current or former)
o Rural Nebraska leaders
o First Responders

I will provide:
• Press releases
• Podium, Loudspeakers, television and DVD player as needed
• Talking points

Possible Activities:
• “America Speaks” Events Nebraska.
• Faith Leaders Speak Out On the War
• First Responders Speak Out On the War
o First Firefighters, Policemen, Emergency workers, National Guardsmen, FEMA workers… This will also be an opportunity to speak about the Nebraska National Guard sad readiness report.
• Teachers Speak Out On the War
• Rural America Speaks Out On the War
• Memorial Day Press Event
• State Press Conferences Rolling Out Paid Media with our Partners
• Bird-dog Bush/McCain Travel (If they ever come to Nebraska!)

1. Pre-Appearance Press Conference or Press Conference Call
2. During Appearance Counter Rally
3. Post-Appearance Response

If you are interested in helping as a speaker, as a sign holder or any other way, please send me an e-mail with following information:

• Name
• Job/Position
• Group (Only if you represent a group)
• Phone
• E-mail
• General times and days available. (I will always ask you about your willingness to speak or help at specific events.)

Thank you!

John Jensen

402-312-4180 (cell)
E-mail: Omaha.NoEscalation@gmail.com
Blog: http://nebraskanoescalation.blogspot.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2358807836

Go to full text...

A Lincoln-Area Invitation

A young activist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln asked NNN to share the following invitation with readers, and we are - of course - happy to oblige. There are a lot of events of this sort all over the state that it would be great to have listed in a single, comprehensive location. Someone really should get on top of that, don't you think?

Take it away, Hannah......

Hannah Ledford on
"Invisible Children" and the Crisis in Uganda

You might find it odd that the following is being posted on a left leaning, Nebraska-specific blog. The following post does not belong here. The fact that children are being slaughtered in Northern Uganda has virtually no impact on the good people of Nebraska. In addition, this post is about human rights violations currently taking place and while this is clearly a political issue, it is a completely non-partisan issue. However, you are able to help the people of Northern Uganda, and that should prompt you to read further.

Despite its brutality, few outside of Uganda have acknowledged the country’s twenty year war with the Lord’s Resistance Army. In 1986, the LRA began a ruthless campaign to overthrow the government of Uganda. The LRA has been ultimately unsuccessful. However, the level of pain, suffering and fear felt by the Ugandan people (especially children) as a result of this rebellion, has been virtually unparalleled. More information can be found here.

In 2003, three independent filmmakers traveled to Uganda to document the war. They made a documentary from their footage and proceeded to begin a non-profit organization, the goal of which is to raise awareness for Uganda in the United States, and create jobs and further education in Northern Uganda.

On March 20th and 21st. Representatives from the Invisible Children Organization will be at the Ross Media Arts Center at 7:00pm as part of their Second Annual National Tour. They will be showing their documentary and having a Q&A session afterward. The representatives will also be giving the audience information as to how they can become involved and make a difference in this situation.

For more information, please contact Hannah Ledford (h_ledford@hotmail.com) or Karen Philabaun (karen1304@msn.com).

A number of other screenings wil be held in Lincoln over the next week. For a complete listing, go to www.invisiblechildren.com.

Go to full text...

NNN Mailbox: "In Defense of Chuck Hagel"

Nebraskans For Peace have responded via e-mail to my taking issue with their recent Hagel-palooza, and the New Nebraska Network is pleased to share that response with readers.

NFP adopted the position it did to support Hagel with the view in mind that once you split an elite you begin a process of change. Hagel's unrelenting criticism of the White House has split the Republicans' 'united front' on the war in a way that Ben Nelson, or Barack Obama or Ted Kennedy never could have. That alone is invaluable.

On virtually every other issue (taxes, health care, global warming, campaign finance reform), we assertively part company with Hagel. But on Mideast policy, Hagel has been saying the sensible thing continually for the past five years--and drawn national media attention to the subject by doing it.

As both Senators Biden and Levin have acknowledged, it was Hagel who approached these ranking Democrats with the original idea and original resolution on the 'surge'--not they him. And Sen. Nelson's version, as you know, was not as strong as Hagel's.

We also don't share the New Nebraska Network's take on Hagel's original 'no' vote. To actually have a senate debate on the war resolution, the body needs 60 votes. We don't blame Harry Reid for doing some political grandstanding for the Democrats, because that't how the game is played. But that basically 'party line', 49-47 vote was a gambit to make political hay at the Republicans' expense. It didn't--and wasn't ever going to--produce a senate debate on the subject. Hagel wanted a debate, and wanted Reid and Mitch McConnell to hammer things out so a real debate could occur before the recess.

When it became obvious McConnell--at the White House's behest--wasn't going to permit a debate under any circumstances, Hagel voted with the Democrats the second time around. In that 56-34 cloture vote, seven Republicans voted with him, and ten did not vote. And although this vote too fell short of the total needed, it better sets the stage for more dialogue when Congress reconvenes. There are lots of reasons to chastise Hagel. In our book, this isn't one of them.

Ben Nelson obviously deserves credit for his leadership during this discussion as well. But many other Democrats have gone out front on this issue, while Nelson (understandably in our view, considering he represents a 'red state') has held back.

If NFP's position turns out to be wrong, so be it. But we believe the political realities argue that it is worth wholeheartedly supporting Hagel in his effort for what he's doing. The anti-war movement is stronger today for what this man has done. We think that's courageous.

Peace,

Paul Olson and Tim Rinne

The New Nebraska Network thanks Mr. Olson and Mr. Rinne - NFPs State Coordinator - for so generously offering their very reasonable counterpoint on Sen. Chuck Hagel. I disagree with NFPs defining Hagel in such mythic, near-messianic terms, but I otherwise respect their appreciation of Hagel - even sharing it in many regards.

More than anything else, I appreciate NFPs thoughful response to my earlier post. Reasonable people - even reasonable progressives - are bound to have different ideas and interpretations when it comes to politicians and their priorities. If my own "rhetorical flourishes" (questioning their rationality and lambasting the idea of Hagel as an "Anti-War Santa Claus") were in any way offensive to Nebraskans For Peace and its supporters, the New Nebraska Network apologizes and will strive to be less combatative and more constructive in any future criticism.

I got out-classed on this one and am not afraid to admit it. Hopefully, I'll learn a lesson, but - alas - I can make no absolute assurances.

Go to full text...

CommuNity ColumNist - Equality for Elkhorn

With Omaha's highly-publicized and somewhat controversial annexation of Elkhorn nearing its final resolution in the courts, there are still a lot of bad feelings about how the entire process was conducted.

People like rooting for an underdog and no one likes a bully. The idea of self-government is also so tied into the American character that Elkhorn had a lot to work with in demanding that its citizens have a say in Omaha's takeover of their city. As a matter of law, Omaha always had them beat, but - in the court of public opinion - Elkhorn might have found salvation and survival with a different strategy that played up its victimization rather than playing along in the annexation game that was always so clearly tilted in Omaha's favor.

In hindsight, Elkhorn's pre-emptive annexation was a bad idea. Hoping to force its population over 10,000 and to thereby gain protected status right under Omaha's nose, all they really managed to accomplish was to draw first blood, to become the bad guy, and to lose the public's goodwill.

Last month, unsurprisingly, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled entirely in Omaha's favor in the matter, not only on the cities' dueling annexation proposals but also on their respective compliance with the state's open-meetings laws. While there certainly appears to be some objectionable reasoning in the Supreme Court's opinion, the ultimate decision granting Omaha the right to annex Elkhorn without the consent of its citizens is a well-established peculiarity of our state statutes that the court seems to have relied upon as something of a foregone conclusion.

Elkhorn has promised to exhaust all their appeals, but those efforts are long-shots, to say the least. That leaves Elkhorn's last real appeal an emotional one. And, in that vein, the New Nebraska Network presents the argument of one of Elkhorn's Omahans-to-be, objecting to the supposed trampling of his and his fellow citizens' rights to self-government.

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

Thomas Fencl on
Equality for Elkhorn


Discrimination is alive and well in Nebraska.

The Nebraska Supreme Court was appointed to interpret the law, not rewrite it. In January of 2007 the court chose to replace both state and federal laws with what was convenient to them at the time. Their ruling, which appeared as a strain to re-apply and disregard past rulings and the state constitution, changed the overall scope of the trial to make Elkhorn, and any other smaller community with similar ideas of remaining independent, the “bad guy” and Omaha the Emerald City.

In what was depicted by the area news media as a David vs. Goliath scenario Omaha threatened Elkhorn with, according to the Nebraska voters, an illegal annexation. (In 1998 Nebraska voters passed an amendment to the constitution stating no merger or consolidation of two cities or counties could take place without a vote of the people according to the ballot) In an attempt to make themselves safe from annexation, Elkhorn expanded their city limits to the outlying unincorporated areas to increase their population beyond 10,000.

According to Nebraska law cities of 10,000 or more cannot be annexed without a vote of its citizens. By the state constitution and by the annexation laws already on the books Elkhorn would be double protected. Upon receiving information of Elkhorn’s actions Omaha scheduled a “hurry-up” public meeting to be held at ten o’clock in the evening.

Notice of the meeting went out only seven hours prior thus creating a violation of the open meetings law, which in turn, makes all decisions at that meeting null and void. Omaha city officials voted to file suit against Elkhorn to block their expansion and in turn expand their boundaries by 5 miles to annex Elkhorn.

At the same time, The Omaha World Herald, which works hand in hand with the City of Omaha to present a “positive image” began a biased assault on Elkhorn and their community leaders. Insulting cartoons, misleading and falsified maps, and slanted stories filled the pages of the World Herald. When Elkhorn asked for corrections they were denied. When Elkhorn asked for the right to rebut statements they were told no. Nevertheless, Elkhorn remained positive knowing in the end they had done everything legally and above board.

In January the 8,000 residents of Elkhorn, were shocked to learn the Nebraska Supreme Court rejected ALL of Elkhorn’s arguments. Many attorneys from across the state read the decision in disbelief. Others saw it as a complete destruction of the open meeting law leaving any public entity the ability to hold meetings whenever and wherever they would like.

Likewise, constitutional ballot issues decided by the voters are now only considered law when it is convenient. If they get in the way of a ruling they can be disregarded as a misinterpretation by the voters.

Finally, in their last statement it was said Elkhorn ceased to exist on March 24, 2005. That would make every traffic violation, every criminal offense, every fine paid and so on and so on open to severe scrutiny by a parade of criminal defense attorneys due to the fact that their clients were prosecuted by a city that didn’t exist.

What was the Supreme Court thinking? Do the political strings that are supposed to be nonexistent in our judicial branch have that much power over the people that were bestowed the responsibility to keep justice blind?

8,000 people had their voting rights, and their independence squashed into the pages of Nebraska law all for the City of Omaha’s unquenchable thirst for more power and more tax dollars.

Discrimination comes in many forms. When the hint of discrimination arises due to race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation the proverbial alarm bell rings loudly through the hills and valleys. But what happens when it’s a mostly white, mostly Christian, mostly middle class small community in Nebraska? Aren’t the voting rights of the residents of Elkhorn just as important as Jesse Jackson’s? According to federal law no person in Elkhorn stands higher than Jesse Jackson, Kim Gandy, Rosie O’Donnell, or Louis Farrakhan. But at the same time, according to that same federal law, none of those mentioned people stand higher than the ordinary citizen of Elkhorn.

Doesn’t our federal constitution afford EVERYONE the right to vote regardless?

Many years ago George Wallace, the governor of Alabama stood in the doorway at the University of Alabama and blocked African-American students from attending. Our federal government sent the National Guard to the University of Alabama to insure those students were guaranteed their right to the education of their choice. Will the Elkhorn citizens’ rights to vote and live independently be defended as vigorously as the rights of those students in Alabama?


Tom Fencl lives in Elkhorn, NE. He can be contacted at pubprint2@earthlink.net.

Go to full text...

From the NNN Mailbox: "The Blind Partisans"

A reader just sent me the following message with some interesting facts and questions we need to do everything in our power to put before Nebraska voters:

1. On the House vote to curb new deficit spending and reform the practice of earmarks, 24% of the Republicans voted aye, but not Adrian Smith and not Lee Terry. Who is the conservative?

2. On the House vote to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, 35% of the Republicans voted aye, but not Adrian Smith and not Lee Terry. Who is for protecting us against terrorism?

3. On the House vote to increase the federal minimum wage for the first time in about a decade, 41% of the Republicans voted aye, but not Adrian Smith, not Lee Terry, and not Jeff Fortenberry. Who cares about the working person?

You've got the facts. You've got the questions. Now, use them.

The people of Nebraska did not overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic agenda in 2006, but it's their agenda nonetheless. These are changes that the people want - regardless of label - and those who fail to see that must be held to account by us today and by the voters tomorrow.

But for the tyranny and corruption of the last Congress' Republican majority, much of the Democratic-American-Nebraskan agenda we're seeing in these first 100 hours of the new Congress would have been passed years ago. From their votes, some Republican representatives have recognized their party's failure and wakened to the new possibilities for true progress on the great issues of our day.

Unfortunately, Nebraska's Republican Congressmen - especially the 2nd District's Lee Terry and the the 3rd District's Adrian Smith - have been slow to this realization or are simply incapable of operating in any atmosphere but the toxic hyperpartisanship of the last decade.

Over the next two years, these men have a choice: change or defeat. But, we have to make those the stakes by holding their feet to the fires of truth and by helping grow the emerging majority of Nebraskans who will no longer accept empty suit, rubber-stamp Republicans who put D.C. politics before the interests of the people they represent. Terry and Smith should consider themselves warned.

Change is coming. Their time is over. Our time is now. (Even says so in the masthead.)

Go to full text...