TimesOnline reports that the "Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers. Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible." Tweet
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Obama Seen As Anti-Business By 77% Of U.S. Investors
Bloomberg reports that "U.S. investors overwhelmingly see President Barack Obama as anti-business and question his ability to manage a financial crisis, according to a Bloomberg survey. The global quarterly poll of investors and analysts who are Bloomberg subscribers finds that 77 percent of U.S. respondents believe Obama is too anti-business and four-out-of-five are only somewhat confident or not confident of his ability to handle a financial emergency." Tweet
Majority Of Americans, And Nearly 6 in 10 Young Adults, View Abortion As "Morally Wrong"
The PR Newswire reports that on "the eve of the 37th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion throughout the United States, a new survey shows a strong majority of Americans believe abortion to be 'morally wrong.' 'Millennials' (those 18-29) consider abortion to be 'morally wrong' even more (58%) than Baby Boomers (those 45-64) (51%). Generation X (those 30-44) are similar to Millennials (60% see abortion as 'morally wrong'). More than 6 in 10 of the Greatest Generation (those 65+) feel the same." Tweet
Obama Declares War On Supreme Court Free Speech Decision
Obama fails to point out that the majority opinion clearly states: "We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process."
Tweet
Friday, January 22, 2010
NY Mayor Bloomber Hammers Obama Over Bank Plan
CBS reports that "President Barack Obama's demand Thursday that Congress clamp down on the size of banks and their investments got major blowback from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who said it could cause layoffs and hurt the city. Mayor Bloomberg said the banks and Wall Street are part of the bedrock of the city's economy, and efforts to slash their business just means less tax revenue for the city, which brings up the dreaded 'L' word. 'If that's the case then we'll have to lay off people because it will really hurt our industry,' Bloomberg said. The mayor was so upset about the move -- and a suggestion that Wall Street bonuses be put in escrow, which means the money wouldn't be spent here, wouldn't help the city economy -- he responded with a proposal of his own for members of Congress. 'Maybe we should hold back their salaries for a decade or so and see whether the laws they pass work out,' Bloomberg said. The mayor also demanded that the members of our congressional delegation go to the mat to protect the financial services industry, much like senators from Texas protect the oil industry... Mayor Bloomberg also said that limiting the size of banks will hurt their competitiveness in the global economy." Tweet
Jon Stewart "Special Comment" On Keith Olbermann's Name-Calling Rants Against Scott Brown
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| ||||
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Obama: Our Expectations Of Mideast Progress Were "Too High"
The Jerusalem Post reports that getting "the Israelis and Palestinians to agree to negotiate, or even to agree to the framework in which negotiations will take place, 'is just really hard,' US President Barack Obama said in an interview with Time magazine published Thursday, as the president was completing his first year in office. An unnamed senior Israeli official was quoted by Channel 10 as saying hours after the interview was published that Israel warned the Americans that their Middle East strategy would not bear fruit."
The administration "overestimated our ability to persuade [both sides] to [negotiate] when their politics ran contrary to that. Both sides - the Israelis and the Palestinians - have found that the political environment, the nature of their coalitions or the divisions within their societies, were such that it was very hard for them to start engaging in a meaningful conversation," Obama told the magazine.
Tweet
Jewish Prayer Phylacteries Lead To Bomb Scare On US Flight
The Jerusalem Post reports that "a teenage airplane passenger using an Orthodox Jewish prayer instrument caused a misunderstanding that led the captain to divert the Kentucky-bound plane to Philadelphia and prompted a visit from a bomb squad. A 17-year-old boy on US Airways Express Flight 3079 traveling from New York to Louisville was using tefillin, a set of black boxes attached to leather straps and containing biblical passages, Philadelphia police Lt. Frank Vanore on Thursday. When used in prayer, one box is strapped to the arm while the other box is placed on the head. 'It's something that the average person is not going to see very often, if ever,' FBI spokesman J.J. Klaver said. The teen explained the ritual after being questioned by crew members, but the captain decided to land in Philadelphia anyway, authorities said... Authorities said the plane was searched and passengers were questioned. The teen - who hails from White Plains, just north of New York City - was traveling with his 16-year-old sister." Tweet
Free Speech Victory: Supreme Court Sides With Conservative Filmmakers In Declaring Certain Campaign Spending Limits Unconstitutional
The New York times reports that "a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. The ruling was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace will corrupt democracy... Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader and a longtime opponent of that law, praised the Court’s decision as 'an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day.'... The case had unlikely origins. It involved a documentary called 'Hillary: The Movie,'" which must be accurate as the New York Times describes it as "a 90-minute stew of caustic political commentary and advocacy journalism. It was produced by Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation, and was released during the Democratic presidential primaries in 2008. Citizens United lost a suit that year against the Federal Election Commission, and scuttled plans to show the film on a cable video-on-demand service and to broadcast television advertisements for it. But the film was shown in theaters in six cities, and it remains available on DVD and the Internet."
The majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, said that "[t]he Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether... The First Amendment does not permit laws that force speakers to retain a campaign finance attorney, conduct demographic marketing research, or seek declaratory rulings before discussing the most salient political issues of our day... We must decline to draw, and then redraw, constitutional lines based on the particular media or technology used to disseminate political speech from a particular speaker... We decline to adopt an interpretation that requires intricate case-by-case determinations to verify whether political speech is banned, especially if we are convinced that, in the end, this corporation has a constitutional right to speak on this subject... The ongoing chill upon speech that is beyond all doubt protected makes it necessary in this case to invoke the earlier precedents that a statute which chills speech can and must be invalidated where its facial invalidity has been demonstrated... The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations — including nonprofit advocacy corporations — either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship... Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people... For these reasons, political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence."
Kennedy made clear that "[i]f the First Amendment has any force,it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
The full majority opinion can be read here http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his concurrence that the government was asking the Supreme Court to "embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern. Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy." The government in fact admitted this was what they were arguing in oral arguments, but simply asked the Supreme Court to realize the Congress would not actually do those things. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZC.html
Justice Antonin Scalia simply eviscerates the dissenting opinion's attempt to use originalist arguments to limit the freedom of speech of corporate entities. As Scalia points out, "the dissent purports to show that today’s decision is not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. The dissent attempts this demonstration, however, in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment." Scalia's opinion is actually the most important opinion written by any of the Supreme Court's Justices, even though it is not binding on lower courts and will not serve as Supreme Court precedent, as it focuses on the "original understanding" of the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech. It uses an appropriate originalist understanding to conclude that "[w]e should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate."
Scalia also destroys the dissent's notion that freedom of speech only applies to "individual Americans." Scalia writes that "[t]he dissent says that when the Framers 'constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment , it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.'... That is no doubt true. All the provisions of the Bill of Rights set forth the rights of individual men and women—not, for example, of trees or polar bears. But the individual person’s right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons. Surely the dissent does not believe that speech by the Republican Party or the Democratic Party can be censored because it is not the speech of 'an individual American.' It is the speech of many individual Americans, who have associated in a common cause, giving the leadership of the party the right to speak on their behalf. The association of individuals in a business corporation is no different—or at least it cannot be denied the right to speak on the simplistic ground that it is not 'an individual American.'" To read the full opinion visit http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZC1.html.
The opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas argues that the majority opinion's "constitutional anaylsis does not go far enough" in providing the "robust protection under the First Amendment" that "political speech" is "entitled to." The majority made clear that "the Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements," but that it could not ban the speech itself. In my view, this seems reasonable as it allows the government to demand transparency in political speech in terms of the allowing the public to have the ability to identify the speaker, the source of the political speech. Justice Thomas, however, argues that "disclosure, disclaimer, and reporting requirements," as found in this statute, "are also unconstitutional." To read this opinion visit http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX1.html.
Tweet
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Push To Repeal Gay Marriage In New Hampshire
The AP reports that three "weeks after the state legalized gay marriage. opponents are asking lawmakers to reconsider their decision and let voters amend the constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The state's House Judiciary Committee was holding hearings Wednesday on two measures brought by gay marriage opponents, who don't see a quick victory but hope to gain voter sympathy that will pay off for them in November... New Hampshire's law legalizing gay marriage was passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. John Lynch last June. It took effect Jan. 1. New Hampshire joined Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont in allowing the unions. 'A man and a woman together create a family, where individuals of the same gender cannot create a family,' said state Rep. Jordan Ulery, who like Baldasaro is a Republican." Tweet
Democrats Propose $1.9 Trillion Increase In Debt Limit
The AP reports that "Senate Democrats on Wednesday proposed allowing the federal government to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion to pay its bills, a record increase that would permit the national debt to reach $14.3 trillion. The unpopular legislation is needed to allow the federal government to issue bonds to fund programs and prevent a first-time default on obligations. It promises to be a challenging debate for Democrats, who, as the party in power, hold the responsibility for passing the legislation. It's hardly the debate Democrats want or need in the wake of Sen.-elect Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts." Tweet
Oil-Rich Nations Like Saudi Arabia And Iran Have Contributed Nothing To Haiti
Fox News reports:
"What do Alyssa Milano, Sandra Bullock, Lance Armstrong, Gisele Bundchen, the country of Senegal and — very possibly — you have in common? All — including you — have donated more funds to the Haitian relief effort than oil-rich nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran. That's right ... if you personally have donated money to help the earthquake-stricken people of Haiti, then you have contributed more money than the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran, whose combined dollar donation is a big fat zero. As Haiti slowly recovers from last week's earthquake, nearly $400 million has been donated by countries, individuals and organizations to the devastated nation, accordign to United Nations documents. But the goodwill has been far from balanced. India, which has one of the world's largest gross domestic products, has donated $1 million, a figure matched or eclipsed by much smaller economies like the Czech Republic ($1.1 million), Botswana ($1.1 million) and Senegal ($1 million). And those donations have been matched or topped by individuals like Bill Gates, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. The United States leads the way among developed nations with $114.5 million donated as of Wednesday, according to the U.N. That's more than 28 percent of the $397 million donated to rebuild the impoverished Caribbean nation. The United Kingdom and France are next with more than $30.9 million and $16.8 million donated, respectively. Australia ($13.4 million) and Italy ($8.7 million) round out the top five donating countries. Another $951 million has been pledged from other nations."
Tweet
Judge Andrew Napolitano: "The Constitution And Freedom"
The Founding:
The Congress:
The Presidency:
The Judiciary:
The States:
Tweet
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Democrat Senator Jim Webb: "Suspend Further Votes On Health Care Legislation Until Senator-Elect Brown Is Seated"
Politco reports that Sen. Jim Webb has put "out a statement that puts the notion of a quick Senate vote out of reach and pretty much makes a certification fight moot." Webb's statement said: "In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated." Tweet
Crazy Olbermann Calls Brown A "Sexist" And Accuses Massachusetts Of A Racism
To view Olbermann discussing the racist uprising that the is the Brown victory visit http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Xduzvk8zqG
Tweet
GOP Congressman John Carter Blasts Pentagon Report On Fort Hood Shooting
Fox News reports that the "independent Pentagon review of the Fort Hood massacre purposely avoids any mention of radical extremism, a congressman who represents the area where the base is located has charged. Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, told Fox News Monday that the 86-page report -- released last week -- fails to mention alleged shooter Nidal Malik Hasan's extremist views and behavior. Carter blasted the report, which found that the Army's middle management missed signals about Hasan, saying the government is 'afraid to be accused of profiling somebody.'... Hasan, who killed 13 people when he opened fire on the base in November, allegedly wore traditional Muslim garb and shouted 'God is great' in Arabic [i.e., Allahu Akbar] during the shooting. A review of Hasan's computer and e-mail accounts later revealed visits to Web sites espousing radical Islamist ideology. Carter, as well as a growing chorus of Republican lawmakers, said such extremist behavior should be documented in the report to help the Army identify important warning signs in the future."
"I think it's just another example of this fear we have of saying the wrong thing that might offend someone," said Carter, who is the Congressman that represents Texas' Congressional District 31, which includes Fort Hood.
Tweet
Officials: Iran Rejects Offer To Ship Out Uranium
The Jerusalem Post reports that diplomats "said Tuesday Iran has formally responded to a nuclear fuel swap proposal but rejected the call to ship out most of the material it would need to make a warhead. The draft plan would take most of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium and return it in the form of fuel rods for its research reactor. Iran needs the fuel to continue operating the facility, while the US and its allies would like to strip Teheran of its enriched material. That would delay its ability to make nuclear warheads, should it choose to do so. The diplomats and a UN official spoke Tuesday on condition of anonymity because their information was confidential." Tweet
Monday, January 18, 2010
Hawaii To Vote On Civil Unions For Homosexuals
The Washington Post reports that "When Hawaii legislators reconvene on Wednesday, all eyes will be focused not on teacher furloughs that resulted in the nation's shortest school year or the state's $1 billion budget deficit, but legislation that would allow same-sex couples to form civil unions. The measure would grant gay couples the rights and benefits the state provides to married couples and is among a handful of similar proposals that could pop up in several other states... Last year, the proposal easily won preliminary passage in the Legislature, but stalled in May after opponents lobbied and held a state Capitol rally attended by several thousand protesters. Opponents, noting that this is an election year, cast doubt on claims that passage is at hand. Critics, including the Catholic Diocese of Honolulu and scores of evangelical Protestant churches, hope another rally, this one planned for Sunday, will be large enough to convince wavering lawmakers to kill the measure...Elsewhere, at least one other state, New Mexico, appears poised to seriously consider a civil union measure. Bills in Illinois and Minnesota also may surface. Colorado, Wisconsin, Maryland and Maine have limited laws allowing same-gender civil unions. Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage. " Tweet
Real Clear Politics: Brown Up By 9
See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_special_election-1144.html to view the poll for yourself. Tweet
MSNBC Liberal Bias From David Shuster: With A Republican In The Lead, Has Massachusetts "Lost Its Mind?"
To see this "objective journalism" for yourself visit http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Gd2GytQunz. Tweet
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Legal Scholars Discussing Religious Liberty And The Limits Of Government Power
The Federalist Society's Religious Liberties Practice Group hosted this panel discussion on Religious Liberty and the Limits of Government Power at the 2009 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 13, 2009. Panelists included Prof. Alan E. Brownstein, Boochever and Bird Chair for the Study and Teaching of Freedom and Equality at the University of California, Davis, School of Law; Prof. Ira C. Chip Lupu, F. Elwood and Eleanor Davis Professor of Law at The George Washington University Law School; Hon. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law and Director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School; and Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as the moderator.
Tweet
Wall Street May Challenge Constitutionality Of Obama's Bank Tax
The New York Times reports that "Wall Street’s main lobbying arm has hired a top Supreme Court litigator to study a possible legal battle against a bank tax proposed by the Obama administration, on the theory that it would be unconstitutional, according to three industry officials briefed on the matter. Wall Street’s main lobbying arm has hired a top Supreme Court litigator to study a possible legal battle against a bank tax proposed by the Obama administration, on the theory that it would be In an e-mail message sent last week to the heads of Wall Street legal departments, executives of the lobbying group, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, wrote that a bank tax might be unconstitutional because it would unfairly single out and penalize big banks, according to these officials, who did not want to be identified to preserve relationships with the group’s members. The message said the association had hired Carter G. Phillips of Sidley Austin, who has argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court, to study whether a tax on one industry could be considered arbitrary and punitive, providing the basis for a constitutional challenge, they said. Administration officials and other legal experts have called those claims dubious." Tweet
Israel Asks Pope To Open Up WWII Archives
Reuters reports "Israel on Sunday asked Pope Benedict to open up the Vatican archives covering the wartime papacy of Pope Pius XII, who has been accused by some Jews of turning a blind eye to the Holocaust. 'I asked the pope to find a way to make it possible to open the archives in the Vatican in order to give some details of the papacy of Pius XII in order to ease tensions between the Jewish people and Catholics,' Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom told Reuters at the end of the pope's visit to Rome's synagogue." Tweet
Jon Stewart Interviews John Yoo About Executive Powers And Interrogation Techniques
John Yoo's book Crisis in Command can be purchased at http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Command-History-Executive-Washington/dp/1607145553.
Tweet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)