Showing posts with label Bill of Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill of Rights. Show all posts

Friday, June 01, 2012

Around the world

How astonishing and unexpected!! Pipeline spill sends 22,000 barrels of oil mix into Alberta muskeg

Whether she will see any of this money is another thing... Woman Who Couldn’t Be Intimidated By Citigroup Wins $31 Million

Oklahoma Rape Victim Denied Emergency Contraceptives. Doctor Cites Religious Objection As Reason. I think suing the doctor (and the nurse who also refused to help) for 18 years of child support might get her attention.

Building tiny houses.. or should I say minimalist housing.

Big corporate fat cat thinks big corporations shouldn't pay taxes like real people.

A WWII Curtiss P-40 Kittyhawk is found preserved in the Sahara.

Know your rights if you photograph police.

Because the poor women need to be told what they think? In media reports on women’s issues—abortion, birth control, Planned Parenthood—men are quoted around five times more than women, a new study shows.

Oh NOES!! We're gonna crash! NASA's Hubble Shows Milky Way is Destined for Head-on Collision with Andromeda Galaxy

Compare and contrast: Republican spokesman: ‘Let’s hurl some acid’ at female Democratic senators to these articles about real acid attacks.  Really?  You want to carefully think about what you said, sir?  Are you aware of what you have actually suggested?

What getting rid of Obamacare would really mean to the Republicans:
All of which exposes how problematic the GOP’s two-year-long posture of total repeal always was. As a short-term political posture, it has served them well. But now that the Supreme Court might give them what they want, they’re forced to deal with the reality of what it would mean. And that’s a huge wake-up call for the party, especially one without a clear leader to herd the cats as they figure out their next move. As one Republican health care aide put it to TPM, “I do think some Republicans are finally starting to realize they could be the dog that caught the car.”
Be careful what you wish for... you may get it.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Saturday, January 30, 2010

FDR's second Bill of Rights

Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed a Second Bill of Rights in a speech on January 11, 1944. This was an economic Bill of Rights.


h/t to Avendon Carol at The Sideshow.

Sunday, December 02, 2007

We are all mudbloods now...

To the Ministry of Magic enacting more pureblood resolutions. Can you believe this?

Steve Bates of The Yellow Doggerel Democrat
:
The short version: Rep. Jane Harman (D-California) (yes, you read that right, 'D'), chair of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, authored a bill called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, HR 1955, intended to designate a whole list of things as "homegrown terrorism." The bill passed the House in late October by an overwhelming bipartisan vote... but it is a terrifying bill nonetheless. It is now before the Senate as SB 1959.
Philip Giraldi of The Huffington Post:

More recently, there has been the post 9/11 creation of a virtual avalanche of legislation and commissions designed to protect the country at the expense of the Bill of Rights. The two Patriot Acts of 2001 and 2006 and the Military Commission Act or 2006 have collectively limited constitutional rights to free speech, freedom of association, freedom from illegal search, the right to habeas corpus, prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, and freedom from the illegal seizure of private property. The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments in the Bill of Rights have all been disregarded in the rush to make it easier to investigate people, put them in jail, and torture them if necessary. A recent executive order of July 17th, 2007 goes even farther, authorizing the President to seize the property of anyone who "Threatens Stabilization Efforts in Iraq." The government's own Justice Department decides what constitutes "threatening stabilization efforts" and the order does not permit a challenge to the information that the seizure is based on.

One would have thought that the systematic dismantling of the Constitution of the United States would have been enough to satisfy even the most Jacobin neoconservative, but there is more on the horizon, and it is coming from people who call themselves Democrats. The mainstream media has made no effort to inform the public of the impending Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. The Act, which was sponsored by Congresswoman Jane Harman of California, was passed in the House by an overwhelming 405 to 6 vote on October 24th and is now awaiting approval by the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which is headed by Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. It is believed that approval by the committee will take place shortly, to be followed by passage by the entire Senate.

[snip]

As should be clear from the vagueness of the definitions, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act could easily be abused to define any group that is pressuring the political system as "terrorist," ranging from polygamists, to second amendment rights supporters, anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, and peace demonstrators. In reality, of course, it will be primarily directed against Muslims and Muslim organizations. Given that, there is the question of who will select which groups will be investigated by the roving commissions. There is no evidence to suggest that there will be any transparent or objective screening process.

[snip]

The view that 9/11 has "changed everything" is unfortunately all too true. It has unleashed American paranoia, institutionalized mistrust of foreigners, and created a fantasy universe in which a US beset by enemies must do anything and everything to counter the alien threat. If it were a sane world, it would be difficult to imagine why anyone would believe that a Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act is even necessary.

Jeff Dinelli of The Left Coaster:

Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-California), the chair of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence and author of the bill specifically identifies the Internet as a tool of radicalization.

"The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."

If Congress finds the Internet is dangerous, then we all will have to worry about censorship and limitations on First Amendment activities. Why go down that road? Law enforcement should focus on action, not thought. We need to worry about the people who are committing crimes rather than those who harbor beliefs that the government may consider to be extreme.

The bill, in its current form, lacks specific definitions, which would give the Commission expansive and possibly dangerous powers. The Committee would be set up to address the process of "violent radicalization," which the bill defines as "the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change." It does not adequately define "an extremist belief system," opening the door for abuse.

Can these people remember Joe McCarthy? Do they really intend to take us back to that benighted era?

Where are we going and why is this basket getting so hot?

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Resistance is futile

Besides, we've collected all your emails and phone conversations for years. What's the problem?

Chet Scoville of Vanity Press catches this quote and demands Kerr be fired:
As Congress debates new rules for government eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information.
Corporations should be trusted? Just what planet is he living on?

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Jury duty

My first time chosen.

My blogging will occur in the afternoon and evening rather than throughout the day.

I loved the fact the judge held up a copy of the Constitution and talked about our right to counsel, our right to face our accusers, our right to know the charges, our right of presumed innocence.

Thank you, your Honor!

Friday, March 23, 2007

If you are innocent, you have nothing to fear

Bryan at Why Now? reminds us the right wing using this phrase to forcefeed us the gutting of the Bill of Rights and other invasions of privacy, but he points out that this phrase is not being used much in reference to putting Karl Rove and Harriet Miers under oath.

Gee.. I wonder why....