Archive for the ‘US Constitution’ Category

What is happening to the fabric of the balance of powers government, of, by, and for the people, that the founding fathers established?

Read Greenwald’s Latest:



Read Full Post »

My computer is undergoing repair, I’ll be back up, posting regularly, soon; was so grateful to come across this video through a friend today.

The power of the people will never die; it is our spirit, our soul, and our constitutional mandate!

Read Full Post »

 From Democracy Now:

A federal court in California has issued a ruling that’s raising widespread alarm among advocates for civil liberties. Earlier this month, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said law enforcement agents can sneak onto a person’s property, plant a GPS device on their vehicle, and track their every movements. The court’s ruling means the spying is legal in California and eight other Western states…

In a dissent, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski accused the majority of, quote, “cultural elitism” for issuing a ruling he said would only affect lower-income Americans. Kozinski says anyone who can afford to surround their homes with security gates, fences and booths would effectively be exempt.

The court’s ruling means the spying is legal in California and eight other Western states. In a separate case this month, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit took a different view, ruling the GPS spying illegal. The issue is expected to eventually reach the Supreme Court…

Read and watch:


Read Full Post »

From Glenn Greenwald:

The only real reason I thought Robert Gibbs’ comments yesterday merited a response is not because of the ephemeral melodrama it created — the White House said Fox-copying, mean things about the Left — but because of the “substantive” claim he made that comparisons of Bush and Obama were so blatantly insane that they merited “drug testing.”  That Obama has vigorously embraced and at times even exceeded some of Bush’s most controversial and radical policies is simply indisputable.  I’d request that anyone doubting that just review the very partial list I compiled in Update II yesterday.  In that list, I neglected to mention numerous other compelling examples (recall Tim Dickinson’s recent revelation that Interior employees call their Department under Ken Salazar’s corporate-serving rule “the third Bush term”).  Among my most prominent omissions was the Obama administration’s Bush-copying use of military commissions rather than real courts to try “War on Terror” detainees. 

Read More:


Read Full Post »

Snippits of Democracy Now interview with wrongfully detained journalist Lance Rosenfield:

So I’d found a decorative ‘Welcome to Texas City’ sign on a public highway south of town near the refinery. And, simply put, I was taking pictures of that sign. I pulled off the shoulder like I would normally do, of the public street, walked over to the median, took the pictures, and then walked back to my car. And I was going to go back to my hotel to file the pictures and I noticed I was being followed by security truck.

So I needed gas anyway. I did not feel like going—letting this guy, you know, follow me to my hotel. So I pulled into the gas station. He continued on, so I thought really nothing of it. Then police pulled in and essentially, you know, blocked me in as if I was gonna to try to go anywhere. And, got out, asked who I was. They had got reports that I was taking photographs. And I said, ‘Yes, I’m a photojournalist.’ And they said, ‘We need to see your pictures.’ I said, well, you know, ‘Without a warrant, I don’t feel like I need to show you the pictures.’ And he said, ‘Well, we can, we can – you can show ‘em to us now or we can do this later with Homeland Security.’ …

…So he called Tom Robison, who at time I didn’t know who he was, of course. I’ve found out since that he’s, he’s a local police corporal who is a liaison to the FBI and Homeland Security. So—and he heads the local joint terrorism task force there in Texas City, and I guess, maybe the region. So, but at that time I did not know who he was—they just referred to him as FBI and Homeland Security…

… it was his antagonistic behavior that I had a problem with. I felt like he was harassing me. The BP security guard stepped in and they both, you know, were trying to relate my activity as a photojournalist to terrorist activity—

Watch the interview:



Read Full Post »

New draconian measures, involving police who answer to BP, Homeland Security, the US Coast Guard; journalists BEWARE, covering BP is very risky business in today’s USA!

From Glenn Greenwald’s article:

Journalists who come too close to oil spill clean-up efforts without permission could find themselves facing a $40,000 fine and even one to five years in prison under a new rule instituted by the Coast Guard late last week.

It’s a move that outraged observers have decried as an attack on First Amendment rights. And CNN’s Anderson Cooper describes the new rules as making it “very easy to hide incompetence or failure“. . . .

Read for yourself:


Read Full Post »

Legalized assassination, drones, a secret prison known as the black jail, practices known as torture loopholes such as Appendix M, and now Obama has won, he needn’t apply Habeas Corpus at Bagram. As Glen Greenwald writes,

“… in 2008, the Supreme Court, in Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that provision unconstitutional, holding that the Constitution grants habeas corpus rights even to foreign nationals held at Guantanamo.”

Well, since that doesn’t apply to Bragram…it’s Bush all over again, but it’s not; because progressives like Obama, and Obama does a lot of things we like, progressives want to protect Obama, so progressives are largely, and in essence, protecting Obama abuses, many are; far, far more than would tolerate this from Bush, and since the right is surely not going to oppose such practices we have a real problem here, we are faced with a mirror, we have to look at ourselves and ask ourselves just how much we really do value the Constitutional principles we claim to value? The principles of due process of law, of the accused being charged, principles such as these, principles we began learning about in elementary school.

Are our school books going to ultimately be changed? Are we going to one day stop teaching our children about these principles? Are they becoming an archaic thing of the past? Only we can preserve them, it is our outspokenness which claims our value of them, our silence depicts a society which has abandoned these principles in favor of a political figure, if we desire to preserve these principles we must speak up about them regardless of the political risk for this is a government of, by, and for the people, it is up to us, we the people, to claim them as a strongly held value!

Greenwald goes on to write about moves the Obama administration took last February which shocked civil libertarians but which seemed to pass by without serious opposition from many progressives, some have objected, but it’s not enough, it hasn’t been enough push back to stem the flow. Greenwald writes:

 ‘One of the first acts undertaken by the Obama DOJ that actually shocked civil libertarians was when, last February, as The New York Times put it, Obama lawyers “told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team.” ‘

If we do not object now, what is our defense should another Bush get into office? If we qualify Obama, how can we object should someone like Cheney get elected to office? We have to object NOW! 

 The intrigue goes on as Greenwald offers yet another extremely valid observation,

“One other point:  this decision is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which serves to further highlight how important the Kagan-for-Stevens replacement could be.  If the Court were to accept the appeal, Kagan would be required to recuse herself (since it was her Solicitor General’s office that argued the administration’s position here), which means that a 4-4 ruling would be likely, thus leaving this appellate decision undisturbed.  More broadly, though, if Kagan were as sympathetic to Obama’s executive power claims as her colleagues in the Obama administration are, then her confirmation could easily convert decisions on these types of questions from a 5-4 victory (which is what Boumediene was, with Stevens in the majority) into a 5-4 defeat.  Maybe we should try to find out what her views are before putting her on that Court for the next 40 years?”

We have to be paying attention, to look away now is to look away while a train is headed for the American Experiment.

Please read Greenwald’s entire article:


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »