tagged w/ Obama Administration
-
WASHINGTON -- Faced with increasing pressure from religious groups and Catholic lawmakers in both parties over the new federal requirement for birth control coverage, the Obama administration is planning to announce an "accommodation" on Friday aimed at allaying some of the concerns of faith-driven employers. ABC News reported Friday morning that the announcement was "likely" to be made Friday. A source familiar with the deliberations told HuffPost the announcement was imminent.
One idea that has been mentioned is the "Hawaii model," by which an employer who morally objects to contraception could opt out and inform its female employees of where they can get that coverage outside of the employee health plan. In Hawaii, women who decide to directly pay the insurer out of pocket for contraception coverage are not allowed to be charged more than they would pay for their company plan.
ABC News reports that President Barack Obama's compromise would not go as far as the Hawaii plan, but would involve a third-party health company helping to provide contraception coverage. It actually makes financial sense for insurance companies to cover birth control, ABC's Jake Tapper notes, because unwanted pregnancies and resulting complications cost more than contraception and sterilization.
Under the current rule, only churches and other houses of worship are exempt from having to cover contraception at no co-pay for the women they employ. Although the compromise does broaden the conscience clause to exempt any organization who opposes birth control based on religious beliefs, the Catholic bishops have already rejected the Hawaii model as a viable alternative because Catholic organizations don't even want to refer women to contraception coverage.
"All the Founding Fathers saw that, and how far are we removed when we're sitting around talking about, well, maybe the Catholic church could make a referral to a service that it regards as intrinsically immoral," Bishop William Lori, chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, told the National Catholic Reporter. "We're pretty far way from the genius that inspired the founding of this country."
The Catholic bishops have called the new health coverage rule "an attack on religious freedom" and argue that all employers who object to contraception -- not just faith-based organizations -- should be exempt from having to provide it to their employees
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/obama-birth-control_n_1267677.htmlWASHINGTON -- Faced with increasing pressure from religious groups and Catholic... more
-
-
Published on Thursday, February 9, 2012 by Common Dreams
30,000 Domestic Drones to Fill the Sky, Civil Liberties at Risk
FAA Act would raise 'very serious privacy issues'
- Common Dreams staff
A bill has passed in the House and Senate this week that would increase the presence of drones in U.S. civilian airspace. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act requires the FAA to alleviate many current rules on domestic drone authorization. Drones would now be able to fly in the same airspace as commercial airliners, private planes, and cargo jets. Up to 30,000 drones could be allowed in U.S. airspace by the end of the decade.
The Senate passed the bill on Monday, 75-20 and allots $63.4 billion to the FAA. Obama is expected to sign it into law.
ACLU, among other civil liberties groups, is expressing grave concern for civilian privacy, as the legislation does not restrict drone surveillance activities by police and federal government agencies.
* * *
ACLU states:
As we explained in our recent report, drone technology is advancing by leaps and bounds, and there is a lot of pent-up demand for them within the law enforcement community. But, domestic deployment of unmanned aircraft for surveillance purposes has largely been blocked so far by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which is rightly concerned about the safety effects of filling our skies with flying robots (which crash significantly more often than manned aircraft).[...]
Unfortunately, nothing in the bill would address the very serious privacy issues raised by drone aircraft. This bill would push the nation willy-nilly toward an era of aerial surveillance without any steps to protect the traditional privacy that Americans have always enjoyed and expected.[...]
We don’t want to wonder, every time we step out our front door, whether some eye in the sky is watching our every move. [...]
Here are details on what the bill would do in terms of drones:
Require the FAA to simplify and speed up the process by which it issues permission to government agencies to operate drones. It must do this within 90 days. The FAA has already been working on a set of proposed regulations to loosen the rules around drones, reportedly set for release in the spring of 2012.
Require the FAA to allow “a government public safety agency” to operate any drone weighing 4.4 pounds or less as long as certain conditions are met (within line of sight, during the day, below 400 feet in altitude, and only in safe categories of airspace).Nano Hummingbird Surveillance Drone
Require the FAA to establish a pilot project within six months to create six test zones for integrating drones “into the national airspace system.”
Require the FAA to create a comprehensive plan “to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system.” “Civil” drones means those operated by the private sector; currently it is all but impossible for any non-government entity, except for hobbyists, to get permission to fly drones (for-profit use of drones is banned). Industry groups and their congressional supporters see this as a potential area for growth. Congress specifies that the plan must provide for the integration of drones into the national airspace system “as soon as practicable, but not later than September 30, 2015.” The FAA has nine months to create the plan. The FAA is also required to create a “5-year roadmap for the introduction” of civil drones into the national airspace.
Unfortunately, nothing in the bill would address the very serious privacy issues raised by drone aircraft. This bill would push the nation willy-nilly toward an era of aerial surveillance without any steps to protect the traditional privacy that Americans have always enjoyed and expected.
Require the FAA to publish a final rule within 18 months after the comprehensive plan is submitted, “that will allow” civil operation of small (under 55 pounds) drones in the national airspace, and a proposed rule for carrying out the comprehensive plan.
* * *
TPM reports:
The federal government is also facing a lawsuit from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a watchdog group that is asking for the FAA to release records on the almost-300 agencies that have authorization to operate drones domestically. Jennifer Lynch, an attorney with the EFF who brought the case, told TPM that this bill makes their suit even more important. “I think the fact that Congress is pressuring the FAA to expand its UAS program through the FAA Reauthorization Act only reinforces the need for these records,” Lynch said. “It’s important that we learn more about how the federal government and state and local law enforcement agencies are already using UASs before we expand their use further. The privacy concerns posed by the use of drones for domestic surveillance are too great to excuse the FAA’s lack of transparency on this issue.”
(Published on Thursday, February 9, 2012 by Common Dreams
30,000 Domestic Drones to... more
-
-
In front of the White House a man is sitting on a park bench in the throes of depression. He is surrounded by all 43 presidents. In the forefront, purposefully ignoring the depressed man is President Obama, whose right foot is stepping on the Constitution. James Madison is next to Obama, pleading with him to stop.
http://www.occupythegame.com/tag/jon-naughton/In front of the White House a man is sitting on a park bench in the throes of... more
-
-
By NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** A 'Super' reversal: Anyone who is surprised by the Obama campaign's announcement last night that it's encouraging Democratic donors to give money to the pro-Obama Super PAC Priorities USA Action -- after previously criticizing this practice -- wasn't paying attention in 2008. Back then, remember, Obama reversed himself and opted out of public financing for the general election, enabling his campaign to raise some $750 million to win the presidency. That reversal then and this reversal now tell us two important things about Obama and modern presidential politics. One, it's a losing proposition to always put principle above winning. Indeed, the rise of these Super PACs (like Karl Rove's American Crossroads, the pro-Romney Restore Our Future, and the Sheldon Adelson-backed Winning Our Future) could very well wipe out any fundraising advantage the incumbent enjoys in 2012. And two, as the L.A. Times' Mark Barabak points out, voters rarely care about these kind of process stories. After all, did Obama lose a single vote in '08 due to his public-financing reversal?
*** And ‘Super’ hypocrisy: But make no mistake: The White House is going to receive plenty of heat -- from good-government groups, liberals, and the media -- for this reversal. Why? Because after all of its criticism of Citizens United and Super PACs, last night’s announcement looks hypocritical no matter how you try and rationalize it. Three additional things seem to be going on with this change in policy: 1) The Obama campaign appears to be spooked by the $30 million the pro-Romney Restore Our Future raised in 2011; 2) Democratic donors who wanted to start giving to Super PACs were complaining; and 3) The blessing from the Obama campaign opens the spigot for the Democratic House and Senate Super PACs who had been struggling to raise money since the titular head of the party spent the last year and half demonizing these groups. What’s more, his decision won’t just be a financial boon for the struggling Democratic Super PACs; it’s going to be a seal of approval for the Republican Super PACs. They now have been legitimized by the president and their effectiveness has been highlighted by the Obama campaign. The financial nuclear arms race is now afoot. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/07/10340118-first-thoughts-a-super-reversalBy NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** A... more
-
-
WASHINGTON — Declaring the American dream under siege, President Barack Obama delivered a populist challenge Tuesday night to shrink the gap between rich and poor, promising to tax the wealthy more and help jobless Americans get work and hang onto their homes. Seeking re-election and needing results, the president invited Republicans to join him but warned, "I intend to fight."
In an emphatic State of the Union address, Obama said ensuring a fair shot for all Americans is "the defining issue of our time." He said the economy is finally recovering from a deep and painful recession and he will fight any effort to return to policies that brought it low.
"We've come too far to turn back now," he declared.
Obama outlined a vastly different vision for fixing the country than the one pressed by the Republicans confronting him in Congress and fighting to take his job in the November election. He pleaded for an active government that ensures economic fairness for everyone, just as his opponents demand that the government back off and let the free market rule. http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/obama-challenges-shrink-gap-1314599.htmlWASHINGTON — Declaring the American dream under siege, President Barack Obama... more
-
-
This video, “Change Happened,” is about to go viral, and it’s being highlighted by everyone from Dan Savage to Andrew Sullivan. It’s amazing, inspirational, and true.
Frankly, there’s so much more that could have been put into it, but I commend video’s creator, “Digitocalypse.”
Dan Savage says it “serves as a good antidote to the lazy Democratic claim that President Obama has done nothing to help the country since he was elected,” while Andrew Sullivan merely commented that it’s, “[k]ind of like my Newsweek piece, but gayer and as a video.”
Please, won’t you share this around, too?
http://tinyurl.com/7drwbj7This video, “Change Happened,” is about to go viral, and it’s being... more
-
-
LOrion
-
added this
-
17 days ago
- |
-
Barack Obama used his recess powers to appoint a head for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three new radical members of the NLRB today despite the fact that the senate was in session yesterday.
The Washington Times reported:
President Obama used his recess appointment powers Wednesday to name a head for the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three new members to the National Labor Relations Board — moves Republican lawmakers said amounted to an unconstitutional power grab.
The president acted just a day after the Senate held a session — breaking with at least three different precedents that said the Senate must be in recess for at least three days for the president to exercise his appointment power. Mr. Obama himself was part of two of those precedents, both during his time in the Senate and again in 2010 when one of his administration’s top constitutional lawyers made the argument for the three-day waiting period to the Supreme Court.
Mr. Obama tapped former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to head the CFPB, and named three others to the labor board — all of which had been stymied by congressional Republicans who said Mr. Obama is accruing too much power to himself through those two agencies.
Of course, the democrat-media complex will ignore this violation of justice as if it never happened.
Being a far left socialist has its perks.
The recess appointments are almost certain to be challenged in court.
UPDATE: Republican Leader Senator Mitch McConnell issued a statement today following Obama’s latest power grab.
U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell issued the following statement today regarding the President’s unprecedented recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board:
“Just hours after he circumvented the American people by ‘recess’ appointing Richard Cordray to the CFPB, the President has upped the ante by making several additional recess appointments, this time to the NLRB. Although all of these appointments potentially raise legal and constitutional questions, the NLRB appointments are particularly egregious. Because the President waited to nominate Sharon Block and Richard Griffin until just two days before the Senate was scheduled to adjourn last month, neither has undergone a single confirmation hearing or a single day of debate by the representatives of the American people. Congress has a constitutional duty to examine presidential nominees, a responsibility that serves as a check on executive power. But what the President did today sets a terrible precedent that could allow any future President to completely cut the Senate out of the confirmation process, appointing his nominees immediately after sending their names up to Congress. This was surely not what the framers had in mind when they required the President to seek the advice and consent of the Senate in making appointments.”
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/king-obama-takes-control-breaks-rules-to-make-recess-appointments-because-he-wants-to/Barack Obama used his recess powers to appoint a head for the Consumer Financial... more
-
-
;postID=4519408690619851729
-
-
Barack Obama rejected the controversial Keystone tar sands pipeline on Wednesday, making good on a promise not to give in to a Republican ultimatum on the project.
The announcement from the state department – which was expected – was hailed by environmentalists as a victory.
But it sets up an election-year confrontation over the pipeline, which was to carry carbon-heavy crude from the tar sands of Alberta across the American heartland to refineries on the Texas coast.
However, TransCanada, the Canadian company which was seeking to build the pipeline, will be allowed to re-apply for permission to go ahead with the project. State department official Kerri-Anne Jones, in a conference call, said there was a chance officials could use information from the original application, speeding up the permit process.
But she would not commit to a specific time frame for reviewing a new TransCanada pipeline project.
"The Department's denial of the permit application does not preclude any subsequent permit application or applications for similar projects," the state department said in a statement said.
Obama, in his statement, pinned the blame for the decision on the Republicans for trying to push the administration to an earlier deadline. "The rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline's impact, he said. "This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the state department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people."
He said officials would continue to explore new pipeline routes
Environmental groups immediately hailed the decision as David versus Goliath victory for an unlikely coalition between national activists and Nebraska landowners opposed to the pipeline's route across an ecologically sensitive area known as the Sand Hills.
Industry groups – and Republicans – said the decision showed Obama did not care about jobs. There was also disappointment from the Canadian government, which had pushed hard for the pipeline.
As news spread on Wednesday of a forthcoming announcement, Bill McKibben, the environmentalist who galvanised opposition to the pipeline, said: "Assuming that what we're hearing is true, this isn't just the right call, it's the brave call. The knock on Barack Obama from many quarters has been that he's too conciliatory. But here, in the face of a naked threat from Big Oil to exact 'huge political consequences' he's stood up strong."
Damon Moglen, the climate campaigner of Friends of the Earth, cast the decision as an epic victory. When the project was first proposed, in August 2008, "No one thought we could win," he said
Industry groups said Obama was squandering a chance to create jobs through pipeline construction, and warned he would rue his decision come election day.
"This political decision offers hard evidence that creating jobs is not a high priority for this administration," said Tom Donohue, president of the Chamber of Commerce, which has pushed hard for the pipeline.
Mitt Romney, the Republican frontrunner, said the decision showed a "lack of seriousness" about bringing down unemployment, and that Obama was pandering to his political base.
Republicans in Congress echoed the jobs argument, and said they would try and put forward new legislation to push the project forward.
"President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs," a spokesman for Republican house speaker John Boehner said.
Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper has also pushed hard for the pipeline, telling the CBC earlier this week that the administration's earlier delays were made for "very bad political reasons".
However, administration officials argued that Republicans would have to take some of the blame for the cancellation of the project.
The White House had warned repeatedly that it would be forced to turn down the nearly 1,700 mile pipeline, after Congress voted last month to give the administration a tight 60-day deadline to render its decision.
White House spokesman Jay Carney made it clear on Tuesday that Obama would not be stampeded into approving the project. "There was an attempt to short-circut the review process in a way that does not allow the kind of careful consideration of all the competing criteria here that needs to be done," he said. "It's a fallacy to suggest that the president would sign into law something when there isn't even an alternate route identified in Nebraska," he said.
Kerri-Ann Jones, the state department official overseeing the pipeline application, rejected the idea that Obama's decision would compromise America's energy security, or that the decision was politically motivated. "This decision today doesn't make our commitment to energy independence and energy security any less of a priority," she told a conference call with reporters.
Instead, she – like the White House – put the blame squarely on Congress setting a February 21 deadline on a decision. "We felt the imposition of a deadline would complicate the process," Jones said. "The legislation really did not give us enough time to do a responsible evaluation."
The state department had earlier delayed a decision for up to a year, saying it needed to review additional routes through Nebraska.
That decision, which the state department attributed to intense grassroots opposition from Nebraska, was a political gift to Obama, saving him from making a decision on a project which had been cast as a choice between jobs or the environment.
The state department said at the time that the review, including a search for alternate routes across Nebraska, would likely delay a final decision until 2013.
TransCanada had begun to work with officials in Nebraska on finding a new path around the Sand Hills, adding about 100 additional miles to the route. Officials had indicated earlier they were close to agreeing on a new route.
But activists in Nebraska and Washington warned that they would be as ready to fight off a new tar sands pipeline. "If they do reapply, TransCanada will face the same valid public concerns and fierce opposition as the first time," said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, a campaigner for the Natural Resources Defence Council in Washington. "If they do reapply, TransCanada will face the same valid public concerns and fierce opposition as the first time."Barack Obama rejected the controversial Keystone tar sands pipeline on Wednesday,... more
-
-
pdy
-
added this
-
22 days ago
- |
-
By Eric W. Dolan
Monday, January 16, 2012
Less than a month after the National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law, President Barack Obama faces a lawsuit because of its highly controversial provisions regarding the detention of suspected terrorists.
Attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran filed a complaint against Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta Friday in the Southern U.S. District Court in New York City on behalf of journalist Chris Hedges. The complaint states that the law violates the First and Fifth Amendments.
The $662 billion defense spending bill contained a controversial section that required terrorism suspects to be detained by the military without trial, regardless of where they were captured.
Despite language in the law that states it does not affect existing authorities relating to the detention of U.S. citizens or others captured within the U.S., Hedges claims that it still allows the government to detain Americans indefinitely without trial.
“I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge,” Hedges explained at TruthDig. “I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have ‘disappeared’ into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.”
While signing the bill, Obama issued a signing statement in which he pledged that the new laws would not violate Americans’ constitutional rights. But human rights advocates said that did not prevent future administrations from abusing the law.
The complaint alleges that Hedges could fall within the scope of the law. As part of his job as a journalist, he has direct communications with persons who are likely to be deemed engaged in hostilities with the United States. The detention provisions cover anyone who has “substantially supported” or “directly supported” “al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”
Hedges said at TruthDig that the controversial bill passed “because the corporations, seeing the unrest in the streets, knowing that things are about to get much worse, worrying that the Occupy movement will expand, do not trust the police to protect them. They want to be able to call in the Army. And now they can.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/16/journalist-chris-hedges-sues-obama-over-national-defense-authorization-act/
"Take your Civil Liberties, at no Cost!!!"By Eric W. Dolan
Monday, January 16, 2012
Less than a month after the National... more
-
-
KB723
-
added this
-
24 days ago
- |
-
Barack Obama is fighting wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Libya. He is spending more on the US military than any previous president. If he serves for eight years as president, he will spend over $8 trillion on defence, including the hidden costs of the war economy. Fifty per cent of all US tax dollars is spent on the US military. America spends more on defence than the combined total military budget of every other country in the world. SEE the brilliant film Lifting the Veil on Obama and capitalist "democracy": http://bit.ly/hH2BCHBarack Obama is fighting wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Libya. He is spending... more
-
-
On New Year's Eve, President Obama signed into law a bill that eliminates one of the fundamental protections of the U.S. Constitution:
The right for people not to be detained indefinitely by the government without being formally convicted of crimes.
This erosion of the Constitution, which came in the form of new language in the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), allows the government to hold anyone suspected of being associated with terrorism indefinitely, without any form of due process.
No indictment.
No judge or jury.
No evidence.
No trial.
Just an indefinite jail sentence.
In other words:
If someone in the government suspects that you're somehow associated with terrorism, you can be jailed indefinitely in a military prison.
Defenders of this language — including Senators John McCain (R) and Carl Lavin (D), who sponsored it — position it as being tough on terrorism.
And that's fine: Everyone wants to be tough on terrorism.
There are ways of being tough on terrorism that preserve basic rights. Unfortunately, this isn't one of them.
If the government and military never made mistakes--if they never suspected people of being associated with terrorism who aren't actually associated with terrorism--then this language wouldn't be so scary.
But, like anyone else, governments and armed-forces personnel do make mistakes.
Frequently.
So removing the intelligent and reasonable requirement that government suspicions be subjected to due process is frightening.
Of course, in signing the bill, President Obama promised that he would never use it to detain Americans.
While that's comforting, other Presidents may not feel compelled to honor that promise. And human-rights activists who don't believe that basic human rights apply only to American citizens are justifiably upset that America can now detain anyone indefinitely without due process.
(And, by the way, the common pushback that the bill cannot be used to detain Americans is a crock. The bill clearly states that Americans are not "required" to be detained indefinitely. Not being "required" to do something, and "preventing" something are quite different.)
To be clear: This bill isn't just tough on terrorism. It overturns a key part of the Constitution. And it presumes that those who serve in the government and military are always omniscient and perfect and will always use their power for the good of all citizens.
And that presumption, as everyone who has ever watched our government in action knows, is laughable.
Will America be transformed into a brutal police-state by this one bill? Probably not. But the constitutional protections and other checks-and-balances that separate democracies from authoritarian states are rarely eliminated in one fell swoop.
Rather, theses protections are eliminated gradually, by governments and rulers who incrementally grant themselves ever more power.
Taken individually, each incremental change may seem well-meaning and justifiable.
But, gradually, the checks-and-balances that form the basis of a fair society are eliminated.
In signing the NDAA bill, President Obama was presumably yielding to political expediency. The bill, after all, had military funding attached.
But that's no excuse.
The Presidential veto is supposed to function as a critical check-and-balance in our system, to be invoked when Congress collectively goes insane.
And this is one bill that Obama should have vetoed.On New Year's Eve, President Obama signed into law a bill that eliminates one of... more
-
-
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday, but is not yet building a bomb and called for continued diplomatic and economic pressure to persuade Tehran not to take that step.
As he has previously, Panetta cautioned against a unilateral strike by Israel against Iran's nuclear facilities, saying the action could trigger Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces in the region.
"We have common cause here" with Israel, he said. "And the better approach is for us to work together."
Panetta's remarks on CBS' Face the Nation, which were taped Friday and aired Sunday, reflect the long-held view of the Obama administration that Iran is not yet committed to building a nuclear arsenal, only to creating the industrial and scientific capacity to allow one if its leaders to decide to take that final step.
(more at link)Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear... more
-
-
(FOX19) – I told you Wednesday night that in 2007 the New Republic magazine published copies of the Ron Paul Report, Ron Paul Strategy Guide, etc.
In those newsletters were some passages that could be deemed racist and certainly inappropriate.
I also pointed out that the author of those articles, James Kirchick, mentions that none of the racist newsletters have a byline, except for one.
The only problem, back in 2007, he did not disclose the name of that writer or which edition he or she wrote, until today.
http://runronpaul.com/interest/breaking-author-of-ron-paul-racist-newsletters-revealed/(FOX19) – I told you Wednesday night that in 2007 the New Republic magazine... more
-
-
Birthers are hailing a decision by a judge in Georgia that could see Barack Obama struck from the presidential state ballot if Obama fails to prove that he fulfils the ‘natural born citizen’ constitutional requirement to be President.
“Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi in the Office of State Administrative Hearings denied a motion by Obama asking to dismiss the complaint that seeks to keep his name off the state ballot during the March presidential primary. The judge’s decision now sets the stage for a Jan. 26 hearing on the issue in Fulton County,” reports the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer.
The complaint was originally filed by Orly Taitz on behalf of a Georgia resident. Taitz, a prominent ‘birther’ who previously represented two soldiers who refused to deploy to Afghanistan over their doubts that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible to be commander in chief, lauded the judge’s ruling.
“I can now depose Obama and everybody else (i)nvolved without any impediment,” the California attorney posted on her website.
Taitz, along with several other Georgia residents, will now be able to present their evidence that Obama was not born in the United States in a court of law – unless the ruling is overturned on appeal before January 26.
The case, Farrar v Obama, was also brought by J. Mark Hatfield, a Republican state representative who last year failed to pass a bill that would have required presidential candidates to submit proof of qualifications.
“The Georgia Election Code (the “Code”) mandates that “[e]very candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought,” stated the ruling in response to President Obama’s attempt to have the case dismissed.
Despite the White House being forced to release a purported copy of Obama’s birth certificate last year, the controversy has yet to completely die down.
One time Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump repeatedly raised questions surrounding Obama’s background during the spring of 2011 before going cold on the issue, a move prominent ‘birther’ and author Jerome Corsi claimed was an organized political stunt to neutralize the issue.
The release of Corsi’s best-selling book, Where’s the Birth Certificate?, coincided with the White House deciding to release Obama’s alleged long form birth certificate. Corsi points to evidence that the document is a forgery created using modern computer techniques and has numerous discrepancies with a genuine 1961 birth certificate created by a typewriter.
http://www.infowars.com/birthers-hail-judges-decision-that-could-depose-obama/Birthers are hailing a decision by a judge in Georgia that could see Barack Obama... more
-
-
US President Barack Obama has put pen to paper on a $662 billion defense bill despite serious reservations from critics over the proposed handling of terror suspects. The bill also brought into effect a new round of strict sanctions against Iran.
Some provisions of the bill raise serious concerns among human rights advocates, who argue that they could allow indefinite detention and interrogation of any American citizen suspected to be linked to terrorism. They say it would deny US citizens legal rights protected by the Constitution.
After the bill was approved by Congress in December, Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch said: “By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”
Indeed, President Obama himself has expressed worries about the very legislation he has signed, saying he does not agree with all of it.
“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” he said in Hawaii, where he is spending his vacation. “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”
Initially the White House threatened to veto the legislation but then pulled back after Congress made last-minute revisions.
Supporters of the legislation have said it codifies current arrangements such as the indefinite detention of terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
Obama also brought into force the latest round of tough sanctions against Iran, targeting its Central Bank in an effort to block Tehran’s ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program.
The new sanctions could make it almost impossible for most refiners to buy crude from Iran, whose economy is mostly dependent on its oil exports.
Author and radio host Stephen Lendman told RT the move may lead to a US war against Iran.
“Obama is imperial. He is going for one county in the Middle East after another. His policy is ravaging the world,” he claimed.
Lendman says that should the war against Iran start, the entire region could be enflamed. “Russia and China have strategic interests in the region. They may get involved to protect them.”
He believes the real targets for the United States are Russia, because of its military strength, and China, because of its growing economic strength “We are talking about the clash of the Titans. Sooner or later that clash is coming,” he concluded.
http://rt.com/news/obama-signs-defense-bill-087/US President Barack Obama has put pen to paper on a $662 billion defense bill despite... more
-
-
-
Monday night's "Daily Show" dealt with President Barack Obama officially launching his 2012 re-election campaign, to Jon Stewart's delight.
"He's not breaking up with us!" he squealed.
But the campaign video President Obama released on Friday lacked the vigor and inspiration of his 2008 campaign. Instead, he featured seemingly exhausted supporters who, in Stewart's opinion, don't seem to like him or trust him, but ask "what are you going to do?"
"How do we go from 'Yes we can' to 'You know, whatever'?," Stewart asked
But it's harder than it looks to seek re-election. In 2008 Obama said he wanted transparency and accountability in the White House, but now it's hard for him to run on the same platform. In fact, he recently received a transparency award and didn't invite the press. Stewart kind of understood what was going on there:
"When you were running for the White House, you wanted to know what the White House was hiding. Now you live in the White House and you want everyone to stop being so f***ing nosey." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/jon-stewart-mocks-obama-2012-campaign-video_n_844868.htmlMonday night's "Daily Show" dealt with President Barack Obama... more
-
-
Yes!!! Let's face it, like Obama or not, that is who the left has running and it simply does no good to have Cenk slamming Obama for some new violation of his far left idealism every show. I don't think I've seen a show yet where he hasn't come across pissed about something. Well Cenk consider this, if Obama piss's u off, imagine if all your whining suppresses some left wingers to sit home and one of those right wing wacko's gets elected, where will you and all of us be then? Huh? Up a shits creek that's where. They will take a soft majority of 5-4 in the supreme to probably a 6-3 strong one if the right assumes power. Then where will your far left progressive attitude be? You know 80% of what we can get through Obama is better then nothing at all or didn't you learn that lesson back in the sand box when you were young. Is Obama perfect? NO! Has he made me frustrated at times, YES! Have I ever entertained the idea of voting for a right wing wacko like you did on national tv, HELL NO! Who's side are you on MR. Uygur? If you want me and my family to continue to tune in you need to temper your daily wrath to maybe the last 10-15 mins of the show or something, I don't want a yes man no, but I don't want a sour puss either. Cenk maybe take your boss's lead in how you carry yourself forward. When you had V.P Gore on a few nights ago while he expressed some dissatisfaction with Obama and some of his positions he has taken or allowed to pass, he did it with class, style and reasonable restraint and never ever forgetting that he's our man, he's the one we have in the race, and don't be so dumb to cut your nose off to spite your face. Geez, Cenk how stupid is it to go so negative on Obama day after day 12 months out, when all the effect it will have is maybe suppressing voters on our side. You know after he gets in again he doesn't have to worry about re-election, maybe then we will get the 100% 2008 Obama like we all wanted, but even if he still only gives us the 80% like he is giving us now, don't you think it's 10 times better then what we would ever get with any of the crazy crack pot rightie wankers could or would be giving us, damn Cenk isn't that elementary or what! Don't sink my hopes and dreams just cause your not getting every one of your far left ideals met! My family needs some of the welfare sadly I know Obama will sponsor and advocate for where no one on the right, even a Ron Paul would be for, so hold your tongue a little bit till after we get him elected Mr Ungur, then go verbally postal all you want on him. Please I implore you to consider the macro aspects here not simply the point of view of the far left progressive movement. respectfully yours John F. (a committed but moderate left winger)Yes!!! Let's face it, like Obama or not, that is who the left has running and it... more
-
-
"A year on, the [Obama] administration continues to look the other way when it comes to full disclosure of and remedy for human rights violations perpetrated by the U.S.A. in the name of countering terrorism." Amnesty International
What is Torture? It can be physical or physchological, quick or unhurried. It implies lasting trauma unbefitting a human. The U.N. defines torture as: " ...any act by which severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession"" (U.N. Convention Against Torture).
By this definition the U.S. continues to practice torture. Yes, Obama outlawed some especially shocking forms of torture -- waterboarding, for example -- but other types of torture were not labeled "torture" and thus continue.
Surprisingly, this fact was recently discussed at length in The New York Times, under an Op-Ed piece appropriately entitled Torture's Loopholes. In it, an ex-interrogator explains some of the more glaring examples of how the U.S. currently tortures and argues for the practices to end. In reference to Obama's vow to end the systematic, obscene torture under Bush, the article states: "the changes were not as drastic as most Americans think, and elements of our interrogation policy continue to be both inhumane and counterproductive."
The author says bluntly, "If I were to return to one of the war zones today" I would still be allowed to abuse [torture] prisoners." The article also explains how the U.S. "legally" continues a practice that thousands of people in the U.S. prison system already know to be psychological torture: "extended solitary confinement is torture, as confirmed by many scientific studies. Even the initial 30 days of isolation could be considered abuse [torture]."
Yet another blatant form of torture that Obama refused to stop practicing is "extraordinary rendition," or what critics call "outsourcing torture." This is the practice of flying a prisoner to a country where torture is routinely practiced, so that the prisoner can be interrogated. As reported by The New York Times: "The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration's practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but pledges to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured, administration officials said Monday." (August 24, 2009).
Human rights groups instantly called Obama's bluff: why transport terrorism suspects to other countries at all? If not for the fact that torture and other "harsh interrogation methods" are routinely practiced there? No justifiable answer has been given to these questions.
Another common way the U.S. continues to outsource torture is performed in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. There, the U.S. military often arrests suspects and hands over the interrogation duties to Iraqi or Afghan security forces, knowing full well that they regularly torture (this was also the strategy in the Vietnam war). Unfortunately, handing over someone to be tortured means you are also guilty of the crime.
A less obvious form of torture is the concept of "indefinite detention" -- holding someone in prison indefinitely without a trial. The terrible experience of hopelessness that a victim of this crime experiences, over years, is a profound form of psychological torture. This is one of the reasons why the US Constitution guarantees due process -- a legal detail that the Obama administration continues to ignore.
Other forms of torture commonly practiced -- since they are part of the Military's updated Field Manual -- are "stress positions [shackling prisoners in painful positions for extended periods of time], putting detainees into close confinement or environmental manipulation [hot or frigid rooms]" Also mentioned as torture is sleep deprivation, a tactic used in combination with 20-hour interrogation sessions. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Torture-Never-Stopped-Unde-by-shamus-cooke-"A year on, the [Obama] administration continues to look the other way when it... more
-
