Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
Land Shark's Journal
These are the written and signed words of the US Government's Department of State, after "extensive" consultations with the Department of Justice and numerous other federal agencies and offices: United States representatives participated actively in the formulation of the United Nations Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted in 1975, and in the negotiation of the Convention against Torture. {...} Torture is prohibited by law throughout the United States. It is categorically denounced as a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority. Every act constituting torture under the Convention constitutes a criminal offence under the law of the United States. No official of the Government, federal, state or local, civilian or military, is authorized to commit or to instruct anyone else to commit torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in any form. No exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification of torture. United States law contains no provision permitting otherwise prohibited acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to be employed on grounds of exigent circumstances (for example, during a “state of public emergency”) or on orders from a superior officer or public authority, and the protective mechanisms of an independent judiciary are not subject to suspension. The United States is committed to the full and effective implementation of its obligations under the Convention throughout its territory. Paragraph 6 of Initial Report of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to the UN Committee on Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment Dated October 15, 1999 Archived at, inter alia, http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cat/cat-repor... That was in late 1999, and we all know what happened in 2000, and thereafter... Paragraph 7 of the above report goes on to state why the above international law, once freely recognized and promoted by the USA, is important: "No Government, however, can claim a perfect record in each of the areas and obligations covered by the Convention." And, indeed, the great lack of perfection in both humanity and governments in adhering to basic human rights is, and was, true worldwide. What's different now, and what makes a huge difference overall, is this:1. The frequency and systematic nature of abuses, and, what makes everything incredibly worse:2. endorsement of such abuses as approved by the law of the land, or, alternatively, not expressly prohibited by domestic law (which domestic law, by the way, every signatory country to the Convention including the USA is obliged to adjust so that domestic laws mirror or exceed the Convention's protections against all forms of inhumane treatment including, but not limited to, torture).
Today's editorial in the LA Times hits an issue on the head. It is the critical issue for self-government (or its potential restoration) in our time. As framed in the case now in the US Supreme Court, gay rights advocates are the bad guys - harassers and retaliators - and the solution proposed is to eliminate the public's right to know who the anti-gay rights forces are, or to check and balance their power. The Court's ruling will apply, as it must, to petitioners generally. Hitting the issue on the head, the LA Times said: "{T}he remedy for that problem is enforcement of criminal laws, not the withholding of public documents. If a state acts on its commitment to transparency, it shouldn't be thwarted by a fallacious 1st Amendment argument.” http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-... What is the issue the LA Times hit on the head? It's the claim made in the US Supreme Court in Doe v. Reed, by the very same lead attorney as in Citizens United, this time saying that the names of referendum petition signers should be SECRET - on the grounds of preventing potential retaliation or harassment of the signers. Attorney James Bopp, Jr seeks to protect those that allegedly signed a referendum petition against gay rights. I say "allegedly" because the Supreme Court has already ordered the names and identities of signers held secret and so if anyone knows for sure what is on those petitions it would only be the Washington state's Republican Secretary of State Sam Reed. I should not have to point out that secret petitioner signers eliminate any and all checks and balances whenever the interests of the petitioners (Republicans, in this case) align with the interests of the official checking final numbers of signatures (another Republican operation). Moreover, even when interests do not align, secrecy causes massive structural damage to checks and balances, accountability and the public's right to know. The Washington state law that would otherwise say these STATE law signatures are public records was passed overwhelmingly by initiative. I've put key text from this public records law, mirrored in other states like California and West Virginia, in large type to make sure everyone can "hear" it, and not mistake it for an exercise of the right to remain silent. Among other very strong language, it says: "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created."
-RCW 42.56.030 How can the people "remain in control" when advocacy groups get laws on the ballot with secret, perhaps bogus, signatures? You can expect corporate-backed laws to be accompanied by $10 million or more unlimited spending sprees per Citizens United and other cases. Persons who sign petitions to get things on the ballot are invoking the direct-democracy Legislative capacity of the people to pass laws. It is very much like the requirement, then, that legislators have public hearings and publish their roll call votes for voters to inspect and hold accountable. To allow such petitions for initiatives and referenda to keep identities of signers secret means that the levers of power are allowed to operate with masks on and hoods over their head. This is not the accountability planned for self-government. Secrecy always totally defeats any possible accountability. The protection for those actually harassed is the same protection you and I have against murder, rape, or burglary: call 9-11 and invoke the criminal laws. If that is good enough for murder, it is good enough for anyone signing a petition, to be sure. Besides, the entire notion of checks and balances and the public's right to know is implicated with petitions, but not with ordinary crime. The LA Times, located in California, is in one of the few states that keeps petitioners secret in most cases. California has recently been forcing voters with political buttons on to wear hospital gowns in polling place to cover up if they do not remove the button or shirt. The LA Times sees past its own state's regulations on petitions. This Doe v. Reed case US Supreme Court case is the intermediate step in making all campaign contributions secret (probably by putting code numbers instead of names on "disclosures"). With voters being hushed up in polling places in California and other places, an opinion in the California Court of Appeals just two weeks ago holding that poll watchers have no right to have a camera or video to document anything, and with the cases moving up to the Supreme Court arguing for principles of secret political contributions, we need to make clear the stakes here are absolutely fundamental and non-negotiable: "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created." - Revised Code Washington, RCW 42.56.030
Nevertheless, by an 8-1 vote the Supreme Court has ordered the signatures held secret pending their decision, which is not yet even docketed for oral argument. Certainly, the ballot will be finalized and perhaps the election over before the Supreme Court decides. This means that the Supreme Court is erring on the side of secrecy. Besides, under Supreme Court rules a stay may not be issued at all unless it is likely the requesting party is going to win when all is said and done. Consequently, the sole vote of Clarence Thomas for no disclosure in Citizens United is not a good predictor of where the principles of Citizens United and the attorney common to both Citizens United and Doe v. Reed are taking us. It is a railroad to secret campaign money and secret petitions. Secrecy means no accountability. Who can possibly be in favor of unaccountable government or unaccountable exercises of power over us? Instead of having our right to remain silent read TO us, we should read OUR rights TO THEM. See the statement of democracy and self-government that is the same philosophy nationwide as it is in Washington State, that the Supreme Court is poised to strike down as applied to exercising the power to get things on the ballot. RCW 42.56.030. "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created."
If the Supreme Court kills the above policy of the people of the State of Washington, what has to stop lawmakers claiming fear of harassment from keeping their votes secret? What's to stop the destruction of the right to know and all accountability? Accountability always feels like harassment or retaliation, especially when power abuses or ignores important rights. That's exactly where they want the secrecy. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor Don’t let the right to remain silent be the only right you exercise. Please feel free to forward this via email, re-post, and/or share the LA Times link below. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-... For more information and updates send an email to demanding-democracy+subscribe@googlegroups...
1. OF THE PEOPLE: In a government "OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people," who is IN CHARGE and the source of all legitimate power? A. The People B. The People C. The People 2. BY THE PEOPLE: Which one of the following provides 100% of the votes used to transfer power to elected representatives who in turn hold that power in trust to serve the public good? A. The People B. The People C. The People 3. FOR THE PEOPLE: Who are the elected representatives obliged to dedicate their entire service to when they become public servants? A. The People B. The People C. The People 4. WHO'S THE PEOPLE: If "of the people" means natural person voters, "by the people" means natural person officeholders, does the word "people" as used for the third time in "for the people" mean something entirely different than natural persons, such as corporations? A. The same People B. The same People C. The same People 5. CONSTITUTIONAL INTENT: In order for something to be in the Constitution, it requires a super-majority such as 3/4 of the state's legislatures to specifically ratify language in order for it to be in the Constitution. When in US history did a supermajority of Americans favor unfettered First Amendment rights as "persons" for corporations, and on what date was there a 3/4 vote in approval of that intent for the Constitution's First Amendment? A. Never, didn't happen - no way to show history of constitutional debate on this question. B. Never, didn't happen - no way to show history of constitutional debate on this question. C. Never, didn't happen - no way to show history of constitutional debate on this question. 6. EXTRA CREDIT: What happens to "Justices" of the Supreme Court who, (even Roberts the "perpetual A student" who vowed as Chief Justice to "call balls and strikes") fail to understand the most basic facts above about self-government and the Constitution, and serve things other than We the People? A. Impeached, Convicted, Removed from Office with Lifetime Bar, Referred for Investigation of criminal Treason charges. B. We Accept The Cue from the majority opinion to act on foreign money, take action against "foreign" shareholders, implicitly punish any American co-shareholders, thereby reinforce xenophobia, and finally fall into the trap of believing that corporations can get rights (and characteristics like "foreigner") from their shareholders thereby causing some of us to believe in corporate personhood fictions ourselves, all the while taking a firm course of inaction about the true threat from within: domestic ideological nonprofit corporations like Citizens United itself, who act to drown out the rights and voices of others. C. I Wish to Put My Brief Essay Response in the thread below. Corpse may call themselves "persons," but they'll never be The People!
Corpse can hide, but they can't run! (for office).
Corpse: If natural person shareholders can somehow derivatively transfer "rights" TO THEIR CORPORATIONS, then those same shareholders can also get corresponding DUTIES and LIABILITIES shoved right back down the same pipe those "rights" came up in!
Shareholders purporting to transfer any of their rights to corporations have, by their own act of waiver, PIERCED THE VEIL of corporate limited liability for purposes of this "association." Therefore, like any association or partnership, we can sue every member and not just the corporate shell.
That means, with the corporate veil of limited liability thus breached, We can reach into the pockets of those shareholders to pay the damages for all of their crimes: environmental crimes, war crimes, crimes against democracy, crimes against humanity, crimes against workers, tax crimes, frauds, corruptions etc.Folks, if you just stop thinking it's grim, you can see the great vulnerability of the same over-reaching power grab by corporations that makes some depressed! Then we can be on our way to re-establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquillity, providing for the general welfare, all by making an appropriate adjustment in limited liability laws.
There's DEFINITELY no "First Amendment right" to limited liability!! Take action to pierce the veil permanently and shareholders are going to want to crawl back into the shell they came from!Answer: All answers A, B and C in questions 1-5 get full credit, as well as Answer A to question 6. Only answer B in question 6 is wrong. Essay responses to answer C of question 6 to be "graded" as they develop.
More than a couple times, I've had the honor of people posting replies, in an excess of enthusiasm, saying my post was one of the best they've seen in years, or on DU since the 2008 election, etc. Wanting to cash in any and all credibility I have with you, if any, because I think this is the most important post I've ever done, BY A MILE, I'd ask the favor of:(a) reading this short post in its entirety, and the New York Times link below to Monday's paper, and (b) A KICK for democracy so some others can see. Whether or not you Recommend this post I leave to your best judgment. "Citizens United" Attorney and Strategist Admits He's Almost Done with 10-Year Plan to Destroy Campaign Laws, The Final Step is Destroying Disclosure Rules Creating SECRET ContributionsJames Bopp, Jr., the spearhead strategist for the group Citizens United as well as their lead attorney in the trial court for the Citizens United case just decided at the US Supreme Court, said the following about his several US Supreme Court successes in demolishing the idea that the government has the power to do ANYTHING in terms of regulation of campaign finance:From Monday, January 25, 2010 New York Times, Page A11:
“We had a 10-year plan to take all this {campaign finance regulation} down,” he said in an interview. “And if we do it right, I think we can pretty well dismantle the entire regulatory regime that is called campaign finance law.”
“We have been awfully successful,” he added, “and we are not done yet.”
I HOPE I have your attention at this point? Good, because I'm on an email listserv that includes Mr. Bopp and several hundred other election lawyer, professor, writer and media types, and I can confirm that there's a definite firefight going on for the intellectual principles upon which free countries are founded. You see the ideals of freedom and equality and democracy are so powerful that they will EITHER lead us out, upward and onward like the guiding star principles they are, or else, as with Citizens United, they will be the Orwellian wrapper to your worst political nightmares. Freedom or slavery or oligarchy, they will ALL be "Brought to you by Freedom, Equality and the First Amendment." THe only question is whether that statement will be Orwellian, and how Orwellian it will be, or whether it will be the realization of something much closer to Martin Luther King's beloved community: "Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighy We're Free at Last." The reason these mere "ideas' are so important: America was the first country in world history founded upon IDEAS instead of a territory or a specific national ethnic group. Thus, the battle of America is a battle of ideas that's constantly being re-argued. America is a landscape of the mind: we have to tend our garden, people. EVERY ACTION - Every single one, is preceded by an idea and an inspiration. Ideas are the fountain and the source of action, and the well is being poisoned. See Citizens United. I'm going to take the risk of giving you my "controversial" conclusion first, but I'm also telling you that I'll provide the proof by the link at the end of this post.
CONCLUSION: The 10 year plan to use specific Supreme Court cases to totally destroy campaign finance regulation and the First Amendment (in the name of the First Amendment) is nearly complete after several big US Supreme Court victories, and the final 2 blows are working their way up, with one already having a grant of cert by the US Supreme Court - the "Doe" secret-petition signers case from Washington state attacking gay rights. The other is in the trial courts, the plaintiff is the Republican National COmmittee, the attorney is James Bopp, Jr., and the idea is that it's senseless to regulate political party contributions when independent ads are a propaganda free-for-all.
NY Times:
“If you cannot ban corporate spending on ads, how is it that you are allowed to ban corporate contributions to candidates?” asked Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Columbia Law School. “That is the next shoe to drop.”
The ENDGAME: Totally unlimited, totally unregulated and TOTALLY SECRET CAMPAIGN FINANCE at all levels.
The most important ENDGAME is the secret contributions right, so that we don't even KNOW WHO OUR CORPORATE MASTERS ARE WHO ARE blasting their propaganda from media outlets. Sure, we'll all call it Big Brother not just metaphorically but because it will have NO OTHER NAME and disclosure would violate the constitutional rights of oligarchs who paid for the ads.
Oh yeah, my "endgame" is not my "theory" or fantasy or "conspiracy theory". Here's the mastermind of Citizens United in Monday's New York Times:
One can see Mr. Bopp's and Mr. Scalia's version of those principles in the majority and concurring opinions in Citizens United. Boiled down, they are:
1. Survival of the richest.
2. Money is free speech, and money trumps everything else including the need for an informed citizenry, or balanced debate. As a voter, you're supposed to be one of the 130 million equal kings and queens of this self-governing country, but you've "No Right to Know" and "No Right to Good Information" - just a right to publish all the propaganda you can afford.
3. It's NOT just that campaign finance laws and state constitutional provisions banning corporate influence are "flawed" or unconstitutional - It's that NOTHING IN THIS AREA can ever be constitutional if it limits the power of money. Their message via the first Amendment: THE GOVERNMENT IS POWERLESS TO PROTECT We the People.
4. The proper view of the law, as declared in Citizens United, is as a Mirror Image of theDred Scott case, which held that people are property, only this time in Citizens United it's mirror image is held up for inspection: (corporate) Properties are People.
If I were to say what I really thought yesterday, namely that there's a ten year plan in the works by a prominent right-wing lawyer and Christian conservative friends to totally demolish (in the name of First Amendment freedom) all campaign finance regulations via strategically selected court cases planned for the US Supreme Court, and if I claimed that the final step was near at hand, which was to make SECRET CONTRIBUTIONS the constitutional law of the land, I'd be called a conspiracy theorist.
Yup. If I were to say the above, I'd be called a conspiracy theorist. But I'd also be 100% correct too. And now we have the proof and the admissions.
Read it for yourself: The lead attorney and mastermind of this plan just confessed or, rather, bragged about it to the New York Times. See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/us/polit...
Secrecy always means NO accountability & No Right to Know.
I can't say it strongly enough how damaging SECRET contributions (i.e. no requirement of disclosure) will be. Just imagine being on a jury - the method for public control of the judicial branch, and having all the witnesses claim the right to appear before you with hoods over their heads and all refusing to give their names. How could you make a proper decision as a juror/voter in such conditions?
"Mr. Bopp said the next step in his 10-year plan is to roll back the {campaign finance} disclosure rules." I think we can pretty well dismantle the entire regulatory regime that is called campaign finance law.” “We have been awfully successful,” he added, “and we are not done yet.”http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/us/polit...
I've been at my 'post' now in election law about full time every day since the 2004 election. I've been warning about the secret unaccountable computerized vote counts as deadly to democracy and an invitation to open fraud for all those years. The secrecy there is an undisputed fact. I've also been on campaign finance and seeing the growing tsunami of litigation for secret contributions. I'm relieved to have the secrecy plans out in the open now, because it's been an intense email fight where I've wondered if they were really going to try this secrecy ploy. Yes, they are. Now we know.
In the last five years, I've lost basically everything "of this world." But I'm staying at my "post" so to speak, because I know that 76% of Americans want limits on corporations and union contributions according to an October 2009 Gallup Poll, and even more importantly, to fight for the real ideas of America.
Despair is the soft, sinking exhalation of air that is the precursor to action, the antidote to despair.
So, I'm going back to the election law wars, I'm going to look for a little work I can do from home to keep our head above water, and I'm gonna give 'em hell.
You know what to do. If not, ask someone! 
Source: Boston GlobeCandidates and groups that supported them spent nearly $23 million on Tuesday’s US Senate election, burning through nearly all of it in the frenzied final three weeks of the contest, including $8.5 million on television advertising alone during the seven days leading up to the vote. A flood of national money propelled Republican Scott Brown’s historic upset of Democrat Martha Coakley in the race for the seat long held by Edward M. Kennedy. Brown’s triumph helped tip the balance of power in Washington, giving Senate Republicans enough votes to block Democratic initiatives. The explosion of late spending was all the more remarkable because the campaign lacked excitement until the last 10 days, when polls showed it tightening, the national ramifications became clear, and a torrent of money poured into the Bay State as never before. Only a few weeks earlier, both campaigns were running on fumes after winning their respective primaries. The money allowed the campaigns and their allies to target voters with a relentless assault of political messaging, from the barrage of “robo calls’’ on their voice mail, text messages on their cellphones, e-mails on their computers, direct-mail fliers, and wall-to-wall ads - many of the attack variety - on their television sets, plus many more on radio. Brown also spent about $500,000 on newspaper ads across the state the Sunday and Monday before the election. Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus... /
Brown raised a MILLION dollars a DAY toward the end - so much he couldn't spend it all, even after blowing $500,000 on newspapers on Sunday and Monday alone.
Less than 36 hours after the polling places closed, the US Supreme Court legalized corruption and bribery in politics (for corporations) while it kept individuals who donate to candidates and parties subject to existing legal limits, as well as full regulation in effect before "Citizens" "United." Technically, if you have five or ten million dollars, you too can have your own "independent" ad campaign just like the corporations. 
It is not just federal statutes of recent decades that fall to Citizens United, but state constitutional provisions like the ones in Kentucky below. You can decide for yourself how much of Kentucky's current constitution -- in force for nearly 120 years -- must fall before this single 5-4 vote by the US Supreme Court. The key provision on Suffrage (I've appended a few on corporations as well) is one prohibiting corporations from "indirectly" or directly "influencing voters." As a penalty for corporate direct or indirect influencing of elections, it provides for revocation of their corporate charter (aka the "corporate death penalty")The most recent KY Constitution was adopted in 1891, has had 78 amendments sent to voters, but the key provision below, Section 150, has stood unscathed since 1891.Kentucky Constitution of 1891 (current) SECTION 150{...} if any corporation shall, directly or indirectly, offer, promise or give, or shall authorize, directly or indirectly, any person to offer, promise or give any money or any thing of value to influence
the result of any election in this State, or the vote of any voterauthorized to vote therein, or who shall afterward reimburse or compensate, in any manner whatever, any person who shall have offered, promised or given any money or other thing of value to influence the result of any election or the vote of any such voter, such
corporation, if organized under the laws of this Commonwealth, shall,
on conviction thereof, forfeit its charter and all rights, privileges
and immunities thereunder; and if chartered by another State and doing business in this State, whether by license, or upon mere sufferance, such corporation, upon conviction of either of the offenses aforesaid, shall forfeit all right to carry on any business in this State {...} The privilege of free suffrage shall be supported by laws regulating elections, and prohibiting, under adequate penalties, all undue
influence thereon, from power, bribery, tumult or other improper practices. Full text at: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/legresou/constitu/15... (adopted in 1891 and never since amended) Additional Provisions of Kentucky Constitution Re CorporationsSEC. 190. No corporation in existence at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall have the benefit of future legislation without first filing in the office of the Secretary of State an acceptance of the provisions of this Constitution. SEC. 192. No corporation shall engage in business other than that expressly authorized by its charter, or the law under which it may have been or hereafter may be organized, nor shall it hold any real estate, except such as may be proper and necessary for carrying on its legitimate business, for a longer period than five years, under penalty of escheat. SEC. 195. The Commonwealth, in the exercise of the right of eminent domain, shall have and retain the same powers to take the property and franchises of incorporated companies for public use which it has and retains to take the property of individuals, and the exercise of the
police powers of this Commonwealth shall never be abridged, nor so
construed as to permit corporations to conduct their business in such
manner as to infringe upon the equal rights of individuals.SEC. 205. The General Assembly shall, by general laws, provide for the
revocation or forfeiture of the charters of all corporations guilty of
abuse or misuse of their corporate powers, privileges or franchises,or whenever said corporations become detrimental to the interest and welfare of the Commonwealth or its citizens. See http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/legresou/consti...
In Live blogging starting today at 10am EST, in what law.com called "a rare if not unprecedented Thursday session" of the US Supreme Court, the court issued a 5-4 decision in Citizens United totaling 176 pages in length for all opinions (the longest of this term and in a while...) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09p... Scotusblog.com says this in live chat from the Supreme Court: "The Court's decision overturns the previously settled distinction between corporate and individual expenditures in American elections."on edit: The partial dissent by Thomas complains about the one part of the majority opinion upholding disclosure requirements. The five justice majority opinion, written by Kennedy, effectively declares that corporate treasury money has a constitutional right to be used in an unlimited fashion in campaign politics because it is proteceted by the First Amendment. This reverses approximately a century of congressional and state regulation of campaign finance. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09p... The US Supreme Court case Austin v. Michigan (494 U.S. 652 (1990)) is overruled. The part of McConnell v FEC (US Supreme Court, 2003) upholding limits on independent corporate expenditures is overruled. Stevens, in partial dissent, writes 90 page dissent, joined by Sotomayor and Ginsburg and Breyer. Exactly what "Partial" means has to be sorted out still since this is breaking... TECHNICALLY: The Citizens United case is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. However, the affirmed part is only as to requiring disclosure by Citizens United, the reversal is much bigger and strikes down any right on the part of the government to regulate corporations like Citizens United in any campaign activity. Thus, non-voters, non-citizens and non-human beings in the form of corporations, with foreign money, or mob money, or you name it, can take to the airwaves and contribute directly to candidates in an unlimited fashion. And, they are only about one vote away, perhaps two, from making these unlimited contributions SECRET so we the people don't even know WHO is talking at us so long and loud, or who's funding it...
This is a revolution against democracy, because We the People are being handcuffed and rendered helpless (by the courts) to have any kind of order in campaign finance. Rights are supposed to protect We the People from our government. Now the Supreme Court has weaponized the Constitution for use against We the People in elections of representatives to hold OUR power.
The First Amendment applies to government powers but elections of CANDIDATES are totally unique and special because they do not make law. Corporations, where they have legitimate business interests, live to fight another day. They are not harmed even by total exclusion from financing candidate campaigns. Yet the Court has opened the floodgates so that every representative can be considered bought and paid for - NO MATTER WHAT THEIR POSITION OR VOTE IS. In the probably rare event such position is progressive, it's bought and paid for by progressive rich folks...I will probably edit this post as more becomes available and start additional threads. Make no mistake: The court thinks discrimination on the source of funds is unconstitutional, but using corporate treasury funds instead of PAC donations from individual officers means Someone else's money is being used -- either consumers who didn't consent to part of the purchase price funding politics, or shareholders who are almost never consulted about political activities or lobbying: they too are compelled into forced speech against their will. It's all about attempting to entrench corporate rule: But now it's all in the OPEN like never before. Post-Script: The Supreme Court went way out of its way to do this. After oral argument in this relatively minor case, they asked for a special round of briefing on the subject of overturning Austin v. Michigan and another case. So much for the doctrine of "constitutional avoidance" which holds that cases ought to be resolved on non-constitutional grounds if possible. Legal bloggers have pointed to several ways the case could have been resolved non-constitutionally, and in nay event overturning Austin et al was not an issue raised by the original pleadings before the court.
We can't expect extreme specificity given Jefferson passed away nearly 200 years ago (on July 4, 1826, the same day as John Adams, and on the 50th Anniversary of the Declaration Regarding the Reasons and Right of Revolution, now called "Declaration of Independence"). But here's a quote from Jefferson on health, which might be profitably combined with the inalienable rights including but not limited to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." “Liberty is to the collective body, what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society.” --Thomas Jefferson Yeah, everybody knows that without health, one's wealth and liberty can't be enjoyed, and one isn't happy. You got to wonder at people who claim health care's "not a right." Late in his life, Jefferson wrote to a friend and begged confidentiality until after he died so he could live out his later years "in peace" but Jefferson intimated that if people just followed the logic of the Declaration, real democracy, freedom and equality would inevitably be at hand. I think his quote here lays out another guidestar for us to consider following.
“Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore (individual citizens) have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring. –Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, Following World War II, 1950
The unedited interview, which has much more time and substance than the broadcast, starts here and is broken up into several sections: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-janu... My take: Initially I wondered about legitimating war crimes by having the author of torture memos on the show. But Stewart, as usual, does a good job and implicitly humiliates the corporate media by showing them once again how to do their job and ask hard questions (and still get those kinds of guests on his show). Selected HighlightsStewart starts by saying he's "not a constitutional lawyer." While this may appear to undermine his own opinion, on the contrary the firmness with which he opposes torture makes it clear that the wrongfulness of torture is obvious to the layperson. THIS IS CRITICAL BECAUSE a primary way that constitutional rights of detainees are being denied is the claim that a reasonable government worker couldn't know for sure that constitutional rights applied. (I'm not kidding, courts have ruled that)He introduces Yoo by saying (in his first comment) "you are Infamous." Effectively points out that "it's a war" (and a perpetual one) on one hand, and then it's not a war for purposes of prisoners of war and the Geneva Conventions creates a "netherworld" of essentially unlimited power. In every case, the justification chosen is the one that increases presidential power.Tells Yoo his rationales don't make sense. Stewart is bothered at several points, and says so, or physically acts out reflecting his discomfort. Stewart can't even believe Yoo's position that while we signed a treaty entitled "Convention Against Torture" we never defined what torture WAS. In fact, it's defined in the treaty as shown in the box below, which means that Yoo's position (though he never specifically says so here) is essentially that we don't know what the meaning of the words "ill-treatment" and "severe" are as used in the definition of torture, which is nevertheless the same in US statute as it is in the treaty.Definition, from Treaty (Article I) and US Statute essentially identical.
"Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. THE ONLY BIG THING TO BE WISHED FORGiven that Yoo's "issue" was how to "define" torture in what he claims are less severe cases (nobody that's been waterboarded "properly" considers it "un-severe"), he's trying to escape the absolute torture prohibition which, of course, specifically says it admits of "no exceptions whatsoever" under any circumstances, regardless of war or peace or state of emergency.HOWEVER, "ill-treatment of prisoners or detainees" is a class of crime less severe than torture, but it is still a war crime and, if widespread or systematic, a crime against humanity (whether in time of war or in time of peace). But, maybe Jon Stewart thought we'd all figure that last part out - that less severe ill-treatment is still a violation -- because the very title of the applicable treaty is: "CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" It's well recognized that "other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" is that which is less severe than torture, but still inhumane. Again, time of war or not is irrelevant: The law admits of no exceptions whatsoever. Despite hundreds of cases applying international law in US courts, the only available tactic to avoid this absolute prohibition is to claim international law no longer applies in US courts. And that's what courts have been asked to hold, and some have. But international law has been recognized in US Courts at every stage of our history. The Alien Tort State expressly designed for international law claims began in the US in 1789 by act of Congress, and the Constitution also says Congress can "define AND punish" violations of the "Law of Nations." The Constitution provides no authority for EXCUSING violations of the law of nations. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence is in large part an appeal to international law and the community of nations to hear our reasons for separation from Great Britain, and declares the only purpose for which governments are created is to "secure" individual rights, i.e guarantee them. The Bush administration has turned the American way on its head by approaching the whole issue as whether "Congress intended to GRANT rights to detainees, etc."
Free governments don't GRANT rights, they guarantee them.
Dictators GRANT rights - making the public entirely dependent on the leaders.Regardless of outcomes in US courts, international law applies in international tribunals, beyond any doubt. In fact, to even ask the question of whether international law applies in international tribunals is absurd, because it is a question that answers itself: Of course international law applies in international tribunals. That's why the US feels it must resist the jurisdiction, as against all Americans, of the International Court of Justice. Once again, a professional comedian does an enormously better job than MSM "journalists." Part I starts at this link below. Jon Stewart shows the book, but does not, as he so often says, say "Buy this book." Good for him. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-janu...
Gee. If corporations are taking out Dead Peasant Insurance policies, thereby planning to cash in if their workers die on the job rather than after retirement, doesn't that reflect a considered, statistical and actuarial judgment on the part of these companies that their CORPORATE HEALTH INSURANCE won't keep people alive??? After all, they're literally betting that they can "beat the actuaries" at the life insurance companies, and that over the long haul their workers will die faster than expected. The Dishonor Roll of 215 Corporations Believed by Law Firm to Have Purchased Dead Peasant Insurance on Regular Workers(Note: by definition, these policies are on regular workers, and are not "Key Person" Insurance, usually used to buy out a stock interest in the event of sudden death in a closely held corporation)SOURCE: http://deadpeasantinsurance.com/which-empl... / * ADAC Laboratories * Advanced Telecommunication Corp. * Aeroquip Vickers Inc. * Alabama Power Co. * Alfa Corp. * Allegheny Technologies Inc. * Allergan Inc. * Allfirst Financial Inc. * American Business Products, Inc. * American Electric Power * American Express Co. * American Greetings Corp. * American Management Systems Inc. * American Seafoods Group LLC * Ameritech Corp. * Amerus Group Co. * Anadarko Petroleum Corporation * Appalachian Power Co. * Arch Chemical * Aristech Chemical Corp. * AT&T Communications * Atlantic Richfield Co. * Avery Dennison Corp * Avon Products Inc. * B. F. Goodrich Company * Ball Corporation * Bank Boston * Bank Of America * Bank One Corp. * Barnett Banks Inc. * Bassett Furniture Industries Inc. * Be Aerospace Inc. * Bear Stearns Companies * Bellsouth Corporation * Boise Cascade Corp. * Boston Company * Boston Federal * Bristol-Myers Squibb Company * Camelot Music, Inc. * Carolina Power & Light Co. * Carpenter Technology Corp. * Catskill Financial Corp. * Central Power & Light Co. * Ch2m Hill Companies Ltd. * Charming Shoppes, Inc. * Checkfree Corp. * Chemical Banking Corporation * Citibank, N.A. * Citizens Bank * Clark Inc. * Clorox Company * CNF Inc. * Coca-Cola Company * Columbus Southern Power Co. * Commercial Intertech Corp. * Compass Bank (Florida & Alabama) * Computer Technology Associates Inc. * Consolidated Natural Gas Co. * Consolidated Rail Corporation * Cox Enterprises, Inc. * CTA Inc. * Cymer Inc. * Diamond Shamrock Inc. * Diebold Inc. * Dime Bancorp Inc. * Dow Chemical * Earle M. Jorgensen Co. * Eastman Kodak Company * Eaton Corp. * ECC Capital Corp. * Enserch Corp. * F&M Bancorp * FiberMark Inc. * Figgie International Inc. * Fina Oil & Chemical Company * First Bank System Inc. * First Commonwealth * First Midwest Bancorp Inc. * Fleet Bank * FleetBoston Financial Corp. * Flightsafety International Inc. * Frontier Bank * Fulton Financial Corp. * GATX Corporation * Georgia Power Co. * GNC Corp. * Great Plains Energy Inc. * GTE Corporation * Gulf Power Co. * HCR Manor Care Inc * Hechinger Company * Heritage Commerce Corp. * Herman Miller Inc. * Hershey Foods Corporation * Hillenbrand Industries, Inc. * Hosiery Corporation of America * Houghton Mifflin * Household Finance * Hovnanian Enterprises Inc. * Hughes Supply Inc * ICI Americas, Inc. * Idaho Power Company * IKON Office Solutions Inc. * Indiana Michigan Power Co. * Integra Bank Corp. * Intermark Inc. * Iowa First Bancshares Corp. * Iroquois Bancorp Inc. * J Jill Group Inc. * JP Morgan Chase & Co. * Kansas City Power & Light * Kansas Gas & Electric Co. * Keithley Instruments Inc. * Kentucky Power Co. * Keycorp Ohio * Kimberly Clark * Korn Ferry International * Laser Master Int’l. Inc. * Linens N Things Inc. * LKQ Corp. * Louisiana Pacific Corp. * Manor Care Inc. * Marriott International Inc. * McDonnell Douglas Corp. * Media General Inc. * Medicalcontrol Inc. * Menasha Corporation * MidAmerican Energy Co. * Miix Group Inc. * Mississippi Power Co. * MNC Financial Inc. * Mueller Industries Inc. * National City Corporation * NationsBank * Nestle Enterprises * Norfolk Southern Corp. * Norfolk Southern Railway Co. * Northern States Power Co. * Ohio Power Co. * Old National * Olin Corporation * Owens & Minor Inc. * PacifiCorp * Panera Bread Co. * Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company * Parker Hannifin Corp. * Penn Treaty American Corp. * Penns Woods Bancorp Inc. * Phibro Animal Health Corp. * Philipp Brothers Chemicals Inc. * Phoenix Companies Inc. * Pinnacle Financial Services Inc. * Portland General Electric * Potlatch Corporation * PPG Industries * Procter & Gamble Company * PSS World Medical Inc. * Public Service Co. of New Mexico * Public Service Co. of Oklahoma * Public Service Enterprise Group * Questech Inc. * R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company * Ruddick Corp. * Ryder System Inc. * Sallie Mae (Stud Ln Mktg Assoc.) * Savannah Electric & Power Co. * Sequa Corp. * Service Merchandise Co., Inc. * Shearson Mortgage * Sherwin-Williams * Sky Chefs * Smart & Final Inc. * Smith Barney * Sonoco Products Co. * Southwest Bank * Southwest Water Co. * Southwestern Bell Corp. * Southwestern Electric Power Co. * Southwestern Public Service Co. * Star Banc Corp. * Stauffer Management Company * Steelcase Inc. * Sturgis Bancorp Inc. * Summit Bank of N.J. * Swank, Inc. * Tellabs Inc. * Tenet Healthcare Corp. * Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. * Tompkins Trustco Inc. * TXU Corp. * TYCO International * UniFirst Corp. * Union Bank * United National Bancorp * Urocor Inc. * Vineyard National Bancorp * W. R. Grace & Company * Wachovia Corporation * Walgreen Company * Wal-Mart Stores * Walt Disney * Wang’s International, Inc. * Wells Fargo, N.A. * West Coast Bancorp * West Texas Utilities Co. * Westar Energy Inc. * Western Aire Chef Inc * Western Resources, Inc. * Westpoint Pepperell * Winn Dixie * Winnebago Industries Inc. * Woolworth Corporation * Xcel Energy Inc. * York Water Co. * Zale Corp. See: http://deadpeasantinsurance.com/which-empl... / If anyone would be so kind as to find or calculate how many workers these 215 large corporations employ, that would be a very interesting figure. (We can then discount it somewhat in the event some have not insured all their employees as Dead Peasants, but just some...)
In a long 72 page policy review on prescription drug coverage, over the last FOUR DECADES the top key factors explaining the pushes and pulls of policy change included this: "ideological conflict between those seeking to expand the traditional Medicare program and those preferring a greater role for private health care companies." http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/A-Polit... It's been the same conflict dynamic between public health care vs private corporations for 40 years, and it's squarely at issue again today. But now we have a Democratic president, we have about 60 Democratic Senators, a clear majority in the House. In sum, the political situation appears better than ever. And despite these rising tides for public health care forces who've fought to slowly increase public health care over 40 years, we're told now that Single Payer and/or the Public Option are dead on arrival. How did a team that fought for increases over 40 years suddenly get terminated at a high water mark in its prospects?Not only is the situation described as "Dead on arrival," but the details of the bill command that we must hand complete victory to private insurance, in the following way: Dollars that are public health dollars will be counted as public health care dollars and collected as such via taxes, yet just handed to private insurance company. That's capitulation, followed by payment of tribute. But I don't think the Democratic rank and file capitulated. Only their "representatives" did. The problem for the representatives is that the only legitimate source of power, the only source of just power, is the people. ("Forming their just powers from the consent of the governed" para. 2 Decl. Independence) If anyone ever suggests something like Dead on Arrival or even dead now, I'm going to ask them how that can possibly be LEGITIMATE. I may or may not contest that that is the "way it is." I'm dying to know what makes that RIGHT? How does it make any sense on the level of Democrats OR Democracy?
This is not the first time FactCheck.org has found Chamber of Commerce political ads to be, uh, INFLATED in their fact claims. FactCheck.org previously did a piece about Chamber of Commerce exaggeration in 2007. (OK, in the Chamber ad slammed today, the Chamber used their arm called "Chamber Institute for Legal Reform" to be listed as responsible for this ad. Same thing - nobody lets their business name or trademarked name get used without permission or else lawyers are calling to stop it) Well, humans are fallible -- but -- the Chamber of Commerce is composed of corporations! But corporations are run by humans, so one might understand getting the numbers a little off, or a little inflated, humans being fallible and all... But the Chamber was caught increasing the number of actual lawsuits against small business by a whopping 650% to 1,020%? (yes, one thousand and twenty percent) What? Yup.
THE FACTS: Today, FactCheck.org slammed the chamber's TV ad claiming that "litigation" is primarily directed at small businesses - to the tune, the Chamber said, of (here comes the Chamber's LIE): "52% of all litigation targets small business" Of course, the Chamber tried to bolster its false ad with smaller type citation that the "SOURCE" of the information was the Small Business Administration. They're government and know about small business, right? It would seem so. The TRUTH: only 5 to 8 percent of all litigation has a small business defendant being "targeted". A good chunk of those small businesses (ahem) sued in the first 7 or so years of the last decade were sued by me personally: SLEAZY USED CAR DEALERS. Somebody's gotta sue those guys, I figured it might as well be me. Nobody else in my county would do it. It was largely but not totally a public service, because the car dealers had typically stolen the last dollar my clients had for a down payment and given them a known lemon in return, or a rolled back odometer. (Value of odometer fraud is in the BILLIONS of dollars in increased sales prices, by the way) But, many small businesses, I'd say 90% are totally cool. But, here's the Clincher:
The FactCheck.org correction showing the true numbers of lawsuits being exaggered by 65% to 1,020% comes from the very same study the Chamber cited in support of its ad. The video of the ad, and the full text of FactCheck's article, are at this link: http://factcheck.org/2010/01/us-chamber-mo... / The Chamber of Commerce doesn't know the meaning of the word Honest. NOTE: This is the first in a series on the high and mighty corporate kingpins that don't know the meaning of the word Honest. The next is Antonin Scalia, and, believe it or not, he asserts, or argues I should say, (in direct effect and implication) that he does not know the meaning of the word Honest! "Honest" is too vague, he argues, and a word that we must necessarily guess at its meaning! I'm not kidding. More to come. (Please PM me, or post publicly below, if you want notice when the Honesty series has its installments, with the next episode being Antonin Scalia. Thanks!)
It has to have a business profitability purpose but NOTHING corpse do is for any purpose other than that. Thus, a trade secret, potentially infinite in its lifetime so long as the corporation makes "reasonable efforts" to maintain secrecy, is defined as: INformation a business/organization wants to keep secret. Like how the votes are counted! And the only way trade secrets get "lost" at least in theory is by not keeping them secret. And yet... here's what happens if you stumble across one and either know, subsequently learn or HAVE REASON TO KNOW whether you know or not, that it's a trade secret (any disclosure or us triggers double or triple damages depending on the state, plus attorney's fees for willful or knowing use or disclosure: Misappropriation is defined as the:
(a) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has
reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or
(b) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied
consent by a person who:
(1) Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or
(2) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it; or acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
(3) Before a material change of his position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.
New Hampshire version of Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
So simply getting "acquisition" on notice that somebody else took it from their employment (which all sign not to do) or otherwise used "improper means" triggers punitive damages, AND any disclosure or use does as well, regardless of whether improper means were used to obtain it or it was disclosed by the company by accident or mistake -- WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE ONLY WAY TRADE SECRET RIGHTS ARE LOST - THROUGH ACCIDENTAL DISCLOSURE OR FAILURE TO ADOPT REASONABLE MEANS TO MAINTAIN THE TRADE SECRET.
You've got to hit rock bottom, as they say.
If there are really, really things to scream or worry about NOW, doesn't that mean that the cause of change is THAT MUCH STRONGER? What's totally depressing about that???
In addition to your heart (which is most of what triggers "depression" for many these days), may I suggest ya'll try to adopt a little of the perspective of the revolutionary -- a revolutionary would be welcoming things getting worse - it means complacency goes bye-bye and things can finally change. That's when they jump into action and make things happen their way.
|
Blogroll DU Journals
Other Blogs Latest Threads
The ten most recent threads posted on
the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums. Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted
on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the
last 24 hours. My Forums
Democratic Underground forums
and groups from my "My Forums" list.
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Discussion Forums
Big Forums
More Forums
Today's Featured Forums
|
