Third Party & Independents Archives

Green Party Candidate for Congress in Delaware Michael Berg

Is it time for a new type of representative in Congress. What should matter more, life experience and heart or money? The Green Party candidate for Congress in Delaware Michael Berg, is a man with heart and a man with principles. Berg, a high school teacher, earned his B.A. in English Literature and a teaching certificate in 1967 at Bucknell University. By 1969 Berg obtained a Master’s degree from Temple University.

Unlike many candidates who proclaim themselves as part of the anti-war movement and than later turn their back on the movement, Michael Berg has shown his commitment to the movement for nearly 40 years. As the Vietnam War continued and grew in the 1960s Berg joined those protesting the war, feeling that we had no reason to fight the people of Vietnam.

By the time of the first Gulf War in 1991 Berg was firmly solidified as a leader in the anti-war movement, continuing to protest and work towards peace despite reprimand's from his school's administrators. In the new Iraq War under George W Bush, Berg has worked to organize protests, marches, vigils, and to attract media attention to the anti-war movement as a whole.

Sadly, in March of 2004, Berg's son was killed in Iraq. Berg's son Nick was detained, illegally, by military personnel which led to his death as retalation by Iraqis for the abuses at Abu Gharib. Since this tragic event, Berg has worked harder to convey his message of peace, having been invited to speak all across the world, from London to Paris to South Korea to his home state of Delaware. Berg was honored in August of 2004, when he was awarded with the Courageous Resister Award at New York University. A year later he received the Adele Dwyer St. Thomas of Villanova Peace Award.

Berg stands for what those who have been disenfranchised by this continuing war stand for, a strong progressive peace oriented candidate.

Visit Micheal Berg's Campaign Website At: http://www.bergforcongress.us/

Posted by Richard Rhodes at May 16, 2006 5:25 PM
Comments
Comment #148757

Where does he stand on Pro-life?
Is he a homophiliac or a homophobiac?
His views on the .50 caliber rifle?
How about eminebt domain?
Taxes?
Social Security?
Is he in favor for the formation of a Greater Israel?
His position on the Latino Invasion?
Is he for inter-racial marriage?
Is he for inter-species marriage?
Polygamy?

Posted by: Aldous at May 16, 2006 8:21 PM
Comment #148762

Okay Rich I’ll bite, I hope Mr. Berg gets in, the resume looks impressive atleast from the outset. The horror that happend to his son was something that left me personally wanting Mecca demolished and muslims to explain publically why they would follow such a religion that has such “hadiths” as beheading of infidels and murder advocation.

It was his son’s death that made me reallize that Islam is the world’s most evil religion as there is none other calling for more murder and conquest in its religious scriptures. Liberals who defend it have never read the Quran and believe the peacability hype of Islam.

I agree that Iraq was a mistake but we cannot turn back the clock on it, we are there now so we need answers and Bush hasn’t a clue. A left of center voice would certainly be welcomed in my book but we as Dems have to face the music that we are there and need to be able to negotiate a peace with no turning back or retreat.

My thoughts on what needs to happen are this: Divide the region up into states (20 or so dependent apon size). Just like we have in the US, each with it’s own governing body. See the truth of the US is that we couldn’t have a civil war even if we wanted to in the US—there’s way too much bureaucracy and state and federal authorities. Think about it—we really couldn’t as the whole notion appears insane.

Secondly: Get the loans out there to create enterprise and businesses after we secure an area via military and security forces. The main problem is the massive unemployment of young males.

THirdly: we need to be the good guys again and not the occupiers that we are when we are the controllers of what is supposed to be an independent nation. What we are under Bush is an oligarchical power over what should be their own independent government. It’s a mistake not giving them the power and most importantly providing quality protection of those representatives.

Also: The privatization of the oil as that will generate a long lasting peace once some form of relative peace is established.

There’s more to it but I’ll leave it at that.

Posted by: Novenge at May 16, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment #148767

Al Queda is in Iraq. We cannot leave Iraq until Al Queda is destroyed. We must stay.

Posted by: Aldous at May 16, 2006 9:13 PM
Comment #148769

Aldous are you being sarcastic, or not I’m just not sure.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at May 16, 2006 9:16 PM
Comment #148774

Aldous I gotta ask why in the world are you located in the center, for independents? Your arguments are straight down the line Democrat.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at May 16, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment #148780

I for one will not be voting for a Democrat in the 2006 or 2008 elections. Winning is a losing proposition for the Democrats. The crazy assed ill-informed (I tell my brother that he is WILLFULLY ignorant) who elected the Nazis now in power will only vent their frustrations with Democrats if they win seats or positions. The Republican hunta got us into this mess. Let them get us out or continue to screw it up so badly that the willfully ignorant (you know, those who voted for Bush because he was a ‘straight-shooter’, a ‘good’ guy, and would bring ‘honor and dignity’ to the White House… those who easily take the bait of mom, apple pie, and flag waving) will beg us to take the government back. How in the hell could Gore or Kerry possibly have screwed up our country any worse?

LibRick

Posted by: LibRick at May 16, 2006 9:32 PM
Comment #148784

Richard Rhodes:

I am an Independent. The reason you think I am a Democrat is the embarrassing fact that the Democrats are an inclusive party. They take anybody, even me.

Despite the fact that I am pro-gun ownership, pro-State’s Rights, pro-Life, pro-Fiscal Responsibility, pro-small Goverment and a slew other stuff, no Democratic Organization has ever thrown me out.

Contrast this to my treatment in Republican Circles. Mention me being pro-Gay Rights, Separation of Church/State, Anti-War and POOF… Banned with extreme prejudice.

Cheers.

Posted by: Aldous at May 16, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #148786

How did Al Qaida become Al Queda? is this a new trend I’m missing here? You say Osama I say Usama? Anyway.. I can’t say Aldous’s post is straight Dem, I find that the majority of Democrats are actually to the opposite polarity of the issue. Everyone from Daily Kos to Democrats.com are for a full pull out of forces. I personally don’t think it’s that easy and am kind of split on the whole issue. I think we could be better served by getting out of civillian areas and by being good pragmatists and creating a frontline protecting those pipelines and generate some income. We could also protect civillian lives by being remotely placed being that as examples have shown the “insurgeants” will bring the fight to our doorstep (of which I don’t think very many “insurgeants” are Al Qaida other than symbolically as there is actually little evidence of it other than Bushco’s constant assertion that they are).

Unless ofcourse Aldous is being sardonic in which case—straight Democratic line.

Posted by: Novenge at May 16, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #148788

I am for staying in Iraq.

I am also for attacking Iran.

Once you commit to a set course of action, you pull through or become weak.

Bush as our Leader committed us to this. I think its the most moronic thing since Anthony chose to fight Octavius Ceasar at sea.

We cannot withdraw.

Whatever the price.

Posted by: Aldous at May 16, 2006 10:08 PM
Comment #148795

Oh yeah the Democrats are inclusive. They are inclusive in that they will let you vote for them and let you support them no matter what. But if you demand that they actually nominate someone who will be anti-war (represent the anti-war movement who sadly largely supported pro-war Kerry) or who is for gay rights (represent the gay rights movement, who again sadly largely supported Kerry) they will tell you to shut up because of you don’t vote for their candidate than the Republican will win. They tell you to give up on your convictions because they know whats best. Yeah the Democrats are inclusive, sure.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at May 16, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #148828

Richard Rhodes:

Can you cite a single example where such a thing resulted in a Ban from a Democratic Organization?

Posted by: Aldous at May 17, 2006 1:10 AM
Comment #148834

See Aldous we are talking on two different levels you are talking about Democrat’s sponsored organizations while I am talking about what they actually do, look at John Kerry. The party chose him as their candidate for the highest office in our nation in 2004. Thus making him the premier Democrat, if only for 2004. John Kerry was a slap in the face to any and all progressives, whether they be the Kuchinich supporters inside the Democratic Party or the Green Party progressives or the Nader progressives.

The fact remains that Democrats are not going to try to heal what they did in 2004. In 2008 you know as well as I do that they will spit in the face of progressives again. They will nominate another centrist-pseudo conservative: Hillary Clinton or John Kerry most likely, (please don’t let it be John Kerry again anyone but John Kerry). I am an adamant supporter of Dennis Kucinich, but Kucinich has been screwed over by the party too many times, and unfortunately it is very unlikely he will win the ticket in 2008. If the Democrats want to win over progressives like me, there are three ways: 1. Nominate Lynn Woolsey, 2. Nominate John Conyers Jr., 3. Nominate Dennis Kucinich. Too bad they are gonna go with a pseudo conservative again in 2008, so thus as they spit in our face we cannot support them anymore. If they do not nominate a progressive, they should not expect progressive support anymore. Period.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at May 17, 2006 1:40 AM
Comment #148838

Um… I’m a centrist Democrat, and I was happy with Kerry, and I’d be happy with Hillary (though I’ll be campaigning for Wes Clark).

As for Berg, good luck to him, but I think he’d have been better off running for a lesser office first. It’s hard to vote Green when they have no political track record.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 17, 2006 1:56 AM
Comment #148842

American Pundit, thanks, my comment about Kerry and Hillary were not meant to persuade centrist Democrats. I am speaking to progressives who feel upset with the Kerry nomination.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at May 17, 2006 2:22 AM
Comment #148844

Whatever…

Can you at least answer my original questions on this guy’s policies?

Posted by: Aldous at May 17, 2006 2:54 AM
Comment #148845

The fact that you would ask about inter-species marriage I know you are being sarcastic and dont deserve to be answered. Re submit your questions and be serious and than I will respond to you seriously.

However I will tell you that sometime within the next 60 days or so I will be interviewing Michael Berg and the interview will be posted here, if you have serious questions put them up and I may ask them. Please no questions involving inter-species marriage.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at May 17, 2006 3:03 AM
Comment #148846

How dare you belittle my inter-species marriage concerns!!! I will have you know that a man married a dolphin recently in Israel. That could happen here!!! Can I be assured that Berg will prevent such marriages without undermining the Separation of Church and State?

Posted by: Aldous at May 17, 2006 3:54 AM
Comment #148867
How did Al Qaida become Al Queda?

I’m so glad you asked. (Blame it on him, folks!)

From another thread - by “sicilianeagle” - where the same QUEstion was asked:


In Spanish, “queda” means, “it is” and “al” means “to” - hence, “Al Queda” means “To It Is.” (Hey, don’t blame me, it was those crazy Mexicans who thought it up!) Anyway, here’s a:

Recipe For Al Queda

1 “Paloma Siciliano” (plucked and cleaned)
1 cup diced Jalapeno Peppers
1 pound Botched Foreign Policy
1 boatload War-Profiteering
1 ounce Prevention

Take the ounce of Prevention and throw it out the window; place the Sicilian Pigeon halfway into a frying pan while holding its feet to the fire; stir in the Botched Foreign Policy and the War-Profiteering; bring to a boil. When the dish explodes in your face, stick a fork in it.


Here’s a picture of Minister Of War Darth Rumsfeld giving the Recipe to Saddam Hussein on December 20, 1983, when he worked for President Ronald Reagan, a known connoisseur of Mexican cuisine:


Bon Appétit.

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 17, 2006 7:05 AM
Comment #153283

Another Independent in Calif.

Posted by: QuangXPham4Congress at June 1, 2006 7:38 AM
Comment #155567

Perspective- a word liberals do not understand.
I hope Micheal Berg likes assholes because he will spend eternity looking at the devils!

Posted by: Joseph Stalin at June 8, 2006 12:27 PM
Post a comment