Who Says Elephants Never Forget?
Republicans have a history that clearly demonstrates who they represent, what they favor, and how competent they are to govern. Because of this, the political elephants must forget that history and act as though a different set of facts had occurred. One example is that the party that brought us 9/11 claims that their policies against terrorism have succeeded, while those of the party that brought the perpetrator of 9/11 to justice, have failed…
I. CACKLED.DEAD
I will never not reblog this. It makes me laugh SO HARD because it’s SO ACCURATE as to what she actually sounded like. Nicki, girl, you know I love you, but you trying to do “Starships” live just didn’t work out very well here.
lmao I can’t breeaeaaatthe!!
AHHHHHHHHHH HAhahahahahahahaha!!!!
(Source: anthagio)
ACLU Argues Dragnet Surveillance of Americans Is Unconstitutional
The government today asked the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court ruling that allowed the American Civil Liberties Union to challenge the constitutionality of a law that gives the government unprecedented authority to monitor international emails and phone calls by Americans, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
At issue is an appeals court ruling that allowed the ACLU’s case to move forward. It rebuffed Obama administration arguments that the case should be dismissed because the ACLU’s clients cannot prove their communications will be collected under the law, known as the FISA Amendments Act. The ACLU said it was disappointed by today’s request.
“The appeals court correctly ruled that our plaintiffs have standing to challenge this sweeping surveillance law, and it’s disappointing that the administration is challenging that ruling,” said Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director. “It’s crucial that the government’s surveillance activities be subject to constitutional limits, but the administration’s argument would effectively insulate the most intrusive surveillance programs from judicial review. The Supreme Court should leave the appeals court’s ruling in place and allow our constitutional challenge to proceed.”
The ACLU filed the lawsuit in July 2008 on behalf of a broad group of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose work requires them to engage in sensitive telephone and email communications with people outside the U.S. such as colleagues, clients, sources, foreign officials and victims of human rights abuses. The coalition includes Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, The Nation, the Service Employees International Union and journalists Chris Hedges and Naomi Klein. The Justice Department claims that the plaintiffs should not be able to sue without first showing that they have, in fact, been monitored under the program – information that the government refuses to provide.
In March 2011, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs do, in fact, have the right to challenge the constitutionality of the law. In September, the full Second Circuit rejected the government’s request for reconsideration of that ruling.
“The FISA Amendments Act is the most sweeping surveillance statute ever enacted by Congress. It allows dragnet surveillance of Americans’ international communications with none of the safeguards that the Constitution requires. This kind of law should not be shielded from judicial scrutiny,” said Alex Abdo, staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project.
View Larger “The trenches of Zapatistas belong to everybody who wants democracy, justice and liberty.”
Sub C. Marcos
View Larger “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with others, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which they may choose to aspire, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold that no truths are self-evident, but must have their usefulness demonstrated. That all people are created with equal freedom from tyranny, but frequently accept domination or obedience to a legal code, to a greater or lesser degree from person to person. That people are endowed with only what rights they have chosen to be endowed with, through wisdom or common folly, for wealth or ilth.
That people can secure for themselves, with understanding of their own unique situations, those rights which best allow them to live in fruitful harmony with other people. That whenever any person, Government, or other entity, not fully recognizing the unique situation of each individual, becomes in any way oppressive or destructive, people may choose to ignore, alter or abolish such an institution, and to live in whatever manner they decide, with understanding of the situation, will allow them whatever conflict or harmony they so require for their happiness and survival. That man can choose to resolve any conflict through intelligence, with, adequate communication and a full understanding of each and every point of view involved, by each and every person involved.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, but only after calm consideration of the True Will and mutual goals of all those individuals involved. All experience has shown that people are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism or Dogma not chosen by the individual concerned, it is their right, it can be their choice, to throw off such a Government and to accept responsibility, each for their own future security….”
(Source: politics-war)
(Source: iloveyoumacmiller)
New law is ‘repugnant to sensibilities’ of founding principles
When Congress adopted and Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, alarms were raised over the possibility that it would allow the indefinite and rights-free detention of those who are called “belligerents,” even if they are American citizens.
While the argument over those provisions rages, one state lawmaker in Rhode Island has jumped into action to protect the danger he sees for residents of his state, proposing a resolution to exempt his constituents from sections of the federal law.
Rep. Daniel P. Gordon Jr. today told WND he has drafted a resolution, which is being circulated among the lawmakers even now, to express opposition to the sections of the NDAA “that suspend habeas corpus and civil liberties.”
“Sections 1021 and 1022 of the act, signed into law on New Years Eve of 2011, provide for the indefinite detention of American citizens by the military on American soil, without charge, and without right to legal counsel and right to trial,” he explained.
“Given the fact that the constitutions of Rhode Island and that of the United States are replete with guarantees of individual liberties, right to habeas corpus, and right to freedom of speech, the offending sections of that law are repugnant to the sensibilities of anyone that has a basic understanding of the foundation of this country,” he said.
The opinions on the legislation signed by Obama vary. Commentator Chuck Baldwin, who himself has been the target of smears by the Department of Homeland Security-related apparatus, explained the law, “for all intents and purposes, completely nullifies a good portion of the Bill of Rights, turns the United States into a war zone, and places U.S. citizens under military rule.”
(Source: socialuprooting)
(Source: theamericankid)
