Green Party // Current

Kucinich Opposes Pelosi's HR 3962 Private Insurance Mandate

Take heed republicrats, wealthcare reform is not a liberal or conservative issue. Both... more

bowfinger
added this
13 days ago
|
4 comments

Green Mayoral Candidate Rev Billy Interrupts Bloomberg

Electalujah!

asherp
added this
23 days ago
|
0 comments

Scholars reject Obama's Stance on Warrantless Cellphone Recording

The Obama administration’s position that the government can force mobile carriers to hand over cellphone tower location information on their customers without a warrant is wrong, two legal scholars say.

"Because CSLI acquisition is hidden, indiscriminate and intrusive, and because it reveals information over a period of time, it should be subject to the highest level of Fourth Amendment oversight (the same procedures used for wiretapping and video surveillance)," the scholars wrote late Friday.

The scholars are Susan Freiwald, of the USF School of Law, and Peter Swire, of Ohio State University.

Their words, published by the American Constitution Society, came a month after the Justice Department made its claim in a little-noticed case that the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures did not apply.

Most Americans have or will carry a mobile phone in their lifespan, so the outcome could have wide-ranging privacy ramifications. Smartphones, like the iPhone, use cell-tower information to power geo-location applications like Google Maps.

In a case pending before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the government maintains it can require federal judges to order mobile phone companies to release historical cell-tower information of a phone number without probable cause — the standard required for a search warrant.

While judges have differed on the issue, the resulting evidence can be used in a criminal prosecution. The case on appeal concerns a Pennsylvania judge who rejected the government’s position in a drug prosecution that the new administration inherited.

Mobile-phone providers keep cell-site information for up to 18 months. Historical cell-site location information includes the tower connected at the beginning of a call and at the end of the call. The government does not claim a warrantless right to cell-site information for future calls, only for calls already dialed.

"Cellular providers could, if they wanted, keep track of your cell phone’s location every seven seconds," the scholars wrote, "because your phone ‘registers’ that often with the nearest tower."The Obama administration’s position that the government can force mobile carriers to... more

asherp
added this
25 days ago
|
22 comments

NYC Mayoral candidate Rev Billy speaks about Gentrification

"Gentrification is the Absence of GOD! Amen!"

asherp
added this
1 month ago
|
0 comments

The Yes Men Break the Rules: Rule #3 Don't Get Homeland Security Involved

The Yes Men screen their film "The Yes Men fix the World" and their audience, along... more

asherp
added this
1 month ago
|
2 comments

Join the 'Green Party' Group on Current.com

Do you support: Green Jobs? Direct Taxes on Pollution? Localizing our agriculture?... more

asherp
added this
2 months ago
|
5 comments

Van Jones considered for Green Party nomination

Fresh off getting kicked to the curb on the sly, Van Jones, may be getting a new... more

asherp
added this
2 months ago
|
100 comments

Healthcare, Afghanistan, and other ways that the Democrats = MASSIVE FAIL

The military’s anticipated request for more troops in Afghanistan has divided senior advisers to President Obama as they determine the proper size and mission of the American effort there, officials said Thursday, according to today’s New York Times.

Vice-President Joe Biden wants to keep things tamer in Afghanistan, but only because he considers stabilizing Pakistan the more urgent goal. Meanwhile, Richard Holbrooke, special envoy to the region, also agrees that Pakistan is a problem the United States will eventually have to do something about, but sees more troops as vital to “protecting Afghan civilians and undermining the Taliban and Al Qaeda.” Hillary Clinton also wants more troops in Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is sort of concerned the U.S. may look like occupiers, but then again, he sounded pretty supportive of sending more troops during a press conference on Thursday, the Times reports.

Military strategists believe General Stanley A. McChrystal, the guy who took over all American and NATO forces in Afghanistan in June, will ask President Obama for one of three things. On the low side, McChrystal could ask for 10,000 to 15,000 troops, or Stanley “Goldilocks” McChrystal may ask for a medium-sized 25,000 troops, or he may ask Obama for a whopping 45,000 additional troops for Afghanistan.

Notice the parameters of legitimate debate extend from sending a “moderate” 10,000 men and women into Afghanistan to the vast 45,000 figure. On the political spectrum, debate strategies always occur on the right. “Do we sent X amount of soldiers to die, or Y amount?” At the same time, the people on the left shouting, “Send none! You have no plan in Afghanistan! Al-Qaeda doesn’t have a structured hierarchy that can easily be dismantled! Killing more civilians increases their recruitment! This war will go on forever!” aren’t even invited into the debate room.

Troops levels are the only acceptable figures to include in the discussion. No one mentions the 11,000 Afghan troops killed, or 7,500 Afghan civilians, or the 680 US troops who have died (all estimates because no one seems overly concerned with keeping records of these things.) Those that do try to include the latter figures are dismissed as unserious leftist radicals. These silly hippies are considered superfluous to the war debate since they are inherently anti-war, and anti-war voices have no business contributing to the war planning. After all, they’ll say no to additional troops, and what fun is there in that?!

[article continues at link]The military’s anticipated request for more troops in Afghanistan has divided senior... more

asherp
added this
3 months ago
|
1 comment

Dennis Kucinich: "The 'Public Option' is Dead"

HEALTH CARE WANTED: DEAD OR ALIVE The masquerade is over! The "public option"... more

asherp
added this
3 months ago
|
17 comments

Ralph Nader on Healthcaare Reform: YOU DON'T CUT DEALS WITH A SYSTEM THAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED

The Obama administration admitted last week it promised to oppose proposals to let the... more

asherp
added this
3 months ago
|
4 comments

Kucinich: The Democrats' Plan Lets the Insurance Industry to Pick the American People's Pockets

[video at link]

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Congressman Kucinich. What exactly did you get passed?

AMY GOODMAN: And explain exactly what you mean by the single-payer plan that, state by state, it could be adopted.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, Medicare is a single-payer plan. It’s the government pays the bills. Now, government doesn’t own all the hospitals under the legislation that I wrote with John Conyers, HR 676, that is co-sponsored by eighty-five members of Congress. Government would essentially be the person or the institution that pays the bills.

Right now, we have a system with 50 million people uninsured, another 50 million underinsured, where you have thousands of different insurance companies that are involved in jacking up administrative costs. One out of every three dollars goes for the activities of the for-profit system, for corporate profit, stock option, executive salary, advertising, marketing, and cost of paperwork. You eliminate that $800 billion a year in overhead, and you have enough money to be able to meet the needs of all people in this country. And when you eliminate the overhead at a state level, you can meet the needs of people of a state level.

AMY GOODMAN: And so, what is happening right now, Congressman Kucinich? The latest, the possibility that the bill will not be passed by August, which some have taken to mean it’s going to give more time for Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats to water it down. But they’re not even with the public plan. I’d like you to explain what is being offered, even coming close to the idea of single payer.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, it’s not close to the idea of single payer. It’s mandating that people buy insurance. And it’s telling insurance companies they have to sell insurance. Well, you know who wins in that deal.

The fact of the matter is, this debate is all skewed right now. You know, there are—both political parties are in trouble on the issue of healthcare. Our political system is failing the American people, and it’s a bipartisan affair. So, what we have right now is a mishmash, which is being offered up as reform. Well, no wonder it’s in trouble from all sides.

I mean, if people were offered a clear choice of a single-payer plan or not and told what the advantages are of having the government paying the bills, eliminating the overhead, enabling all Americans to have not just basic coverage with doctor of choice, but vision care, dental care, mental healthcare, prescription drugs, long-term care, all covered, if people knew that was the choice they could have, there wouldn’t even—there wouldn’t be much of a debate at all.

But we’re falling back on old ideological arguments, when the fact of the matter is the insurance companies are running Washington and we have to break their hold. And that’s why the single-payer amendment that I offer that gives states an option is a small step in the direction of trying to give states the ability to be able to determine their own destiny, and then hopefully America will be able to see in these laboratories of states that we can have a single-payer plan that can save people money and protect people’s economic security and their health. Healthcare is a basic right. We still don’t hear of that talked about in the major debate here in Washington about the bill that is being presented.

[more at link][video at link] Welcome to Democracy Now!, Congressman Kucinich. What exactly did... more

asherp
added this
4 months ago
|
17 comments

Supreme leader warns against helping Iran’s enemies

Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned senior officials on Monday not... more

common_sense_allowed
added this
4 months ago
|
0 comments

Become a member of US Conress Watch

You're an upstanding citizen right? Congress makes law, not the president.... more

asherp
added this
4 months ago
|
2 comments

Running Scared- Rev Billy does Picnics and Politicks in Tompkins Square Park

While those tiresome major-party candidates for mayor are doing the usual... more

asherp
added this
4 months ago
|
0 comments

How BOTH major parties are being played by the Health Insurance Industry

With almost 20 years inside the health insurance industry, Wendell Potter saw... more

asherp
added this
4 months ago
|
2 comments

Green Party members upset at Current Green

From the article:

"I just watched San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's June 11, 2009 interview on Al Gore's internet Current TV, about what Current called his "Green Ticket," with a capital "G," gubernatorial campaign, even though the San Francisco Green Party ran Matt Gonzalez against Newsom in the 2003 mayor's race, and, has not endorsed [Gavin Newsome], to say the least.

One of the Mayor's first claims was that he'd finally taken action, that day, to stop the "trash poachers" who pluck redeemable bottles and cans out of the big blue cans labeled "recycling," before the city's trucks can come to pick them up off the sidewalks on garbage pickup days.

No wonder he's trying so hard to hike police and sheriff's budgets while slashing human services to all the most vulnerable people in San Francisco, including the trash poachers, many of whom are homeless.

Did he mention:
1) The pressure on California's ban on nuclear power power plant construction?
2) The pressure on California's ban on new offshore oil and gas drilling?
3) Assembly Bill 656, the proposed oil and gas severance tax to fund higher education, with emphasis on the science and technology of renewable energy?
4) California's hypocritical, polllution exports to the native Southwest, in the form of contracts for coal-fired power, purchased on the Southwest Grid, and, to Baja California, in the form of LNG Terminals and pipelines bringing natural gas to Southern California, and, possibly, in the future, in the form of LNG Terminals and pipelines in Oregon, California's less wealthy, and, mostly rural, northern neighbor, bringing natural gas to Northern California? Or, to Africa, Indonesia, aboriginal Australia, all of which host uranium mines, and natural gas wells which produce for export to California?"

5) The enormous quanitites of electricity, nuclear and hydroelectric power, most often in the Global South, required to smelt aluminum used to manufacture the electric cars that Gavin Newsom and Arnold Schwarzenegger both promote as the solution to global warming?

No, no, no, no, and no, though many environmentalists would say that pressure on the bans on nuclear power plant construction and offshore oil drilling, and, the oil and gas severance tax to fund renewables, are among the largest environmental issues in California.

Did he mention the environmentally destructive War on Terror, or the U.S. military, the world's largest consumer of fossil fuels, including coal-to-liquid (CTL) transportation fuel? Not on Current TV. And, if Gavin Newsom has ever said a word against the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, the Congo War, or any other front in the perpetual War on Terror, I haven't heard it and don't know anyone else who has.

In 2005, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to fly the U.S. flag over City Hall at half mast, in honor of the Iraq War dead, of whatever nationality, but Mayor Newsom would not allow it."From the article: "I just watched San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's June 11, 2009... more

asherp
added this
5 months ago
|
25 comments

US Green Party Presidential Nominee spent 4th of July in Israeli Prison

Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney returned home today after 6 days being held by the government of Israel while attempting with 21 colleagues to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza on the vessel, the Spirit of Humanity.

“Don’t sign Miss Cynthia don’t sign!” So chanted a boisterous group of Palestinian teens and pre-teens in Beirut’s Shatila Refugee Camp demonstrating support for the Freegaza Humanity boat abductees on the 4th of July.

The students understood that those illegally arrested while in International waters had been offered a “get out of Jail Free” pass if they confessed in writing to violating Israel’s territorial waters.

The Spirit of Humanity boat, trying to bring emergency humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza, was the topic of a lively discussion during a Sabra Shatila Foundation summer school civics lesson on “International law and the Question of Palestine”. The students were interested in the plight of some of their relatives and countryman in Palestine and the continuing siege of Gaza. Some had just finished their Baccalaureate exams and were wondering how they could continue their education given the severe impediments the government of Lebanon places on Palestinian civil rights, and their post exam relief seemed to energize them for the discussion.

A couple of the students had met Cynthia during her recent visits to Lebanon. When they learned that as a Congresswoman, she had introduced articles of impeachment against Bush, was a consistent anti-war voter during her twelve years in Congress, and that no member in Congress had achieved a more consistent, principled, voting record of issues of civil and human rights, including Palestinian rights, they really connected with the subject of the Freegaza aid boat, the Spirit of Humanity and her travails. “Those supporters of Palestine should not accept a false confession and should stay in Jail if necessary. They are patriots” was a commonly expressed sentiment.

The students understood that in refusing to sign the Israeli government prepared “acknowledgement/confession” the Freegaza group acted consistent with International Law. They learned that territorial waters, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is a belt of coastal waters extending at most twelve nautical miles from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it. They learned from media reports that in any case the Humanity was in International waters and that consequently Israel had no right to molest it.

The class adjourned sharing a general consensus that the Spirit of Humanity, enjoyed and will continue to enjoy on every subsequent humanitarian voyage, these freedoms as well as other internationally lawful uses of the sea within contiguous zones, exclusive economic zones, and on the high seas. Needless to report, were it possible for them, the whole class would like to be on the next Freegaza boat.Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney returned home today after 6 days being held by... more