Wingnuttery at its finest

Utah governor decides taking back federal lands is a good idea. (Has he conveniently forgotten the Indians own some of it?)

On Saturday, Gov. Gary Herbert signed two bills authorizing efforts to invoke eminent domain as a way to reclaim land from the U.S. government, which owns more than 60% of Utah. Lawmakers say the gambit could lead to a court ruling that permits Utah to take back valuable parcels, including a coal-rich plateau, from the feds. Proceeds from developing those lands would be used to bankroll the state's cash-strapped public schools. “This is the solution to being the lowest-funded education system in the nation,” Utah Rep. Ken Sumsion, a Republican, told the Salt Lake Tribune last month.

As the Wall Street Journal and the AP report, however, it's highly unlikely that judges would back a bid to seize federal lands:

The goal is to spark a U.S. Supreme Court battle that legislators' own attorneys acknowledge has little chance of success.

But Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and other Republicans say the case is still worth fighting, since the state could reap millions of dollars for state schools each year if it wins.

States' rights! States' rights! Bring back states' rights!!

Wikipedia:

States' rights as "code word"

The term "states' rights," some have argued,[11] was used as a code word by defenders of segregation.[citation needed] It was the official name of the "Dixiecrat" party led by white supremacist presidential candidate Strom Thurmond.[12][13] George Wallace, the Alabama governor—who famously declared in his inaugural address, "Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!"—later remarked that he should have said, "States' rights now! States' rights tomorrow! States' rights forever!"[citation needed] Wallace, however, claimed that segregation was but one issue symbolic of a larger struggle for states' rights; in that view, which some historians dispute, his replacement of segregation with states' rights would be more of a clarification than a euphemism.[14]

We need a constitutional amendment

Declaring corporations are NOT people.



Go to Free Speech is for People and take back control of our elections and our country.

The amendment as it stands (and the site is welcoming ideas):

What will the Free Speech for People Amendment say and what will it do?

* Solution Q&A

The Free Speech for People Amendment will overrule the Citizens United v. FEC case and return the First Amendment to its longstanding purpose as a guarantee of the fullest rights of a free people and the press. The Free Speech for People Amendment will overrule the fabrication by activist judges of a “corporate rights doctrine” to defeat democratically enacted laws, and will restore the First Amendment to its meaning and intent for two centuries. The Amendment will ensure that all people have the most robust freedom of conscience, speech and debate and that a vibrant, diverse press remains free and unfettered, thus strengthening, rather than weakening, democracy.

The Free Speech for People Amendment Campaign will work with others to develop specific language for the Free Speech for People Amendment. Here is one example of language for the Free Speech for People Amendment:

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1 The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, no corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation shall enjoy the rights of free speech and expression protected for the people by the First Amendment.

Section 2 Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity in public election activity.

Section 3. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

h/t to Dusty Crickets in comments and Southern Beale.

Update: Greg Palast gives examples of what the Supreme Court has allowed to happen:

In today's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court ruled that corporations should be treated the same as "natural persons", i.e. humans. Well, in that case, expect the Supreme Court to next rule that Wal-Mart can run for President.

The ruling, which junks federal laws that now bar corporations from stuffing campaign coffers, will not, as progressives fear, cause an avalanche of corporate cash into politics. Sadly, that's already happened: we have been snowed under by tens of millions of dollars given through corporate PACs and "bundling" of individual contributions from corporate pay-rollers.

The Court's decision is far, far more dangerous to U.S. democracy. Think: Manchurian candidates.

Ouch...

BAGHDAD – Iraqis seeking justice for 17 people shot dead at a Baghdad intersection responded with bitterness and outrage Friday at a U.S. judge's decision to throw out a case against a Blackwater security team accused in the killings.

The Iraqi government vowed to pursue the case, which became a source of contention between the U.S. and the Iraqi government. Many Iraqis also held up the judge's decision as proof of what they'd long believed: U.S. security contractors were above the law.

"There is no justice," said Bura Sadoun Ismael, who was wounded by two bullets and shrapnel during the shooting. "I expected the American court would side with the Blackwater security guards who committed a massacre in Nisoor Square."

What happened on Nisoor Square on Sept. 16, 2007, raised Iraqi concerns about their sovereignty because Iraqi officials were powerless to do anything to the Blackwater employees who had immunity from local prosecution. The shootings also highlighted the degree to which the U.S. relied on private contractors during the Iraq conflict.

But look at the judge who arrived at this painful decision:

Ricardo M. Urbina
Notable cases
[edit] Guantanamo Bay detainees

Urbina presided over a number of habeas corpus petitions submitted on behalf of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[3] In October 2008, he ordered the release of a small group of Uighur detainees from Guantanamo into the United States because they are no longer regarded as enemy combatants.[4]
[edit] Saeed Hatim v. Barack Obama

On December 16, 2009 Urbina ordered Guantanamo captive "Saeed Hatim" to be released.[5] According to Carol Rosenberg, writing in the Miami Herald Urbina's release order was sealed, and it "brought the so-called habeas corpus scorecard to 32 losses and nine victories by the Pentagon of detainee challenges from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba." Dean Boyd, a Department of Justice spokesman, told Rosenberg the Government was reviewing its options in how to react to the ruling.
[edit] Blackwater Baghdad shootings prosecution

A month before five Blackwater security guards implicated in the September, 2007, Nisour Square, Baghdad, shooting incident were to go on trial before Judge Urbina, on New year's Eve, in a 90-page ruling on December 31, 2009, Judge Urbina did not address the substance of the case but said prosecutors had misused statements made by the defendants under promise of immunity. DOJ spokesman Boyd said the government was considering its options. The immunity issue was a problem that lawyers for the government anticipated as long as a year ago when they briefed Congress on the matter. Judge Urbina dismissed the indictment of the five men who pleaded not guilty to voluntary manslaughter and firearms violations: Paul Slough, Evan Liberty, Dustin Heard, Donald Ball and Nicholas Slatten.[6]

Dozens of Iraqis, including the estates of some of the victims allegedly killed by Blackwater employees, filed a separate lawsuit last year alleging that Blackwater employees engaged in indiscriminate killings and beatings. The civil case is still before a Virginia court. Blackwater contractors had been hired to guard US diplomats in Iraq. The guards said insurgents ambushed them in a traffic circle. Prosecutors said the men unleashed an unprovoked attack on civilians using machine guns and grenades. The shooting led to the unraveling of the North Carolina-based company, which since has replaced its management and changed its name to Xe Services.

Following the letter of the law makes us protect bad guys and idiots along with good guys and smart people.... And we should not have it any other way.

Update: Iraq is going to sue the Blackwater guards involved in the massacre.

Another excellent PR move by Blackwater

Camden County Sheriff Tony Perry defended his department on Monday in the wake of allegations that Blackwater Worldwide consummated an arms deal with it that skirts federal firearms laws.

The Moyock-based private security contractor has been able to keep 17 AK-47s at its armory under a deal that sidesteps federal laws prohibiting private parties from buying automatic weapons, The News & Observer of Raleigh reported Sunday. The newspaper found that Blackwater purchased 17 Romanian AK-47s and 17 Bushmasters — and then gave ownership of the guns to the Camden County sheriff.

Camden is not using the AK-47s, but Blackwater is allowing people to train with them at their Moyock firing range.

In the summer of 2005, Blackwater CEO Gary Jackson signed two agreements with Maj. Jon Worthington of the Camden Sheriff's Office.

Worthington has worked as a firearms instructor for Blackwater.

"Blackwater has financed the purchase of 17 Romanian AK-47 rifles for the Camden County Sheriff's Office for use by Sheriff's Office," the agreement says. "The Camden County Sheriff's Office will have unlimited access to these rifles for training and qualification, and state of emergency use." Camden Sheriff Perry said Monday that his department initially was interested in possibly using both of the automatic weapons for its new SWAT team. But the sheriff's department later settled on only using only the Bushmaster XM15 E2S automatic rifles after deputies tried out the AK-47s on the Blackwater range and didn't like them for SWAT-team use.

Blackwater CEO Gary Jackson and company owner Erik Prince told the News & Observer that the Moyock-based company has used the weapons in training for police officers and military members to familiarize them with the gun if they encounter it while making an arrest or on a battlefield.

And more:

The AK-47 would be a poor choice of weapon for a SWAT team, said John Gnagey, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association, the national organization of SWAT officers.

As a combat weapon, the AK-47 is too large and powerful for SWAT teams, Gnagey said. It is rugged but relatively inaccurate.

"And there's the perception problem," Gnagey said. "Every terrorist attacking the U.S. is armed with AK-47s. "

Most SWAT teams use the H&K MP5 submachine gun or the Bushmaster M4, he said.

Under federal law, only government agencies - military or law enforcement - are allowed to acquire and possess automatic weapons. There is an exception for automatic weapons purchased before May 1986, when the law went into effect.

Firearms dealers are allowed, under strict conditions, to acquire an automatic weapon if they need to demonstrate the weapon to a police department or other government agency interested in buying the weapon.

Under federal law, it is illegal for a person to receive or possess an automatic weapon that is not registered to that person in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. The 34 weapons are registered to the Camden County sheriff. Seventeen AK-47s and five Bushmasters are stored and used at Blackwater. The other 12 Bushmasters are assigned to Camden County deputies, the sheriff said.

Why does this not make me feel safer?

Update 7/10: Interesting. John Gnagey, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association shows up in connection with a shooting of an unarmed doctor.