Total Link Matches Found: 133       Showing Links #1 - 50 +more
Tag(s) Selected:  US Supreme Court
Search:
:
   + Advanced Options        Search Tips        Legend
     


2/22/2012 Davis votes to support repeal of Citizens United ruling
Yesterday, the city of Davis voted unanimously to support Assembly Joint Resolution 22. The text of the resolution passed by the Davis city council can be found here. AJR 22 is working its way through California's state legislature; the bill would urge Congress to begin the process of a Constitutional Amendment in order to overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling. The Citizens United Supreme Court decision is what allows Corporations and "Super PACS" to spend unlimited funds on any individual candidate or party they choose. Davis joins New York City and Portland in calling on Congress to begin the process of a Constitutional Amendment for campaign finance reform. The effort in Davis, like in these other cities, was spearheaded by the Occupy Davis group. Occupy is developed growing momentum for repealing the Citizens United ruling that many see as swinging the door of corruption completely open. (Examiner)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 2/28/12                   0       3
#1 



2/19/2012 Justices Signal High Court May Rethink Citizens United: Ginsburg, Breyer say real-world results rebut original ruling
The Supreme Court on Friday blocked a Montana Supreme Court ruling against corporate campaign funding, appearing once again to support the unlimited corporate spending it allowed with the Citizens United case of 2010. But maybe not? Comments in Friday's order by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer hint that they're unhappy with the results of that infamous case, reports the Washington Post. (Newser)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 2/20/12                   0       6
#2 



1/19/2012 2012 GOP caucus count unresolved
THE RESULTS: Santorum finished ahead by 34 votes MISSING DATA: 8 precincts’ numbers will never be certified PARTY VERDICT: GOP official says, ‘It’s a split decision’ Rick Santorum – Final total: 29,839 Change: -168 Mitt Romney – Final total: 29,805 Change: -210 It’s a tie for the ages. There are too many holes in the certified totals from the Iowa caucuses to know for certain who won, but Rick Santorum wound up with a 34-vote advantage. Results from eight precincts are missing — any of which could hold an advantage for Mitt Romney — and will never be recovered and certified, Republican Party of Iowa officials told The Des Moines Register on Wednesday. GOP officials discovered inaccuracies in 131 precincts, although not all the changes affected the two leaders. Changes in one precinct alone shifted the vote by 50 — a margin greater than the certified tally. (Desmoines Register)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 2/20/12                   0       5
#3 
keywords: Al Gore, Alternative Media, Associated Press, Barack Obama, Ben Lange, Bob Dole, Buddy Roemer, CBS, Chad Olsen, Condoleeza Rice, Dennis Goldford, Donald Trump, Drake University, Elections, Florida, Fred Karger, Gary Johnson, George H W Bush, George W Bush, Herman Cain, Hillary Clinton, Iowa, Irene Iben, Janet Wissler, Jared Blankenship, Jerry Crawford, Jimmy Carter, John Edwards, John Mccain, John Stineman, Jon Huntsman, Kyle Kondik, Massachusetts, Matt Strawn, Michele Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, New Hampshire, News Election Service, Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan, Paul Ryan, Pennsylvania, Ralph Nader, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Robert D Ray, Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan, Roy Moore, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, Scott Walker, South Carolina, Terry Branstad, Tim Pawlenty, US Supreme Court, United States, Voter Fraud, Voter News Service, Walter Mondale Add New Keyword To Link



11/27/2011 Secret Fed Loans Gave Banks $13 Billion
Banks worldwide earned an estimated $13 billion by taking advantage of below-market rates on emergency U.S. Federal Reserve loans from August 2007 through April 2010. Roll over the bars below to explore details for each. To compare results with banks' net income or losses for the same timeframes, click the corresponding button. Worldwide total is the sum for 190 firms with available data; those banks lost a combined $21.6 billion. The Federal Reserve and the big banks fought for more than two years to keep details of the largest bailout in U.S. history a secret. Now, the rest of the world can see what it was missing. The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue. (Bloomberg)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 11/29/11                   0       6
#4 
keywords: American Bankers Association, Ancel Martinez, Andrea Priest, Anil Kashyap, Anthony Coley, Bailouts, Bank Of America, Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Basel, Bear Stearns, Ben Bernanke, Berkeley, Bloomberg Lp, Brad Miller, Byron Dorgan, California, Center For Economic And Policy Research, Center For Responsive Politics, Charlotte, Citigroup, Clearing House Association, Countrywide Financial, Dallas, David Jones, Dean Baker, Dodd-frank Wall Street Reform Act, Dow Jones, Federal Reserve, Financial Crisis, Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Financial Services Forum, Financial Stability Oversight Council, Gary Stern, George Mason University, George W Bush, Gerald Hanweck, Glass-steagall Act, Goldman Sachs, Government Transparency, Graham Fisher & CO, Henry Paulson, Howard Opinsky, Jamie Dimon, Jerry Dubrowski, John Dearie, Jon Diat, Joshua Rosner, Jpmorgan Chase, Judd Gregg, Kenneth Lewis, Lehman Brothers, Mark Lake, Merrill Lynch, Minneapolis, Morgan Stanley, Neil Barofsky, New York, New York City, New York University, Nobel Prize, North Carolina, Occupy Boston, Occupy California, Occupy Oakland, Occupy Seattle, Occupy Wall Street, Oliver Williamson, Phillip Swagel, Police, Realtytrac, Richard Fisher, Richard Shelby, Scott Alvarez, Sherrill Shaffer, Sherrod Brown, Switzerland, Tea Party, Ted Kaufman, Timothy Geithner, US Bureau Of Labor Statistics, US Congress, US Department Of The Treasury, US Freedom Of Information Act, US Supreme Court, United States, University Of California, University Of Chicago, University Of Maryland, University Of Wyoming, Vikram Pandit, Viral Acharya, Wachovia, Wall Street, Washington DC, Washington Mutual, Wells Fargo, William English Add New Keyword To Link



11/25/2011 The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy: The violent police assaults across the US are no coincidence. Occupy has touched the third rail of our political class's venality
US citizens of all political persuasions are still reeling from images of unparallelled police brutality in a coordinated crackdown against peaceful OWS protesters in cities across the nation this past week. An elderly woman was pepper-sprayed in the face; the scene of unresisting, supine students at UC Davis being pepper-sprayed by phalanxes of riot police went viral online; images proliferated of young women – targeted seemingly for their gender – screaming, dragged by the hair by police in riot gear; and the pictures of a young man, stunned and bleeding profusely from the head, emerged in the record of the middle-of-the-night clearing of Zuccotti Park. But just when Americans thought we had the picture – was this crazy police and mayoral overkill, on a municipal level, in many different cities? – the picture darkened. The National Union of Journalists issued a Freedom of Information Act request to investigate possible federal involvement with law enforcement practices that appeared to target journalists. The New York Times reported that "New York cops have arrested, punched, whacked, shoved to the ground and tossed a barrier at reporters and photographers" covering protests. Reporters were asked by NYPD to raise their hands to prove they had credentials: when many dutifully did so, they were taken, upon threat of arrest, away from the story they were covering, and penned far from the site in which the news was unfolding. Other reporters wearing press passes were arrested and roughed up by cops, after being – falsely – informed by police that "It is illegal to take pictures on the sidewalk." (London Guardian)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 12/14/11                   0       4
#5 



11/16/2011 More Money Can Beat Big Money
Nine senators introduced a resolution early this month that would amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) and Buckley v. Valeo (1976). These two cases had restricted Congress’s power to limit contributions to political campaigns and independent political expenditures, by both individuals and corporations. Under the amendment, Congress and the states would have the power to limit both contributions and independent expenditures. “By limiting the influence of big money in politics,” said one of the senators, Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, “elections can be more about the voters and their voices, not big money donors and their deep pockets. We need to have a campaign finance structure that limits the influence of the special interests and restores confidence in our democracy.” This proposal is just the latest verse in a very tired song. Once again, the answer to the problem of campaign finance is to “just say no.” Limit contributions. Limit independent expenditures. Limit soft money donations. No, no, no. (New York Times)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 11/27/11                   0       6
#6 



11/1/2011 Citizens United Going Down? Democrats Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Ruling
The Supreme Court may treat corporations like people who can spend whatever they want on elections, but the American people don't have to accept it, said Democratic senators who proposed a constitutional amendment Tuesday to retake control of campaign spending. The amendment, introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), doesn't directly address the justices' legal finding that corporations have a right to free speech that was curtailed by election law. Instead, it would add to the Constitution language that says Congress and the states can regulate campaign contributions and expenditures. The amendment would effectively reverse two landmark Supreme Court decisions -- the 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, which said spending money in elections is a form of speech, and the 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled it unconstitutional to regulate the money spent to influence elections by corporations and unions. (Huffington Post)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 11/8/11                   0       6
#7 



7/30/2011 Why Voters Tune Out Democrats
BARACK OBAMA can’t catch a break from the American public on the economy, even though he prevented a depression and saved global capitalism. Perhaps the president finds solace in knowing he’s not alone. During this period of economic crisis and uncertainty, voters are generally turning to conservative and right-wing political parties, most notably in Europe and in Canada. It’s perplexing. When unemployment is high, and the rich are getting richer, you would think that voters of average means would flock to progressives, who are supposed to have their interests in mind — and who historically have delivered for them. During the last half-century or so, when a Democratic president has led the country, people have tended to experience lower unemployment, less inequality and rising income compared with periods of Republican governance. There is a reason, however, that many voters in the developed world are turning away from Democrats, Socialists, liberals and progressives. My vantage point on voter behavior comes through my company, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, and its work for center-left parties globally, starting with Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign in 1992. For the last decade, I have worked in partnership with James Carville conducting monthly polls digging into America’s mood and studying how progressives can develop successful electoral strategies. (I am also married to a Democratic congresswoman from Connecticut, Rosa L. DeLauro.) (New York Times)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 9/14/11                   0       4
#8 



6/24/2011 Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011
On June 23, 2011, U.S. Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA), Ron Paul (R-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), John Conyers (D-MICH.), Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Jared Polis (D-CO) introduced H.R. 2306, a bill to end the federal prohibition on the possession, cultivation, distribution, importation and exportation of marijuana. This is a remarkable bill for several reasons. First, the bill would truly and completely decriminalize marijuana under federal law. Unlike state laws that reduce the penalty for possession of marijuana from a criminal offense to a summary offense or violation like a traffic offense, there would be no federal violation for possessing or growing marijuana. For example, it is not a federal offense to drive too fast on a federally-funded highway -- it is only a violation of state law. Under this bill, it becomes solely a matter of state law whether one can possess or grow or sell marijuana. Second, by removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, one of the major impediments to state medical marijuana laws would be removed! If enacted, there could no longer be any argument that the state medical marijuana law is in "conflict" with federal law. The bill does not address any issues of regulation of marijuana as a "drug" under the Federal Food, Drug, Cosmetic and Device Act. (Sterling on Justice & Drugs)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 7/29/11                   0       5
#9 



6/22/2011 Free to Search and Seize
THIS spring was a rough season for the Fourth Amendment. The Obama administration petitioned the Supreme Court to allow GPS tracking of vehicles without judicial permission. The Supreme Court ruled that the police could break into a house without a search warrant if, after knocking and announcing themselves, they heard what sounded like evidence being destroyed. Then it refused to see a Fourth Amendment violation where a citizen was jailed for 16 days on the false pretext that he was being held as a material witness to a crime. In addition, Congress renewed Patriot Act provisions on enhanced surveillance powers until 2015, and the F.B.I. expanded agents’ authority to comb databases, follow people and rummage through their trash even if they are not suspected of a crime. None of these are landmark decisions. But together they further erode the privilege of privacy that was championed by Congress and the courts in the mid-to-late-20th century, when the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement was applied to the states, unconstitutionally seized evidence was ruled inadmissible in state trials, and privacy laws were enacted following revelations in the 1970s of domestic spying on antiwar and civil rights groups. For over a decade now, the government has tried to make us more secure by chipping away at the one provision of the Bill of Rights that pivots on the word “secure” — the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” (New York Times)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 6/25/11                   0       7
#10 
keywords: 9/11, Afghanistan, Al-qaeda, Alien Enemies Act, Barack Obama, Breakthrough Institute, Colorado, Espionage Act, Farmers, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, GPS, Independent America, James Otis Jr, Japan, John Adams, Najibullah Zazi, New York City, Nuremberg Trials, Oregon, Pakistan, Pearl Harbor, Police, Portland Seven, Privacy, Robert H Jackson, Taliban, Terrorists, US Congress, US Constitution, US Supreme Court, United Kingdom, United States, Usa Patriot Act, War On Drugs Add New Keyword To Link



5/23/2011 Justices, 5-4, Tell California to Cut Prisoner Population
Conditions in California’s overcrowded prisons are so bad that they violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday, ordering the state to reduce its prison population by more than 30,000 inmates. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in a 5-to-4 decision that broke along ideological lines, described a prison system that failed to deliver minimal care to prisoners with serious medical and mental health problems and produced “needless suffering and death.” Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed vigorous dissents. Justice Scalia called the order affirmed by the majority “perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation’s history.” Justice Alito said “the majority is gambling with the safety of the people of California.” The majority opinion included photographs of inmates crowded into open gymnasium-style rooms and what Justice Kennedy described as “telephone-booth-sized cages without toilets” used to house suicidal inmates. Suicide rates in the state’s prisons, Justice Kennedy wrote, have been 80 percent higher than the average for inmates nationwide. A lower court in the case said it was “an uncontested fact” that “an inmate in one of California’s prisons needlessly dies every six or seven days due to constitutional deficiencies.” Monday’s ruling in the case, Brown v. Plata, No. 09-1233, affirmed an order by a special three-judge federal court requiring state officials to reduce the prison population to 110,000, which is 137.5 percent of the system’s capacity. There have been more than 160,000 inmates in the system in recent years, and there are now more than 140,000. Prison release orders are rare and hard to obtain, and even advocates for prisoners’ rights said Monday’s decision was unlikely to have a significant impact around the nation. “California is an extreme case by any measure,” said David C. Fathi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project, which submitted a brief urging the justices to uphold the lower court’s order. “This case involves ongoing, undisputed and lethal constitutional violations. We’re not going to see a lot of copycat litigation.” State officials in California will have two years to comply with the order, and they may ask for more time. Justice Kennedy emphasized that the reduction in population need not be achieved solely by releasing prisoners early. Among the other possibilities, he said, are new construction, transfers out of state and using county facilities. (New York Times)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 5/27/11                   0       7
#11 



5/22/2011 Grameen yet to bring micro-loans to D.C., a year after Muhammad Yunus announcement
Since its founding in 1976 by Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank has made more than $9 billion worth of micro-loans to 8 million poor and unemployed borrowers, a track record impressive enough to earn the man and bank the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize. Its U.S. offshoot, however, has been unable to raise $6 million to bring Yunus’s banking for the poor to Washington. (Washington Post)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 5/27/11                   0       7
#12 
keywords: Advantage Capital Partners, Bangladesh, Capital One, Grameen America, Grameen Bank, John G Finneran Jr, Microcredit, Muhammad Yunus, New York City, Nobel Prize, Stephen Vogel, Tatiana Stead, US Supreme Court, United States, Washington DC Add New Keyword To Link



5/17/2011 Smell Pot? SCOTUS Kills 4th Amendment
The Supreme Court says police can enter your home without a warrant, if they smell marijuana, and if when knocking on the door, they hear what sounds like the destruction of evidence. But apparently, by making sounds like destruction of evidence like flushing a toilet, police can come in. Students for Sensible Drug Policy's Aaron Houston discusses. (Russia Today)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 5/18/11      
            		 0       7
#13 



5/17/2011 The Supreme Court's Stinky Ruling on Marijuana Odor: What Does it Really Mean?
This week's Supreme Court decision in Kentucky v. King has civil-libertarians and marijuana policy reformers in an uproar, and rightly so, but it's not exactly the death of the 4th Amendment. Here's a look at how this case could impact police practices and constitutional rights. It all started when police chased a drug suspect into a building and lost him. They smelled marijuana smoke coming from an apartment and decided to check it out, so they announced themselves and knocked loudly on the door. They heard movement inside, which the officers feared could indicate destruction of evidence, so they kicked in the door and entered the apartment. Hollis King was arrested for drugs and challenged the police entry as a violation of his 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches. In an 8-1 decision written by Justice Alito, the Court determined that an emergency search was justified to prevent destruction of evidence, even though police created the risk of such destruction by yelling "Police!" and banging on the door. The determining factor, in the Court's view, was that police had not violated the 4th Amendment simply by knocking on the door. Since the subsequent need to prevent destruction of evidence was the result of legal conduct by the officers, the events that followed do not constitute a violation of the suspect's constitutional rights. Naturally, any fan of the 4th Amendment can look at this scenario and wonder what's to stop police from "smelling" marijuana and "hearing" evidence being destroyed any time they have an urge to enter a particular dwelling. What does destruction of evidence sound like anyway, and what doesn't it sound like? Doesn't someone jumping up to destroy evidence sound the same as someone jumping up to answer the door before police kick it down? It's hard to argue with anyone who sees this result as a blueprint for facilitating not only widespread police actions that circumvent the warrant requirement, but also more innocent people being killed in their own homes in misunderstandings that could have been prevented by just a little patience from police. (Flex Your Rights)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 5/18/11                   0       7
#14 
keywords: Flex Your Rights, Hollis King, Marijuana, Police, Privacy, Samuel Alito, Scott Morgan, US Constitution, US Supreme Court, United States, War On Drugs Add New Keyword To Link



4/11/2011 Obama's Off Base
Maddow: A Democratic President kicks his base in the teeth on something as fundamental as civil liberties—he puts the nail in the coffin of a civil liberties promise he made on his first full day in office—and he does it on the first day of his re-election effort. And Beltway reaction to that is... huh, good move. That's the difference between Republican politics and Democratic politics. The Republicans may not love their base, but they fear them and play to them. The Democratic Party institutional structures of D.C., and the Beltway press in particular, not only hate the Democratic base—they think it's good politics for Democratic politicians to kick that base publicly whenever possible. Only the base itself will ever change that. Greenwald: One thing is for certain: right now, the Democratic Party is absolutely correct in its assessment that kicking its base is good politics. Why is that? Because they know that they have inculcated their base with sufficient levels of fear and hatred of the GOP, so that no matter how often the Party kicks its base, no matter how often Party leaders break their promises and betray their ostensible values, the base will loyally and dutifully support the Party and its leaders (at least in presidential elections; there is a good case that the Democrats got crushed in 2010 in large part because their base was so unenthusiastic). In light of that fact, ask yourself this: if you were a Democratic Party official, wouldn't you also ignore—and, when desirable, step on—the people who you know will support you no matter what you do to them? (The Stranger)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 4/12/11                   0       1
#15 



4/7/2011 Bruce Fein: Articles of Impeachment for tyrant Obama
III. USURPATION OF THE WAR POWER OVER LIBYA 47. President Barack Obama’s military attacks against Libya constitute acts of war. 48. Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-4) had the following exchange with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during a March 31, 2011 House Armed Services Committee Hearing on the legality of the present military operation in Libya: Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, if tomorrow a foreign nation intentionally, for whatever reason, launched a Tomahawk missile into New York City, would that be considered an act of war against the United States? Secretary Gates: Probably so. Congressman Forbes: Then I would assume the same laws would apply if we launched a Tomahawk missile at another nation—is that also true? Secretary Gates: You’re getting into constitutional law here and I am no expert on it. Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, you’re the Secretary of Defense. You ought to be an expert on what’s an act of war or not. If it’s an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile on New York City would it not also be an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile by us at another nation? Secretary Gates: Presumably. 49. Since the passage of United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 on March 19, 2011, the United States has detonated over 200 tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and 455 precision-guided bombs on Libyan soil. 50. Libya posed no actual or imminent threat to the United States when President Obama unleashed Operation Odyssey Dawn. 51. On March 27, 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that Libya never posed an “actual or imminent threat to the United States.” He further stated that Libya has never constituted a “vital interest” to the United States. 52. United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 directs an indefinite United States military quagmire in Libya, authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians, which clearly contemplates removal by force of the murderous regime of Col. Muammar Qadhafi. 53. In a Letter From the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate sent March 21, 2011, President Barack Obama informed Members of Congress that “U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime’s air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi’s armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.” 54. In his March 21, 2011 letter, President Barack Obama further informed Members of Congress that he opted to take unilateral military action “…in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.” 55. President Barack Obama has usurped congressional authority to decide on war or peace with Libya, and has declared he will persist in additional usurpations of the congressional power to commence war whenever he decrees it would advance his idea of the national interest. On March 28, 2011, he declared to Congress and the American people: “I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests” (emphasis added). 56. President Obama’s humanitarian justification for war in Libya establishes a threshold that would justify his initiation of warfare in scores of nations around the globe, including Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Myanmar, China, Belarus, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and Russia. 57. In Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote on behalf of a majority of the United States Supreme Court: Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. 58. President Barack Obama has signed an order, euphemistically named a “Presidential Finding,” authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, further entangling the United States in the Libyan conflict, despite earlier promises of restraint. Truth is invariably the first casualty of war. 59. In response to questions by Members of Congress during a classified briefing on March 30, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated that the President needs no Congressional authorization for his attack on the Libyan nation, and will ignore any Congressional attempt by resolution or otherwise to constrain or halt United States participation in the Libyan war. 60. On March 30, 2011, by persistent silence or otherwise, Secretary Clinton rebuffed congressional inquiries into President Obama’s view of the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. She failed to cite a single judicial decision in support of President Obama’s recent actions, relying instead on the undisclosed legal opinions of White House attorneys. 61. President Barack Obama, in flagrant violation of his constitutional oath to execute his office as President of the United States and preserve and protect the United States Constitution, has usurped the exclusive authority of Congress to authorize the initiation of war, in that on March 19, 2011 President Obama initiated an offensive military attack against the Republic of Libya without congressional authorization. In so doing, President Obama has arrested the rule of law, and saluted a vandalizing of the Constitution that will occasion ruination of the Republic, the crippling of individual liberty, and a Leviathan government unless the President is impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office by the Senate. In all of this, President Barack Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. (Prison Planet)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 4/10/11                   0       2
#16 



4/5/2011 How The 'Pox' Epidemic Changed Vaccination Rules
Historian Michael Willrich was planning to write a book about civil liberties in the aftermath of Sept. 11 when he stumbled across an article from The New York Times archives. It was about a 1901 smallpox vaccination raid in New York — when 250 men arrived at a Little Italy tenement house in the middle of the night and set about vaccinating everyone they could find. "There were scenes of policemen holding down men in their night robes while vaccinators began their work on their arms," Willrich tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "Inspectors were going room to room looking for children with smallpox. And when they found them, they were literally tearing babes from their mothers' arms to take them to the city pesthouse [which housed smallpox victims.]" The vaccination raid was not an isolated incident. As the smallpox epidemic swept across the country, New York and Boston policemen conducted several raids and health officials across the country ordered mandatory vaccinations in schools, factories and on railroads. In Pox: An American History, Willrich details how the smallpox epidemic of 1898-1904 had far-reaching implications for public health officials — as well as Americans concerned about their own civil liberties. (National Public Radio)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 4/19/11                   0       2
#17 
keywords: 9/11, American Academy Of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, Andrew Wakefield, Autism, Big Pharma, Boston, Brandeis University, British Medical Journal, Centers For Disease Control, City Paper, Health Care, Massachusetts, Michael Willrich, Middlesboro KY, Mmr Vaccine, New York City, Police, Quarantines, Railroads, Smallpox, Supreme Judicial Court Of Massachusetts, The Lancet, The New York Times, The Washington Monthly, US Supreme Court, United Kingdom, United States, Vaccines Add New Keyword To Link



2/21/2011 Monsanto Shifts ALL Liability to Farmers
Farmers like genetically modified (GM) crops because they can plant them, spray them with herbicide and then there is very little maintenance until harvest. Farmers who plant Monsanto's GM crops probably don't realize what they bargain for when they sign the Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement contract. One farmer reportedly 'went crazy' when he discovered the scope of the contract because it transfers ALL liability to the farmer or grower. Here is the paragraph that defines Monsanto's limit of liability that shifts it to the farmer: "GROWER'S EXCLUSIVE LIMITED REMEDY: THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF THE GROWER AND THE LIMIT OF THE LIABILITY OF MONSANTO OR ANY SELLER FOR ANY AND ALL LOSSES, INJURY OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE USE OR HANDLING OF SEED (INCLUDING CLAIMS BASED IN CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, PRODUCT LIABILITY, STRICT LIABILITY, TORT, OR OTHERWISE) SHALL BE THE PRICE PAID BY THE GROWER FOR THE QUANTITY OF THE SEED INVOLVED OR, AT THE ELECTION OF MONSANTO OR THE SEED SELLER, THE REPLACEMENT OF THE SEED. IN NO EVENT SHALL MONSANTO OR ANY SELLER BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES." (MorphCity)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 3/13/11                   0       6
#18 
keywords: Alfalfa, Anthony Patchett, Cows, G Edward Griffin, Genetically Modified Organisms, Los Angeles, Monsanto, Organic, Phil Geertson, Steve Marsh, US Supreme Court, United States Add New Keyword To Link



2/8/2011 What is a 'Presidential Alert'?
"This is a test of the Emergency Alert System. This is only a test..." You've heard that warning before, but it may soon come directly from the White House. The Federal Communications Commission has approved plans to hold the first test of a "Presidential Alert," or a broadcast warning that might be issued in the event of a serious natural disaster or terrorism threat. It may seem like a scene out of George Orwell's "1984" or some other apocalyptic Hollywood blockbuster, but government officials have wanted for years to establish a way for the White House to quickly, directly alert Americans of impending danger. Commissioners voted last week to require television and radio stations, cable systems and satellite TV providers to participate in a test that would have them receive and transmit a live code that includes an alert message issued by the president. No date has been set for the test. (Washington Post)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 2/23/11                   0       4
#19 



1/26/2011 House votes for repeal of public-paid campaigns: Lawmakers say system is broken
Saying it has become an obsolete waste of money, the House on Wednesday voted to end the taxpayer-funded presidential campaign finance system that has fallen out of favor over the past decade as candidates have chosen to ignore it. The bill steps back from the 1970s-era dream of publicly financed campaigns. More than $600 million could be saved over the next decade by ending the system that channels taxpayer dollars to presidential candidates who agree to abide by fundraising and spending limits. Republicans said the 239-160 vote was just a recognition of how broken the system has become, particularly after Barack Obama reversed a campaign pledge and opted out of the primary and general election matching funds in 2008. “It was President Obama who killed it and made a mockery of public financing of campaigns,” said Rep. Aaron Schock, Illinois Republican. Despite his decision to opt out in 2008, Mr. Obama on Tuesday announced that he opposed the Republicans’ bill. He said the system should be fixed rather than ended, and predicted that corruption would grow with the end of publicly financed presidential campaigns. (Washington Times)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 8/1/11                   0       1
#20 



1/24/2011 Left, right gear up for campaign-finance clash before 2012 elections
Liberals and conservatives alike are gearing up for battles over campaign financing rules in anticipation of the 2012 election, which will decide control of the White House and Congress. Liberal groups want to impose disclosure rules on shadowy political advocacy groups that raised and spent tens of millions of dollars in corporate contributions on the 2010 midterm elections. (The Hill)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 8/1/11                   0       1
#21 



1/21/2011 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited—because of the First Amendment. The 5–4 decision, in favor of Citizens United, resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act.[2] The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a January 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lower court decision upheld provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act which prevented the film Hillary: The Movie from being shown on television within 30 days of 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3] The Court struck down a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.”[2] An "electioneering communication" was defined in McCain–Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary. The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] McCain–Feingold had previously been weakened, without overruling McConnell, in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007). The Court did uphold requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties. (Wikipedia)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 8/1/11                   0       2
#22 



1/21/2011 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA No. 08–205. Argued March 24, 2009—Reargued September 9, 2009–– Decided January 21, 2010
Justice Stevens' dissent: "...The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution...." (US Supreme Court)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 8/1/11                   0       1
#23 



1/18/2011 Reversing 'Citizens United'
It will be a year this week since Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative activist colleagues on the Supreme Court joined together in a dramatic assault on American democracy. Their decision in the Citizens United case overturned more than a century's worth of precedent by awarding corporations the rights of citizens with regard to electioneering. The court did away with limits on when corporations can spend on elections, how much they can spend and how they can spend their money, allowing unlimited contributions from corporate treasuries to flood the electoral landscape. As The Nation noted in the days after the case was decided, "This decision tips the balance against active citizenship and the rule of law by making it possible for the nation's most powerful economic interests to manipulate not just individual politicians and electoral contests but political discourse itself." According to Bill de Blasio, New York City's public advocate, Citizens United spending

that is, spending that was only made possible by the court's ruling

accounted for 15 percent of the roughly $4 billion spent on the 2010 midterm elections. Eighty-five million dollars of Citizens United money was spent on U.S. Senate races alone. Worse, 30 percent of all spending by outside groups was funded by anonymous donations, an illegal action prior to the ruling. Forty million of the dollars spent on Senate races came from sources that might never be revealed. (Washington Post)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 8/1/11                   0       1
#24 



1/18/2011 U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision: Constitution is Void
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that serves to allow judges to void the Constitution in their courtrooms. The decision was issued on January 18, 2011, and the Court did not even explain the decision (Docket No. 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690). One word decisions: DENIED. Presented with this information and massive proof that was not contested in any manner by the accused judges, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petitions: "There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court." (PR Newswire)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 3/12/11                   0       3
#25 
keywords: Amazon.com, Atlanta, Barnes & Noble, Borders, Christopher Glynn, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Georgia, Orinda Evans, US Constitution, US Supreme Court, United States, William Duffey, William Windsor Add New Keyword To Link



1/11/2011 Murdered Judge Defended Sheriff Mack
Judge John M. Roll, murdered in Saturday’s shooting rampage in Tucson, was the leading judicial voice supporting former Graham County, Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack in his 1997 lawsuit against the federal government. Mack is a speaker, states’ rights advocate and author of The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope. Sheriff Mack observed in an interview on Alex Jones’ Jan. 10 radio broadcast that John Roll changed his life. He has quoted Roll in his books. In 1997, when Mack was sheriff of Graham County, he joined with Sheriff Jay Printz of Montana in filing a suit against the federal government regarding the Brady Act. The resulting Supreme Court decision found the Act unconstitutional. The Brady Act not only would have required state and local officials to carry out and fund a federal mandate regarding gun regulations, but it also called for the arrest of any law enforcement officer who refused to enforce it. On the basis of these provisions, Mack and Printz filed suit, and were eventually joined by five other sheriffs around the nation. Mack recalled of the judge: He was really worried about the sanctions against me (or any other sheriff) — he protected me. Judge Roll stood up for me in particular because I was the only one filing the lawsuit at the time. (The New American)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 3/12/11                   0       2
#26 



1/3/2011 A Clear Danger to Free Speech
THE so-called Shield bill, which was recently introduced in both houses of Congress in response to the WikiLeaks disclosures, would amend the Espionage Act of 1917 to make it a crime for any person knowingly and willfully to disseminate, “in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States,” any classified information “concerning the human intelligence activities of the United States.” Although this proposed law may be constitutional as applied to government employees who unlawfully leak such material to people who are unauthorized to receive it, it would plainly violate the First Amendment to punish anyone who might publish or otherwise circulate the information after it has been leaked. At the very least, the act must be expressly limited to situations in which the spread of the classified information poses a clear and imminent danger of grave harm to the nation. The clear and present danger standard has been a central element of our First Amendment jurisprudence ever since Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s 1919 opinion in Schenk v. United States. In the 90 years since, the precise meaning of “clear and present danger” has evolved, but the animating principle was stated brilliantly by Justice Louis D. Brandeis in his 1927 concurring opinion in Whitney v. California. The founders “did not exalt order at the cost of liberty,” wrote Brandeis; on the contrary, they understood that “only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such ... is the command of the Constitution. It is, therefore, always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free speech and assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying it.” (New York Times)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 1/4/11                   0       5
#27 



1/1/2011 Campaign finance reform in the United States
is the common term for the political effort in the United States to change the involvement of money in politics, primarily in political campaigns. Although attempts to regulate campaign finance by legislation date back to 1867, the first successful attempts nationally to regulate and enforce campaign finance originated in the 1970s. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1972 required candidates to disclose sources of campaign contributions and campaign expenditures. It was amended in 1974 with the introduction of statutory limits on contributions, and creation of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It attempted to restrict the influence of wealthy individuals by limiting individual donations to $1,000 and donations by political action committees (PACs) to $5,000. These specific election donations are known as ‘hard money.’ The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold", after its sponsors, is the most recent major federal law on campaign finance, which revised some of the legal limits on expenditures set in 1974, and prohibited unregulated contributions (commonly referred to as "soft money") to national political parties. ‘Soft money’ also refers to funds spent by independent organizations that do not specifically advocate the election or defeat of candidates, and funds which are not contributed directly to candidate campaigns. In early 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited pursuant to the right of these entities to free speech. (Wikipedia)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 8/1/11                   0       1
#28 



12/8/2010 Julian Assange: Don't shoot messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths -- WIKILEAKS deserves protection, not threats and attacks.
IN 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide's The News, wrote: "In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win." His observation perhaps reflected his father Keith Murdoch's expose that Australian troops were being needlessly sacrificed by incompetent British commanders on the shores of Gallipoli. The British tried to shut him up but Keith Murdoch would not be silenced and his efforts led to the termination of the disastrous Gallipoli campaign. Nearly a century later, WikiLeaks is also fearlessly publishing facts that need to be made public. I grew up in a Queensland country town where people spoke their minds bluntly. They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully. The dark days of corruption in the Queensland government before the Fitzgerald inquiry are testimony to what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the truth. (The Australian)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 12/7/10                   0       13
#29 



11/4/2010 The Citizens United Effect: 40 percent of outside money made possible by Supreme Court ruling
In 2002 former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once flippantly described connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda terrorists by saying, "There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns; there are things we do not know we don’t know." Little did Rumsfeld know that his remark would be the most accurate description for a murky midterm election eight years down the road. The 2010 midterm election is filled with both "known unknowns," outside groups raised and spent $126 million on elections without disclosing the source, and "unknown unknowns," we don't know what those undisclosed donors want. We do know one thing: the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling allowed this election to be the costliest and least transparent midterm in recent history. The impact of Citizens United can be judged by simply following the money. The $126 million in undisclosed money represents more than a quarter of the total $450 million spent by outside groups. Add the $60 million spent by groups that were allowed to raise unlimited money, but still had to disclose, to the undisclosed money and the total amount of outside money made possible by the Citizens United ruling reaches $186 million or 40 percent of the total spent by outside groups. (Sunlight Foundation)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 8/1/11                   0       1
#30 



10/13/2010 Campaign finance reform: R.I.P.?
For four decades, advocates for stricter campaign finance rules have been on a long, slow march to make big money in politics less important and more transparent. Now, in 2010, they are seeing the results: Never in modern political history has there been so much secret money gushing into an American election. By Election Day, independent groups will have aired more than $200 million worth of campaign ads using cash that can’t be traced back to its original source, predicts Fred Wertheimer, president of the nonprofit group Democracy 21. "And this is just the beginning," Wertheimer said. "Unless we get some changes here to mitigate this problem, I would expect we will see $500 million or more in 2012." (Politico)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 1/5/11                   0       2
#31 
keywords: 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, American Crossroads, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Brad Smith, Brigham Young University, Campaign Finance Reform, Campaign Legal Center, Center For Competitive Politics, Chris Van Hollen, Citizens United, Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission, Craig Holman, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, David Magleby, Democracy 21, Enron, Federal Election Commission, Fred Wertheimer, George W Bush, George Will, Institute For Justice, Jack Abramoff, James Bopp, James Madison Center For Free Speech, John Mccain, John Roberts, Karl Rove, Lynde And Henry Bradley Foundation, Mike Grebe, Public Citizen, Richard Nixon, Russ Feingold, Samuel Alito, Trevor Potter, US Chamber Of Commerce, US Congress, US Supreme Court, United States, Watergate, White House Add New Keyword To Link



9/28/2010 Big Brother Obama: US to spy on Internet messaging -- Regulations to target Skype, Facebook, Blackberry
The Obama White House is backing new regulations that would compel popular Internet messaging services like Facebook, Skype and Blackberry to open up their systems to FBI surveillance, the New York Times reported Monday, citing federal law enforcement and national security officials. The threat to democratic rights goes far beyond anything envisioned by the Bush administration. The goal is to make all forms of electronic communication that use the Internet subject to wiretapping and interception by federal police agencies. In the past few years there has been a large-scale shift from conventional telephone communication to Internet-based messaging, which is both cheaper and more secure.

The Times article gave two examples of government efforts to intercept encrypted or peer-to-peer communications that ran into technical obstacles, one involving a drug cartel, the other related to the failed Times Square bombing earlier this year. These examples were chosen to support the claim by the Obama administration that the buildup of surveillance is part of a struggle against crime and “terrorism.” However, the Obama administration has defined “terrorism” so widely that the term now covers a vast array of constitutionally protected forms of political opposition to the policies of the US government, including speaking, writing, political demonstrations, even the filing of legal briefs. (World Socialist Web Site)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 10/4/10                   0       11
#32 



9/18/2010 How marijuana became legal: Medical marijuana is giving activists a chance to show how a legitimized pot business can work. Is the end of prohibition upon us?
When Irvin Rosenfeld, 56, picks me up at the Fort Lauderdale airport, his SUV reeks of marijuana. The vice president for sales at a local brokerage firm, Rosenfeld has been smoking 10 to 12 marijuana cigarettes a day for 38 years, he says. That's probably unusual in itself, but what makes Rosenfeld exceptional is that for the past 27 years, he has been copping his weed directly from the United States government. Every 25 days Rosenfeld goes to a pharmacy and picks up a tin of 300 federally grown and rolled cigarettes that have been sent there for him by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), acting with approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Rosenfeld smokes the marijuana to relieve chronic pain and muscle spasms caused by a rare bone disease. When he was 10, doctors discovered that his skeleton was riddled with more than 200 tumors, due to a condition known as multiple congenital cartilaginous exostosis. Despite seven operations, he still lives with scores of tumors in his bones. (CNN)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 10/3/10                   0       3
#33 



8/20/2010 COLUMN-In drug war, the beginning of the end? Bernd Debusmann
Between 1971, when Richard Nixon launched the war on drugs, and 2008, the latest year for which official figures are available, American law enforcement officials made more than 40 million drug arrests. That number roughly equals the population of California, or of the 33 biggest U.S. cities. Forty million arrests speak volumes about America's longest war, which was meant to throttle drug production at home and abroad, cut supplies across the borders, and keep people from using drugs. The marathon effort has boosted the prison industry but failed so obviously to meet its objectives that there is a growing chorus of calls for the legalization of illicit drugs. In the United States, that brings together odd bedfellows. Libertarians in the tea party movement, for example, and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), an organization of former police officers, narcotics agents, judges and prosecutors who favor legalizing all drugs, not only marijuana, the world's most widely-used illicit drug.

"Taking all this together, there is reason to believe that we are at the beginning of the end of the drug war as we know it," says Aaron Houston, a veteran Washington lobbyist for marijuana policy reform. Far-fetched? Perhaps. But how many people in the late 1920s, at the height of the government's fight against the likes of Al Capone, would have foreseen that alcohol prohibition would end in just a few years? Prohibition lasted from 1920 to 1933 and is now considered a failed experiment in social engineering. Alcohol and marijuana prohibition have much in common: both in effect handed production, sales and distribution of a commodity in high demand to criminal organizations, both filled the prisons (America's population behind bars is now the world's largest), both diverted the resources of law enforcement, and both created millions of scoff-laws. (Reuters)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 8/23/10                   0       6
#34 



8/13/2010 Federal Court Rescinds USDA Approval of Genetically Engineered Sugar Beets
Order Bans Planting or Sale of Controversial Crop. Court Denies Monsanto Request to Allow Continued Planting.

Today Judge Jeffrey White, federal district judge for the Northern District of California, issued a ruling granting the request of plaintiffs Center for Food Safety, Organic Seed Alliance, High Mowing Organic Seeds, and the Sierra Club to rescind the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) approval of genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” sugar beets. In September 2009, the Court had found that the USDA had violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by approving the Monsanto-engineered biotech crop without first preparing an Environmental Impact Statement. The crop was engineered to resist the effects of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, which it sells to farmers together with the patented seed. Similar Roundup Ready crops have led to increased use of herbicides, proliferation of herbicide resistant weeds, and contamination of conventional and organic crops. In today’s ruling the Court officially “vacated” the USDA “deregulation” of Monsanto’s biotech sugar beets and prohibited any future planting and sale pending the agency’s compliance with NEPA and all other relevant laws. USDA has estimated that an EIS may be ready by 2012. This case is Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. C08-00484 JSW (N.D. Cal. 2010). (Center for Food Safety)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 8/17/10                   0       6
#35 



7/15/2010 ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER v. JANET NAPOLITANO, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 10-1157
“The program is designed to respect individual sensibilities regarding privacy, modesty and personal autonomy to the maximum extent possible, while still performing its crucial function of protecting all members of the public from potentially catastrophic events,” (Electronic Privacy Information Center)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 10/6/10                   0       2
#36 



6/24/2010 DISCLOSE Act: House Passes Major Campaign Finance Legislation
The final vote was 219 to 206 in favor of the DISCLOSE Act, with only two Republicans -- Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) and Joseph Cao (R-La.) -- crossing party lines. The bill would provide tough new disclosure rules for groups that invest in the election process. In addition to forcing all 501c4 groups to stand by the ads they sponsor during elections (with the CEO of the organization literally forced to appear in the spot), the law would also require groups that met certain criteria to reveal who was funding their election activity. The latter provision sparked intense pushback from a host of business groups, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. House Democratic leadership had granted an exemption from that particular element of disclosure for the NRA. But after fierce objection to the carve out, the bill's author, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), expanded the loophole to include other organizations as well. The legislation was pulled from consideration late last week when passage became uncertain. House leadership made impassioned pleas to their colleagues on Thursday morning (see below) before heading to the floor this afternoon to finally vote. (Huffington Post)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 8/1/11                   0       1
#37 



5/11/2010 Kagan Argued to Ban Political Pamphlets
The court, in its 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, ruled against Kagan’s contention that the government can limit political speech by corporations. In a scathing concurrence to the opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts blasted Kagan’s argument. (Newsmax)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 5/24/10                   0       22
#38 



5/10/2010 Obama names ‘trailblazing’ Kagan as Supreme Court pick
Democrats praised Kagan as "razor sharp" and impeccably qualified for the lifetime appointment on the nine-member bench, but Republicans promised to vigorously vet a "surprising" choice, noting she had never been a judge. (The Raw Story)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 5/24/10                   0       18
#39 



5/8/2010 An Updated List of Goldman Sachs Ties to the Obama Government Including Elena Kagan
From 2005 to 2008, according to USA Today and other sources, Kagan served as a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute. (Fire Dog Lake)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 5/23/10                   0       21
#40 



5/7/2010 Elena Kagan's Goldman Sachs Ties Brought Up Again
The Justice Department, likewise, downplayed the findings in statements issued to inquiring reporters. "This advisory group was comprised of leaders from various sectors including academia, the media, business, and other industry," said spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler. "They met once a year for a daylong conference organized around public policy matters. The group was not involved in making any investment decisions for the company." (Huffington Post)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 5/25/10                   0       18
#41 



5/4/2010 Netroots to Obama FCC: Inaction Is Not an Option
Bloggers were joined by online advocacy groups including MoveOn, CredoAction, ColorofChange.org, SavetheInternet.com, Care2 and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which are urging the FCC chair not to abdicate his responsibility to stop corporations from picking and choosing how users access information over the Internet. (Huffington Post)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 5/5/10       0       25
#42 
  Source Removed! InfoWarDocs Backup: http://AltBib.Com/bak/dox/4612.html



5/3/2010 BP Oil Spill Worsens With No Solution in Sight, 210,000 Gallons a Day Spew into Gulf of Mexico
the Exxon Valdez case set president in the Supreme Court that these big companies don’t have to pay much on the issue of punitive damage

actually Halliburton invented fracking and Halliburton also got an exemption, got an exemption to the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act, it’s called the Halliburton Exemption (Democracy Now)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 5/3/10                   0       19
#43 



4/27/2010 Possible Supreme Court pick had ties with Goldman Sachs
Solicitor General Elena Kagan was a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute, according to the financial disclosures she filed when President Obama appointed her last year to her current post. Kagan served on the Goldman panel from 2005 through 2008, when she was dean of Harvard Law School, and received a $10,000 stipend for her service in 2008, her disclosure forms show. (USA Today)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 5/23/10                   0       17
#44 



4/20/2010 Goldman Sachs: Master of the Universe
The status applies to all Wall Street giants, none, however, the equal of Goldman, the Grand Master. Like the fabled comic book Superman hero, it's: * faster than its competitors, thanks to its proprietary software ability to front run markets (illegal, but no matter); * more powerful than the government it controls; and * able to leap past competitors, given its special status. (Baltimore Chronicle)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 5/22/10                   0       16
#45 



3/30/2010 John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet
Direct quotes from John Holdren's Ecoscience

In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that: • Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not; • The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food; • Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise; • People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. • A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force. (Zombie Time)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 5/29/10                   0       9
#46 



3/24/2010 SPECIAL REPORT. Obama and Emanuel: members of same gay bath house club in Chicago
President Obama and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel are lifetime members of the same gay bath house in uptown Chicago, according to informed sources in Chicago's gay community, as well as veteran political sources in the city. The bath house, Man's Country, caters to older white men and it has been in business for some 30 years and is known as one of uptown Chicago's "grand old bathhouses." WMR was told by sources who are familiar with the bath house that it provides lifetime memberships to paying customers and that the club's computerized files, and pre-computer paper files, include membership information for both Obama and Emanuel. However, sources close to "Man's Country" believe the U.S. Secret Service has purged the computer and filing cabinet files of the membership data on Obama and Emanuel. Members of Man's Country are also issued club identification cards. WMR learned that Obama and Emanuel possessed the ID cards, which were required for entry. Obama began frequenting Man's Country in the mid-1990s, during the time he transitioned from a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School to his election as an Illinois State Senator in 1996. Emanuel, reportedly joined Man's Country after he left the Clinton White House and moved back to Chicago in 1998, joining the investment firm of Wasserstein Perella and maintaining his membership during his 2002 campaign for the U.S. 5th District House seat vacated by Rod Blagojevich, who was elected governor. (Wayne Madsen)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 4/2/11                   0       1
#47 
keywords: AIDS, Aaron Shock, Adam4adam, Airports, Al Kamen, Alabama, Alexi Giannoulias, Alternative Media, Antoin Rezko, Artur Davis, Barack Obama, Beau Biden, Bill Clinton, Bill Frist, British Petroleum, Broadway Bank, Chicago, Craigslist, Delaware, Democratic Leadership Council, Deval Patrick, Don Siegelman, Donald Young, Down Low Club, Duke University, Earl Bradley, Earl Hilliard, Elena Kagan, Eric Cantor, Eric Holder, Five Star Limousine Service, Florida, Gennifer Flowers, Hanky Codes, Harvard University, Health Care, Illinois, India, James Zagel, Jeremiah Wright, Jim Thompson, Joffrey Ballet, John Edwards, John Harris, Joseph Biden, Josephine Bland, Larry Bland, Larry Craig, Larry Sinclair, Leura Canary, Man's Country, Mark Kirk, Michelle Obama, Minneapolis, Mississippi, Monica Lewinsky, Nashville, Nate Spencer, National Enquirer, National Press Club, Patrick J Fitzgerald, Police, Rahm Emanuel, Ray Lahood, Reggie Love, Rezmar Corporation, Rielle Hunter, Rod Blagojevich, Roland Burris, Sam Adam, Sex Workers, St Paul, Tennessee, Tiger Woods, Trent Lott, Trinity United Church Of Christ, US Congress, US Navy, US Secret Service, US Supreme Court, United States, University Of Chicago, Valerie Jarrett, Vera Baker, Washington Metropolitan Police, Washington Post, Wasserstein Perella, White House Add New Keyword To Link



2/17/2010 In Supreme Court Ruling on Campaign Finance, the Public Dissents
Memo to the Supreme Court: President Obama isn’t the only one who’s annoyed. Obama raised eyebrows at his State of the Union address last month by criticizing the high court’s ruling throwing out limits on corporate spending in political campaigns. Turns out he’s got company: Our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that 80 percent of Americans likewise oppose the ruling, including 65 percent who “strongly” oppose it, an unusually high intensity of sentiment. Seventy-two percent, moreover, support the idea of a legislative workaround to try to reinstate the limits the court lifted. The bipartisan nature of these views is striking in these largely partisan times. The court’s ruling is opposed, respectively, by 76, 81 and 85 percent of Republicans, independents and Democrats; and by 73, 85 and 86 percent of conservatives, moderates and liberals. Majorities in all these groups, ranging from 58 to 73 percent, not only oppose the ruling but feel strongly about it. (ABC)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 8/1/11                   0       1
#48 



1/25/2010 Suspect detailed Detroit air attack
Abdulmutallab talked openly about terror plot until being read his rights, U.S. officials say (The Detroit News)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 2/1/10                   0       16
#49 



1/1/2010 History of the Income Tax in the United States
The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government. (Tax Foundation)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 11/28/10                   0       1
#50 




Total Link Matches Found: 133       Showing Links #1 - 50
Result Pages: 1, 2, 3