Showing posts with label Citizens United. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Citizens United. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Two Tidbits, one quite funny, the other less so. . . .

Republicans Reveal that Entire Presidential Race was a Prank
April Fool’s Day Announcement Brings Practical Joke to an End


WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) – In an April Fool’s Day announcement that took the political world by storm, the Republican Party revealed today that its entire presidential race had been an elaborate prank.

“April Fool!” exclaimed former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum at a press conference in Washington, where they were joined by fellow merrymakers Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain.

Moments after revealing that the GOP primary had been one long practical joke, Mr. Santorum explained the rationale behind staging such a complicated and expensive prank.

“A lot of Americans are suffering right now and need a good laugh,” he said. “I think my colleagues and I can be justifiably proud of the entertainment we provided – even if it meant me wearing these ridiculous sweater vests.” See http://www.borowitzreport.com/2012/03/31/republicans-reveal-that-entire-presidential-race-was-a-prank/ for rest of a very entertaining post.

__

George Galloway: Why I won't condemn attacks on UK soldiers in Afghanistan; If you don't mind my saying so, that's a very silly question. . .

George Galloway (born 16 August 1954) is a British Respect Party politician, author, journalist, and broadcaster, and the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bradford West. He was previously an MP for the Labour Party, for Glasgow Hillhead and then its successor constituency Glasgow Kelvin from 1987 until 2005. He was expelled from the party in October 2003, the same year that he came to national attention for his opposition to the Iraq War.
(From Wikipedia)
__

OK, Three Tidbits
Tongue-cutting at Al Jazeera
By Glenn Greenwald

April 05, 2012 "Salon" -- I’m currently conducting interviews as a follow-up to the rather acrimonious debate that erupted this week from my argument that “terrorism expertise” is not an actual discipline, but rather (like the term “terrorism” itself) just another instrument for legitimizing the violence of the U.S. and its allies, delegitimizing the violence of their Muslim adversaries, and dressing up state propaganda with the veneer of academic neutrality (for an example of how this works, see this New York Times article this morning on the different approaches taken by the U.S. and French governments to “fighting terrorism,” by which the article exclusively means: Muslims). One reason I think this discussion is so important is because the manipulation of the term “terrorism” this way permits and bolsters (even if unintentionally) an extremely ugly, destructive, and toxic worldview, one which the Editor-in-Chief of Commentary Magazine, John Podhoretz, vividly expressed last night on Twitter when discussing the firing of Keith Olbermann by Current TV: (See LINK for rest.)

Monday, March 5, 2012

What to Do About Citizens United?; Fish & Wildlife Service Goes Rogue on Wolves

In This Edition:

- What to Do About Citizens United?
- Fish & Wildlife Service Goes Rogue on Wolves.
__

Enchanted Financial Forest

__

What to Do About Citizens United?

Jeffrey Clements on Citizens United and Constitutional Amendments

In a recent (3/2/12) Letters & Politics audio, Clements goes over the history of the events leading up to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which allowed seemingly unlimited amounts of money to be spent in our elections by corporations, unions, and individuals (like Sheldon Adelson) [See also: Billionaire Sheldon Adelson Says He Might Give $100M To Newt Gingrich Or Other Republican] who donate to super pacs. He points out that Americans have historically used the Constitutional tools available to them to create Constitutional Amendments to overturn the over-reach of Supreme Court decisions. Examples of Supreme Court decisions which were ultimately over-turned through the Constitutional process are those that denied women the right to vote (19th Amendment) and another which overturned the Supreme Court decision (Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.) outlawing the income tax (16th Amendment).

Jeffrey D. Clements is the author of Corporations Are Not People: Why They Have More Rights Than You Do and What You Can Do About It

Amazon description of the book:
"This is the first practical guide for every citizen on the problem of corporate personhood and the tools we have to overturn it. Jeff Clements explains why the Citizen's United case is the final win in a campaign for corporate domination of the state [I.E. America] that began in the 1970s under Richard Nixon. More than this, Clements shows how unfettered corporate rights will impact public health, energy policy, the environment, and the justice system. Where Thom Hartmann's Unequal Protection provides a much-needed detailed legal history of corporate personhood, Corporations Are Not People answers the reader's question: "What does Citizens United mean to me?" And, even more important, it provides a solution: a Constitutional amendment, included in the book, which would reverse Citizens United. The book's ultimate goal is to give every citizen the tools and talking points to overturn corporate personhood state by state, community by community with petitions, house party kits, draft letters, shareholder resolutions, and much more."


Listen to this valuable and informative audio:
Letters & Politics 3/2/12

Letters and Politics - March 2, 2012 at 10:00am

Click to listen (or download)


See Also:

We the People, Not We the Corporations

CorporateLand

__

Fish & Wildlife Service Goes Rogue on Wolves.

Center forBiological Diversity

For Immediate Release, March 1, 2012


Contact: Noah Greenwald, (503) 484-7495

Feds Plan to Strip Endangered Species Act Protection From Gray Wolves Across United States

Propose Exceptions in Special Cases Only: Subspecies, Northwest/Northeast Regions

PORTLAND, Ore.— The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today recommended removing federal protections from gray wolves that remain on the endangered species list after wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and upper Midwest had their protections stripped last year. The move could be devastating to wolf recovery. Fish and Wildlife conceded it will still consider protection for subspecies or breeding populations (including Mexican gray wolves, a recognized subspecies) and for populations in the Pacific Northwest and Northeast; its recommendation came in a five-year review of the Endangered Species Act listing for gray wolves in the lower 48.

“The agency’s saying protection for wolves should be taken away from them anywhere they don’t live right now, even if they lived in those places for thousands of years before we exterminated them and even if those places are still good habitat for them,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity, which has worked for decades to restore wolves. “If this approach had been taken with, say, bald eagles, we’d never have recovered eagles across much of the Midwest, Southeast or Northeast, where they didn’t exist when they were protected. This is a frightening example of the Fish and Wildlife Service abandoning the recovery mandate of the Endangered Species Act.”

According to the agency, ongoing status reviews covering the Mexican wolf, northwestern wolves and eastern wolves in New England will conclude by Sept. 30, 2012, at which point the agency signaled national-level protection for wolves would cease, likely including protections for wolves anywhere they are not currently found — such as the Northeast, Great Plains and central Rocky Mountains.

“Scientists have identified extensive wolf habitat in the Northeast, Southwest, Rocky Mountains and West Coast,” said Greenwald. “Protections should stay in place in all these wild areas, and recovery plans should be written allowing wolves to return safely.”

Wolves may retain protections in the Northwest, including portions of California and western Washington and Oregon, where wolves have recently been establishing packs. Two packs currently reside in western Washington, and wolves have been moving west from newly established packs in eastern Oregon — including a wolf known as OR-7, or Journey, that traveled 1,000 miles to become the first wolf in California in almost 90 years. The situation is less clear in the Northeast, where there are currently no breeding packs, although there are wolves a mere 100 miles north of the Canadian border.

“We hope wolves in the Southwest and Northwest will retain protection and gain the benefits of scientific recovery plans,” said Greenwald. “But stripping protections for wolves in the central Rocky Mountains of Utah and Colorado, and in verdant New England where overlarge deer populations are devouring tree seedlings and stopping forests from regrowing, hurts these ecosystems and is tragic for pioneering wolves.”

In the vacuum of federal leadership for wolf recovery, and in light of OR-7’s ongoing two-month-long journey into Northern California, a hopeful precursor of other wolves’ arrivals, the Center petitioned the California Fish and Game Commission on Monday to list wolves as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act and to develop a state wolf recovery plan.

“Wolves are a keystone species that have shaped North American landscapes for eons,” said Greenwald. “They restore natural balance and in the process benefit a host of species.”

Scientists have found that wolf reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in 1995 forced elk to move more, and in so doing allowed for recovery of streamside vegetation, helping beavers, fish and songbirds. Wolves also benefit scavenging animals such as weasels, eagles, wolverines and bears; and they increased numbers of foxes and pronghorns in Yellowstone and nearby Grand Teton National Park by controlling coyotes, which wolves regard as competitors.

“If we want to keep any part of America wild, we need to keep our wolves,” said Greenwald.

Read more about the Center’s work to save wolves.
__

Hollywood turns wolves into man-killers
High Country News
Feb 23

__

EDITORIAL
A Final Refuge for Wolves

__

More on OR 7

March 2, 2012 | 10:34 AM | By Cassandra Profita
Welcome Home? OR-7 Crosses Back Into Oregon

__

A Few of My Other Posts on Wolves:

http://bakercountyblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/odfw-says-or-7-back-in-oregon-at-least.html

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2012
HELP SAVE OREGON'S WOLVES, oppose HB 4158


FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2012
Idaho Hunter Illegally Kills Collared Oregon Wolf, OR 9; Idaho Fish and Game Shrugs


THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2007
Wolves, Prison Labor, NPR


For all posts, see the Baker County Blog Search facility at the left of the blog title, and enter the word "wolves."
_

I haven't had a chance to read today's Baker City Herald Article "Are Wolves Bigger, Badder Than Before?" I have noticed recent flyers about that would like to imply that the reintroduced wolves are not the same wolves that used to inhabit Oregon, but that irrelevant straw man has been going around for quite some time. If a response is even necessary, it will be addressed in a later post.
__

Friday, January 27, 2012

So How's That "Citizens United" Thing Working Out For Ya?

After the rabidly Zionist gambling Mogul and newspaper owner, Sheldon Adelson, and his wife, revived Newt Gingrich's campaign with $10 million plus in contributions, even some in Congress were rattled. But, this was the predicted outcome of the "Citizens United" decision, so no one should be surprised. You might, however, want to support the groups that are trying to promote a needed constitutional amendment that would overturn the decision like Move to Amend. Interestingly, Mr.Adelson seems to prefer giving his money primarily to political ventures favoring Israel, where he maintains the most read newspaper, and along those lines, he is willing to provide whatever it takes to influence our Presidential election on Israel's behalf. Unprincipled politicians like Gingrich are all too eager to become Adelson's sock puppet for 10 million dollars, and Gingrich's hyperbolic and exaggerated, Likud-like statements about the Palestinians and Iran in recent weeks demonstrate that Adelson's purchase may be a sound one.

Here are some articles about Sheldon and his good work:
_____

Adelson, Gingrich, and the Selling of America
Posted By Justin Raimondo On January 24, 2012

If you want to know what’s wrong with our campaign finance laws – and our political system in a more general sense – look at the way Sheldon Adelson is buying the Republican nomination for his sock puppet, Newt Gingrich.

Right now, the anonymous donors to a political action committee, or PAC, can buy ads on behalf of – or against – a candidate, and spend unlimited amounts as long as there is no official connection between the PAC and any candidate. This degree of separation, however, is pure fiction: in reality, “former” aides to the candidate can and do operate these “Super PACs,” which are funded by one Daddy Warbucks or another: no overt coordination is necessary. What’s important here is disclosure, or the lack of it: the PACs don’t have to say who is funding these ads, only that the “Committee for Good Government” or some such semi-fictional entity is paying for it. In this way, Adelson – a casino billionaire, one of the richest people in the country – can drop a cool $10 million into the race (with more in the pipeline) and in effect buy the election, without the average voter knowing who is paying the bills. In short, Adelson can operate in the dark, as far as Joe Voter is concerned – and darkness is what the Adelsonian agenda requires above all.

So what is Adelson’s agenda? . . . .

__

Gingrich’s Extremist Anti-Palestinian Stance Follows Millions from Casino Magnate Sheldon Adelson
Democracy Now! 1/27/12

. . . . Gal, explain what it is, this Adelson-Gingrich relationship, why he supports him.

GAL BECKERMAN: Well, he supports—the relationship is really symbiotic, in a way. It developed, as you said, in the mid-'90s over issues of union busting. Adelson wanted some help; Gingrich was able to offer it. And it developed as time went on. It seems to have helped kind of in Gingrich's evolution in terms of his pro-Israel stance. Wayne Barrett recently reported in The Daily Beast that, you know, if you look at what Gingrich was saying about Palestinians and Israel in 2005, even, as recently as 2005, it was kind of a different line. He was talking about investing in their ancestral lands. He was really speaking a much different language. This is now changed. You won’t hear Gingrich saying anything like that anymore. And it’s not—you know, one can’t draw a direct causal link, you know, find the telephone call in which Adelson said, you know, "I want you to say this." But it’s not hard to imagine that if your political life depends on a man who has very extreme-right views when it comes to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, that you’re going to hear that same language come out of that candidate’s mouth. . . . .

__

NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly Urged to Resign After Police Conceal Role in Anti-Muslim Documentary
Democracy Now! 1/27/12

. . . .
LINDA SARSOUR: The film is absolutely outrageous. Any rational-minded person that watches it will say, "Wow! How did the New York Police Department, the largest police force in this country, supposedly the most credible, have access to this film?" And what’s most astonishing is that while the NYPD surveils our community and creates files on us and checks us and all this kind of intelligence, the fact that there was no due diligence on the part of the NYPD to check out who the Clarion Fund is and to look up—look at their history—you don’t even need to have intelligence; just go on Google and find out who these people are—and connecting the dots, and looking at, you know, someone like Sheldon Adelson, who like funded this film, is also funding Newt Gingrich. It’s all connected. And this Third Jihad is not a one-time, you know, just a film, and we’re all mad and offended. It’s not about being offended. It’s about the security of all New Yorkers. If one bad judgment like this is happening in the NYPD, only God knows what other films are being shown that we don’t have the names in order for us do a FOIA request on these films. It’s absolutely outrageous. . . . .

__

Who is Newt Gingrich’s biggest donor and what does he want?

. . . . Sheldon Adelson is also, far and away, the biggest patron of Newt Gingrich’s now-surging Republican presidential bid. Adelson and his wife, Miriam, have pumped $10 million into a political action committee backing Gingrich that is run by the former House speaker’s onetime aides. Campaign finance experts say the two $5 million contributions are among the largest known political donations in U.S. history.

No other candidate in the race to challenge President Barack Obama in the November election appears to be relying so heavily on the fortune of a single donor. It’s been made possible by last year’s Supreme Court rulings — known as Citizens United — that recast the political landscape by stripping away restrictions on contributions and how outside groups can spend their money.

Sheldon Adelson is Citizens United come to life. . . . .