supreme court cases: Temmuz 2012

To contact us Click HERE

Maligned for Doing the Right Thing
by Stephen Lendman
Twice Cynthia McKinney lost her congressional seat for supporting Palestinian rights.
Doing the right thing is costly. Going along with what's wrong pays well. Staying in government depends on it. McKinney is too principled to play that game.
The Israeli Lobby went all out to get her. Ruining her political career became policy. Ariel Sharon even bragged about it on an earlier visit to Georgia. McKinney lives there. It's her home state.
Virtually no one in Congress criticizes Israel. Doing so risks being a career ender.
A TV commercial once showed Mother Nature's wrath following a tag line saying "It's not nice to fool" her.
The Israeli Lobby practically matches her blow for blow.
Democratic National Committee (DNC) member Evelyn Garcia felt its sting. A July 3 Palm Beach Post article explained.
Earlier emails she wrote surfaced. She took a principled stand. She criticized Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Her comments were accurate and honorable. Pressure forced her DNC resignation.
She's a candidate for Florida's House of Representatives. She's the eldest child of Haitian immigrants.
She likely knows its history of adversity and anguish. Living in South Florida avoids its harshness. She appreciates how oppressed people suffer and said so.
News broke about her criticism at the wrong time.
On August 14, voters will accept or reject her bid to represent Florida's District 88. It includes parts of West Palm Beach and Riviera Beach.
She'll continue campaigning. She and three other Democrats vie for the same seat. Republican challengers are absent. The August 14 winner will represent District 88 post-November elections.
While holding firm on moral principles, she apologized for her remarks. Doing so is politically correct. Honor and integrity on sensitive topics and politics don't mix.
It goes with the territory. Consequences follow standing up for what's right.
Her emails were sent anonymously to local Democratic party leaders. Some were written to a South Florida congressional aide.
On July 26, 2011, she said:
"The continued Israeli occupation of Palestine is ugly on moral, ethical, religious and legal grounds."
"Palestinians had nothing to do with the holocaust and it is time that this guilt trip was taken off their backs….And I deeply resent U.S. taxpayer funds being used to continue Israeli aggression."
On May 24, 2011, she wrote:
"Slavery was ended, apartheid was ended and so this occupation must end."
County Democratic party chairman Mark Siegel expressed outrage, saying:
"I was shocked by her choice of words." She never showed "animus toward Jews she encountered in her work for the party."
She showed none in her emails.
County commissioner Burt Aaronson also expressed anger, saying:
"She can say what she wants but not as an executive of the Democratic Party. The party, locally, statewide and nationally, supports the state of Israel."
"I am personally offended as a Jew, as a Democrat and as a supporter of the state of Israel. The Democratic Party is better off without her."
Criticism of Israel is unrelated to views about Jews. Siegel and Aaronson know it. So do other party leaders. Speaking forthrightly like Garcia isn't part of their portfolio.
Israel is a political state. It's also an apartheid one. It's accountable for its actions under international laws and its own. Criticizing its lawless behavior is justifiable and principled. Failure to do so is dishonorable and cowardly.
In 2008, Garcia was elected to the DNC. The same year, she served as a party delegate at its Denver national convention.
On June 29, she resigned expressing "great sadness and a heavy heart." She was dismayed that private emails were released "by someone I believed was my friend."
"In passionately advocating my position supporting the rights of people I felt were being harmed, I used language that I now regret."
"The gist of the conversation had to do with my concern for innocent people being oppressed, but such support for the oppressed does not diminish my support for the good people of Israel."
Separately, she emailed the Palm Beach Post, saying:
"My comments were not only inappropriate and hurtful, they are exactly the kind of ugly rhetoric that is not conducive to the overall atmosphere needed to create a prosperous peace and security for both parties."
"I apologize to anyone I offended and to my friends in the Democratic Party, in particular, members of the Jewish faith whom I have worked with for years."
"My continued presence would merely serve as a distraction to the good work of Democrats and it is for this reason I have submitted my resignation."
In criticizing Israel, she spoke her heart and conscience. In apologizing, she commented like a political candidate seeking votes.
Serving at federal, state or local levels and doing the right thing is incompatible.
A Final Comment
Mondoweiss.net covered this story several times. It published further Garcia comments made on July 6, saying:
Her private emails in question went to Lauren Londner and Dan Liftman. Why did either or both individuals release them months later to "members of an unelected Palm Beach County political action group," BIZPAC?
It calls itself Palm Beach County's "voice of business in the political arena."
Who authorized their release to BIZPAC, she asked? "Was it Diana Demarest, former Palm Beach County Democratic Party Secretary, or another member or surrogate of 'the PAC?' "
"What was their intended purpose? Was it to spur a debate about US policy in the Middle East? Did they not anticipate the barrage of hate mail and threats I've been receiving from places as far away from Palm Beach County as Oklahoma?"
"And, who are 'they' anyway and what do 'they' stand for? Did this unelected so-called leadership demonstrate sound leadership in contributing to tactics which appear to be pathetic attempts to silence or crush an opposing point of view?"
"Are they raising issues of loyalty and patriotism? "Or, did they really intend a conversation among the wider electorate of the extent to which U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing an illegal occupation by Israel? And, who says it's an occupation and illegal?"
"Well, let me count the ways: numerous United Nations resolutions, J Street, Jewish Voice for Peace, the Presbyterian Church, CodePink, religious and political leaders and public opinion worldwide."
She added that she holds BIZPAC responsible for what happened. Hate threats against her are totally uncalled for. So are anti-Semitism accusations.
Doing so presents a chance to publicly discuss why US taxpayers have to "subsidize the illegal, immoral occupation of Palestinian territories. How about" airing that topic "instead of persecuting one messenger?"
Don't Palestinians have rights? Aren't they entitled to a homeland like Jews?
She stressed her support for "freedom, human rights, civil rights, and the right to self-determination."
She said she fought anti-Semitism since high school. In whatever capacity ahead, she intends "to remain true to these principles."
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Supreme Court Bars Mandatory Life Sentences for Juveniles

To contact us Click HERE
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday in the case of Miller v. Alabama that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles convicted of homicide are unconstitutional. At the heart of the Court’s opinion is the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, forbidding “cruel and unusual punishment.” Significantly, the Court held that states may not require judges to institute life sentences without the possibility of parole, but did not institute a flat ban on such sentences, even though the ramblings of the dissenting justices would suggest otherwise.

The defendants in these consolidated cases were both fourteen years old at the time of their crimes. Kuntrell Jackson was charged with felony murder after a friend shot a store clerk at the video store they were attempting to rob. The evidence is inconclusive as to whether or not Jackson threatened the store clerk, but it is undisputed that he did not pull the trigger. The other defendant, Evan Miller, was the product of an abusive household and multiple foster homes. Miller dealt the decisive blow that killed his mother’s drug dealer while under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

The prosecutor who charged Miller had the option of pursuing the case in juvenile court, but instead tried him as an adult and triggered the mandatory life without parole rule passed by the Alabama legislature. In Alabama and Arkansas, anyone convicted of murder is subject to life without parole, without regard for age or any other potentially mitigating factor. A total of twenty-nine states impose mandatory life without parole sentences on juveniles convicted for murder. As of today, there are more than 2,500 prisoners serving life without parole sentences for crimes they committed as children.

Monday’s historic ruling is the most recent in a line of cases bringing the United States closer – but far from all the way – to conforming with international human rights norms regarding criminal punishment, particularly with regard to children. In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to impose a capital sentence on a juvenile. Two years ago, the Court ruled in Graham v. Florida that juveniles charged with nonviolent offenses may not be sentenced to life without parole under the Eighth Amendment. Striking down the state laws that impose an automatic life without parole sentence on juveniles tried for murder was a natural next step in this progression.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kagan harkens back to the Court’s reasoning in Roper and Graham, which suggested that none of the goals of criminal punishment – deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, or rehabilitation – could justify sentences for juveniles as harsh as those meted out to adults. Kagan describes important distinctions between juvenile and adult offenders, including juveniles’ “underdeveloped sense of responsibility,” the incomplete development of the behavior-control part of their brains, increased vulnerability to negative influences, and “less fixed” character traits. Highlighting the importance the Court has previously placed on individualized sentencing schemes, she writes, “Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features – among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences.” She adds that the mandatory scheme also precludes consideration of a juvenile offender’s home environments, the circumstances of his crime, the ways in which his immaturity can affect the prosecution itself, and the possibility of rehabilitation, which ought to be most relevant when the offender is a child.

Three justices wrote separate dissents supporting the mandatory sentencing laws. Chief Justice Roberts claims that since these sentences are so commonplace, there is no national consensus for striking them down. Essentially, the Chief Justice believes that since too many states have been wrong on this issue the Supreme Court should let these laws stand.

Justice Alito takes us down a slippery slope in his dissent, worrying that the Court’s narrow ruling would serve to free a hypothetical 17-½-year-old who “sets off a bomb in a crowded mall or guns down a dozen students.” This is misleading, since Alito’s teenaged terrorist could still be sentenced to life without parole after today’s ruling. But Alito isn’t the only one on the highest court that seems a little paranoid.

Justice Thomas believes the Eighth Amendment only serves to prohibit “torturous methods of punishment.” He vehemently argues in his dissent that “even accepting the Court’s precedents, the Court’s holding [today] is unsupportable.” It is well-known that Thomas has his own notions of legal precedent, but in this case his skepticism seemed fueled by concerns that echoed Justice Alito’s dissent. Thomas worries that the majority will later impose a flat ban on juvenile life without parole sentences. And perhaps it will, according to the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” an evocative phrase that has become the hallmark of the Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. It is not surprising that this prospect would horrify Justice Thomas, whose views on the Eighth Amendment suggest that everything but torture should be on the table when sentencing offenders, including juvenile offenders.

For those of us living in the 21st century, however, today’s ruling was a step in the right direction.

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare, Narrows Medicaid Provision, and Begins the Dismantling of the New Deal State

To contact us Click HERE
The Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision on the Affordable Care Act this morning, upholding the individual mandate and the remainder of the Act by a slim 5-4 majority, comprised of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

The only partial defeat for the government was the Court’s holding that the Medicaid provision – which conditioned federal funds on states’ acceptance of expanded Medicaid coverage – must be interpreted narrowly such that states that refuse to expand their Medicaid programs lose federal funding only for the expansion, but not for the current, unexpanded versions of their programs. In the context of the health care law itself, this was unquestionably a positive ruling. Yet, in its reasoning, the decision must be understood as laying the groundwork for dismantling the New Deal state.

Supporters and opponents of the law waited
outside the Supreme Court building this morning

The opinion surprised Court watchers for two reasons. First, it was Roberts’ vote that mattered, as he and the four liberal-moderate justices voted to uphold the Act, while Kennedy dissented along with Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. (The most common predictions had Kennedy as the swing vote and Roberts joining Kennedy wherever he landed). Second, the majority opinion, written (as universally predicted) by the Chief Justice, upholds the mandate as a tax, based on Congress’ power to “tax and spend.” The four liberal justices joined him in that conclusion, which is thus the law of the land and the part of the opinion binding on the lower courts.

But significantly, while the liberal justices would have also upheld the mandate under the Commerce Clause, the Chief Justice insisted that the mandate was not a valid exercise of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. The four conservative dissenters would have struck down not only the mandate but the entire Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, and accuses the majority of re-writing the statute by considering the mandate as a tax.

"Roberts gave the conservatives
a very big gift—a ticking time bomb
that could explode in cases down the line."

AFJ President Nan Aron

While the dissenters used some choice words, accusing the majority of “vast judicial overreaching,” the truth is that Roberts has now enshrined the heretofore non-existent distinction between economic “activity” and “non-activity” in the Court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Writing only for himself in that portion of the opinion, his musings on the topic are not binding precedent. Nonetheless, by demonstrating a willingness to narrow Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce, Roberts has invited further challenges to any number of federal laws and regulations.

An overwhelming majority of federal laws -- from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the Fair Labor Standards Act to the Clean Water Act -- were enacted based on Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. If our long-standing understanding of the Commerce Clause is upended, all of this is at risk, along with the vision of our society that we have held dear for half a century.

As Justice Ginsburg writes in her opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part from Robert’s opinion, “[t]he Chief Justice’s crabbed reading of the Commerce Clause harks back to the era in which the Court routinely thwarted Congress’ efforts to regulate the national economy in the interest of those who labor to sustain it.” She writes “[i]t is a reading that should not have staying power.” As we digest the Court’s decision in the weeks to come and look ahead to the very important cases coming before the Court during its next term, Justice Ginsburg’s warning should not be forgotten.

One Year Later: The Consequences of Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.

To contact us Click HERE

The Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence has taken an alarming turn under Chief Justice John Roberts. Bowing to corporate interests, the ascendant conservative wing of the Court has warped First Amendment doctrine to thwart legislative efforts to reign in corporate activity that is harmful to the public interest. The 2010 Citizens United ruling is the best-known example of this trend, but an important, if lesser known, case is Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., decided one year ago this month.

The Court in Sorrell held that a Vermont law prohibiting pharmaceutical marketers and data-mining companies from purchasing prescription records from pharmacies violated the First Amendment rights of the pharmacies. When the ruling was handed down last year, it provoked a sharp outcry. Observers in the medical community noted that the ruling would lead to both a loss of medical privacy and higher prescription drug prices. Going further, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy said that the Sorrell ruling was “just one more example of the Supreme Court using the First Amendment as a tool to bolster the rights of big business at the expense of individual Americans.”

The impact of the Sorrell ruling in lower courts has reached far beyond Vermont, and has borne out Senator Leahy’s warning. For example, the Sorrell Court’s warped vision of the First Amendment was cited by the Northern District of Illinois in its ruling that the First Amendment protected a grocery store chain from liability for misappropriating Michael Jordan’s likeness in advertising without his consent. One industry in particular has welcomed the Sorrell ruling: tobacco manufacturers. Earlier this year, the federal trial court for the District of Massachusetts, relying heavily on Sorrell, struck down a Worcester city ordinance limiting tobacco advertising near schools and prohibiting the sale of “blunt wraps,” an especially carcinogenic tobacco product. In a similar vein, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, relying partially on Sorrell, struck down part of a recent federal law that prohibited the use of certain colors and graphics in cigarette labeling and advertising. The Court upheld other portions of the law that had been challenged by the tobacco industry, including requirements that cigarette packaging contain large warning labels, but it is possible that the case may be on its way to the Supreme Court.

The Court reached its conclusion in Sorrell by distorting its own tiered scrutiny framework. Long-standing precedent established that speech for purely private or profit-generating purposes — advertising, for example — should not receive the same level of judicial protection as some other forms of individual expression, such as political, artistic, or scientific speech. Rather than applying this precedent to the case before it, the Court decided instead to subject the Vermont data-mining restriction to the highest level of judicial scrutiny, usually reserved for only the most extreme cases of government censorship.

This misapplication of First Amendment doctrine came as a shock to Court watchers, and sparked a sharp dissent from Justice Breyer. The dissent warned against the Court’s reversion to the jurisprudence of a century ago, when it employed dubious constitutional doctrine as a pretense for imposing its political and economic vision of libertarianism and lasseiz-faire capitalism on the nation. The most infamous example is the case after which that era was named: the Court’s 1905 ruling in Lochner v. New York. In Lochner, the Court struck down a New York state law guaranteeing basic worker protections as an infringement on the “liberty to contract” between the workers and their abusive corporate employers. The Sorrell dissenters referred to Locher repeatedly, urging the Court to avoid “repeating the mistakes of the past.”

The First Amendment is a crucial cornerstone of our democratic freedoms, but it is not a license for corporate interests to trample on the rights of Americans. The warping of First Amendment jurisprudence by the conservatives on the Supreme Court in cases like Sorrell transforms the First Amendment from the safeguard of free democratic expression into a blank check for corporations to say, spend, and influence anyone or anything without accountability. The Court began to go down this road a century ago, before wisely turning back. It now appears that the conservatives on the Court are prepared to disregard the lessons of history and go down it again.

One Year Later: The Consequences of Wal-Mart v. Dukes

To contact us Click HERE
Class-action lawsuits are a powerful tool for employees and consumers to fight for their rights against major corporations. However, thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, which raised the threshold for the certification of class-action lawsuits, perhaps the correct way to have begun this post would be “Class-action lawsuits were a powerful tool.”

The tide against class-action lawsuits was never more resounding than in Wal-Mart. One year ago, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s grant of class certification, after female employees of Wal-Mart tried to bring a class-action lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the mega-corporation for consistently promoting and paying higher salaries to male employees. The employees presented facts showing that 70 percent of Wal-Mart’s hourly jobs are filled by women, while only a third of management positions are. Additionally, women are paid less than their male counterparts from day one and over the course of their employment (read our study here). The Court’s decision not only affected the rights of the one million current and former female Wal-Mart employees whose interests were at stake in the suit, but radically re-wrote the federal rules on class certification with implications for millions of other plaintiffs or would-be plaintiffs.

In Wal-Mart, the Court changed the commonality standard from an “easily satisfied” bar to one requiring that common issues “predominate.” The Court held that a discretionary management system that has produced disparity does not satisfy the new stricter standard. The new commonality standard means that to move forward as a class-action lawsuit, the claims must

depend upon a common contention of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution — which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke. . . . What matters to class certification [is] the capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.

Now not only must plaintiffs be affected by a decision made by high-level corporate executives (rather than by lower management), but the higher-ups’ decision-making must also be conscious and intentional. Needless to say, the Wal-Mart case has far-ranging implications for fighting sex discrimination in the workplace and for class-action litigation across the board.

There are many reasons why class-action litigation is an important vehicle for the vindication of civil rights. In cases involving systemic discrimination, each plaintiff’s case becomes stronger when seen in the aggregate. Furthermore, a wide-scale lawsuit can improve the lot for more employees (or consumers, as the case may be) and so is a more efficient means of delivering more justice than individual suits. Finally, a class action can affect a corporation’s bottom line in a way that individual litigation is unlikely to, and thus class actions are more likely to inspire improvements in corporate behavior.

In the wake of Wal-Mart, several circuits have prevented class-action lawsuits from moving forward. The Fifth and Second Circuits have followed language in Wal-Mart rejecting class-action lawsuits in which plaintiffs claim separate, individual damages, while the Ninth and Eighth Circuits have focused on Wal-Mart’s heightened commonality requirement.

In a troubling decision, Bennett v. Nucor Corporation, the Eighth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a suit, finding that the plaintiff employees failed to meet the commonality requirement under Wal-Mart. In that case, African-American employees at an Arkansas steel mill attempted to bring a class-action lawsuit for racial discrimination against their employer under § 1981 and Title VII. The court found that the employees did not speak for the entire plant because they only worked in one of five departments of the plant, where Confederate flag-style “do-rags” were sold in the company store, actual Confederate flags and nooses were publicly displayed, and racial comments were communicated over the radio, in e-mails, and scrawled on the equipment and in bathrooms.

Some courts, including the Third, Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Circuits, have distinguished Wal-Mart in cases against the De Beers and Hearst corporations, among others. In one of the most publicized post-Wal-Mart decisions, McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, decided in February of this year, Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit wrote for a three-judge panel that African-American financial advisors for Merrill Lynch could bring a class-action lawsuit under Title VII and § 1981 because the issue of disparate impact on African-American employees was appropriate for class-wide treatment.

Posner came to this conclusion by distinguishing Wal-Mart. In Wal-Mart, corporate policies formally forbade sex discrimination and assigned hiring decisions to local managers. However, in Merrill Lynch, the Seventh Circuit took issue with two corporate policies: the “teaming” policy and the “account distribution” policy. The teaming policy permits brokers to form their own teams, which in turn are supposed to improve client services. The account distribution policy permits brokers to compete for the clients of departing brokers, based largely on past successes. This is an important distinction because Merrill Lynch’s policies were created in the higher echelons of management — not by local managers — and facilitated discrimination in that the African-American employees claimed that they were less likely to be selected for teams or distributed-accounts.

Meanwhile, the Wal-Mart plaintiffs have re-filed as regional classes in California and Texas courts and intend to continue pursuing their important claims.

Although some lower courts are allowing class actions to proceed under the Wal-Mart standard, the Corporate Court may not be done with rewriting the class certification rules. Just last week, the Court agreed to hear Comcast v. Behrend during its next term, in order to address the question of what issues that bear on the merits of the case must be resolved at the class certification stage. If the Court reverses the Third Circuit’s plaintiff-friendly holding in this case, it will be erecting yet another barrier to justice for everyday Americans.

8 Temmuz 2012 Pazar

Drunk Driver's Sentence Includes Study of Book of Job

To contact us Click HERE
The Rock HIll (SC) Herald reported yesterday that a respected state trial court judge has sentenced a woman who pleaded guilty to drunk driving to 8 years in jail, 5 years probation and substance abuse counseling. In addition Judge Michael Nettles is requiring her to read the Biblical book of Job and write a summary of it. Defendant Cassandra Tolley's attorney says that Tolley is "thankful for the assignment" and has already started working on it. Tolley, a long-time victim of abuse who then turned to alcohol, is remorseful for the serious injuries she caused to two people in the car crash that resulted from her driving with a blood alcohol level 4 times the legal limit.

Feared Impact on Military Chaplains of DADT Repeal Has Not Materialized

To contact us Click HERE
A lengthy AP article published Wednesday concludes that despite dire warnings to the contrary, the military's elimination of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy has created no serious infringements of military chaplains' free exercise rights or rights of conscience. At most, 2 or 3 chaplains' departures from active duty were related to the policy's repeal. Even outspoken opponent of repeal, Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services, says he is unaware of any major problems that have arisen because of the repeal. "It’s more a question of what might occur in the future," he said, adding, "As time goes by, it will be a challenge, to make certain you’re not silently condoning." According to the article:

The loudest assertions that conservative chaplains face problems come from outside the active-duty ranks, notably from a coalition of retired chaplains and other religious leaders called the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty. In a letter to a Republican congressman in March, the alliance contended that repeal has been implemented “with an open and palpable hostility” to chaplains and service members who disapprove of homosexuality.

[Thanks to Pew Forum for the lead.]

Discrimination Claim By Fired Employee Who Asked Customer About Religion Is Dismissed

To contact us Click HERE
In Botnik v. HearingPlanet Inc., (MD YN, July 3, 2012), a Tennessee federal district court dismissed as unproven Title VII and state employment discrimination claims by a sales representative for a hearing aid company. Plaintiff, who says his national origin is Russian Israeli and his religion if Christian Jewish, was fired after his co-workers complained he was involved in an inappropriate telephone conversation with a customer. In the conversation, plaintiff asked the customer about her national origin and asked whether her husband was Jewish. Plaintiff cites the company's policy of trying to establish rapport with the customer, but the company fired him on the ground that he had asked inappropriate questions of a customer that made his co-workers uncomfortable. [Thanks to CCH Employment Law Daily via Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Community College's Speaker and Literature Distribution Rules

To contact us Click HERE
The Thomas More Society yesterday filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Ohio challenging the speaker access and literature distribution rules of Sinclair Community College in Dayton, Ohio. The suit was brought on behalf of two students who are members of the college’s Traditional Values Club and the founder of two pro-life groups who is often invited to speak on campuses. The complaint (full text) in Deddens v. Warren County Montgomery County Community College District, (SD OH, filed 7/6/2012) alleges that the College’s policies place broad restrictions on the distribution of materials on campus, require advance approval of speakers with broad discretion in the college president to deny an application, and prohibit recognized student clubs from hosting more than two events per month. The school also prohibits any kinds of signs, whether by sponsors or protesters, at student events. The suit alleges that these rules and policies operate as prior restraints on speech and are overbroad regulations that have a chilling effect on speech.

Sudan's Leader Promises 100% Islamic Constitution

To contact us Click HERE
Reuters reports that in Sudan today President Omar Hassan al-Bashir in a speech to Sufi Islamic leaders promised that Sudan's next constitution will be 100% Islamic. He said in part:

We want to present a constitution that serves as a template to those around us. And our template is clear, a 100 percent Islamic constitution, without communism or secularism or Western (influences). And we tell non-Muslims, nothing will preserve your rights except for Islamic sharia because it is just.

Al-Bashir, who has been in power for 23 years and is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes in Darfur, gave no date for the new constitution. Sudan's opposition parties have called for strikes and protests to topple al-Bashir's government.

7 Temmuz 2012 Cumartesi

Americas Biggest Threat is EU Sovereign Debt Crisis not AQAP

To contact us Click HERE
Okay, let’s get this straight. The injudicious assertions promulgated by political charlatans on both side of the aisle from Obama to Congressman Pete King that America’s biggest threat is Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is feculent and even dangerous. In fact it is one of the more laughable jactitations proffered in recent years and ranks up there with the suggestion that America is post racial or even that Wall Street and bankers can police themselves.
In all honesty as things stand, our truest and greatest threat is the European sovereign debt crisis and not AQAP. For if the chickens come home to roost, with the chickens in this sense being the massive preponderance of complex financial papers and derivatives which remain without a true valuation and inundate the global markets, and then we have seen nothing yet in terms of an economic disaster. I means, what is on the horizon given what is occurring in Europe will eventually demonstrate that what we just observed with regards to JP Morgan-Chase and Jamie Dimon will be just a drop in the bucket.

But instead of giving these events the attention they require and other signals, we ignore them and continue with the small thinking myopia that would advance a HR 1838 (SWAP Bailout prevention act) on behalf of Republicans or an HR 3784 (Gas Price Spike Act of 2012) on behalf of democrats. The later under whom oil companies would be taxed at 50 to 100 percent of profits considered to be “higher than reasonable.” Notwithstanding other distractions whether they concern Mayor Cory Booker’s honest remarks on private equity or the President’s personal opinion on Gay marriage, we never seem to be able to be proactive and address real issues that will impact us more than any of the aforementioned in aggregate. Fact is gay marriage has nothing to do with the US economy.

Bush, followed by the Obama administration implemented massive stimulus that were supposed to grow the economy. Unfortunately, such has not manifested as promised by the Keynesian heavy Obama administration (Bernanke, Krugman and Geithner). By their logic the stimulus was supposed to produce fifty cents of GDP growth for each stimulus dollar spent. But instead of increasing demand, what they did was discourage consumption and investment by the private sector who based on all this talk, rightly expect tax hikes to finance the stimulus somewhere in the near future. Meaning that the stimulus actually squashed the private sector spending it desired to stimulate.

This may be why the CBO recently reported the strong chance of another US recession soon. They predict that the US Gross National Product (GNP) will go negative for at least two quarters, given the eventually ending of the Bush-era tax cuts, the extended unemployment benefits and the reinstating of the payroll tax rates back up to 6.2 percent from the current 4.2 percent. Not to mention that currently as a nation, we spend $454 billion a year just on servicing the interest on the national debt alone. Then there is the $642 billion spent on the Afghan war (this includes this year’s spending). And let us not forget the 11 million homeowners in the US with in excess of $800 billion in negative home equity and you can see we have a big mess on our hands without the problems in Europe.

Starting with the UK, Britain's economy contracted by 0.3% in the first three months of the year, faster than previously thought and pushing the country back into another recession and equal to the contraction in the final quarter of 2011. There has been no growth in manufacturing after last year the sector exhibited a decline of 0.7% at the end of last year. The banking sector also contracted, by 0.3%.

Then there is Spain. Spanish banks’ total loan losses could range between 218 billion and 260 billion Euros, more than currently expected according to estimates by the Institute of International Finance. Spain’s economy is in critical condition with 23 percent unemployment of which 50% percent of those under 24 are unemployed (the highest in the Euro zone) and they are in their second recession in three years. Spain like all the European countries that, are uncompetitive, have high debt levels, and suffer from low savings rates that have been forced down in over the past years - one reason why 16 Spanish banks were downgraded last week.

The picture is no different in Italy which saw Moody‘s Investors Service downgraded 26 Italian banks, where investors are needing higher risk premiums for Italian government bonds on fears that Greece may exit from the euro zone and Italy's double-dip recession . Italy is estimated to have around a debt burden of €1.9 trillion (about 120% the size of its gross domestic product), or about $2.6 trillion).

The reality is all the talking and meeting the G-8 just did wasn’t anything and empty, especially without Russia, China and India in attendance. The realty remains that a Greek euro exit is very likely and soon. If it happens, it will lead to runs on Spanish and Italian banks, resulting in the need for the ECB to give out more credit to keep the banks from collapsing. Although the problem isn’t Greece, but rather that Greek banks are undercapitalized. Greece cannot crash the euro zone alone. But what it may lead to can. If they are allowed to leave, the same will be true for other nations.

Ben Bernanke and the politicians in Washington DC speak of recovery while the facts do not support their contention. Not to forget that it was in the 1970s when Nixon enabled bankers and politicians to print and spend at liberty without a gold standard and a Central Bank owned by Wall Street, has resulted in a country where the cost of things we need to live have risen at twice the rate of our income. The truth is that real inflation has been running 5% higher than government is telling us in spite of what is being told to us by Paul Krugman (that there are very few Americans living on a fixed income being impacted by Bernanke’s zero interest rate policy). Maybe this is why Krugman is so bent on another $4 trillion of debt and a debt to GDP ratio of 130% to get our economy back on track.

Yes we cannot see the big picture. The real US deficit is over $5 trillion. Our policy appears to ignore Greece, which after several years of austerity are in the midst of a full-blown economic depression and they still do not have a balanced budget. The Greek economy has contracted by 8.5 percent over the past 12 months and the unemployment rate in Greece is up to 21.8 percent, is already experiencing a depression that will only get worse. If or when they leave, investor confidence in the euro zone will be damaged forever. Already as a nation America has more government debt per capita than Greece, Portugal, Italy, Ireland or Spain.

Europe is our largest trading partner, especially as it pertains to exports. Yet our efforts are all over the place. Paul Ryan supposed spending cuts really only slow spending to 3 percent annually while Obama increases spending 4.5 percent a year in his budget. No to mention that like the EU zone banks who are undercapitalized and heavily burden with the uncertainty of how much banks actually hold in bad assets, and the potential need for the government to bail them out at the expense of a bigger debt burden, the same is true for US banks.

Economic growth is stalled both in Europe and in America plus there seems to be a lack of concern here and little if any coordination between the EU and US. None of the nations including the US are recalibrating either fiscal or monetary policy which is a must. Reform not stimulus is the answer if we look at the real world examples here and abroad. Both the ECB and Federal Reserve seem to focus on the nations and not the banks and the Obama administration has only tackled the issue from a short term perspective. So what there is a newly revealed Al Qaeda video that calls on followers to launch cyber attacks on Western targets that has Sens. Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, scared, it aint got nothing on what’s going on across the pond and is nowhere as big a threat to America as the European sovereign debt crisis. Take note you heard it here first.

Israel: Like Apartheid and 1960s South, If You Black You called Nigger and Beat Too

To contact us Click HERE
Maybe it is me but it strikes me as strange that first, all we hear about with respect to civil and human rights being violated pertains to Syria and there is no mention of Sudan, and two that for some reason the Obama Administration, the Congress and mainstream media has been extremely hush hush about Israel. Whether it involves the $1 billion for Israeli missile projects the US House of Representatives allocated for the 2013 fiscal year for Israel’s missile systems via the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee appropriated USD 947 million for the Iron Dome, “David's Sling” and a long-range Arrow missile program; or how recent actions of the Zionist nations, in both statement and action are reminiscent of Apartheid and the southern United States circa 1960s. The prior in addition to the $5billion a year that Israel already receives in grants and don’t have to pay back.

This is very disturbing to me in particular when our politicians want to jump around and turn up about being ready to protect human rights in Syria, yet seem to have money for Israel and not the millions of American citizens suffering at home. Not to forget all the time proclaiming we should stand for what is just around the world as the preeminent nation state in the world but say nothing when Jews call Africans nigger and beat them violently like the righteous citizens of Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi did to African Americans. Susan Rice even has the audacity to get on her high horse suggesting action in Syria will never even mentioning the Sudan or what African immigrants are suffering under the rule of the world’s only Zionist state.

In the predominately black neighborhood of Hatikva large groups of nationalist protesters who are vehemently open against African migrants have instigated a reign of terror similar to Nazi and KKK hate groups of past around the world. The Jewish protesters claim the Africans are responsible for a rise in crime, and were holding signs that read "This is not Africa" and "Stop talking, start expelling". They even yelled "Blacks out!" and "Send the Sudanese back to Sudan".

The mob set fires and smashed the windows of shops owned by Eritrean migrants, threw rocks at them and violently beat up Africans walking through the streets. According to one Nigerian witness, "A group of about 10 or 15 boys stopped one black kid cycling on his bike. They pulled him off and were punching and kicking him in his head. The police just stood and watched until it got really out of control." The even beat women carrying their infants and stopped buses to search for African passengers.

The United States gives more military aid to Israel than to any other country, although there is really not in the national interests of the United States or any net strategic advantage to the U.S. in sending weapons to Israel when compared to spending the same amount of money on improvements at home. Why is the question because the state of Israel and Zionism is the antithesis of democracy?Factually speaking, Zionism is a racist political philosophy in the same vein as Nazism, and Apartheid. As a nation, the daily actions often consist of those we once saw in South Africa. These include millions of non-Jews who are under curfew and blockade, starving and brutalized, in the Middle East's only colonized state. This is not a wild exaggeration when we study the writings and speeches of racist Vladamir Jabotinsky, father of revisionist Zionism.

Zionism like racism espouses an independent and sovereign Jewish state, in a land where there is no Jewish majority and exists only insofar as it has been allowed to expelled the people of Palestine from their homes, although it is against their basic human right guaranteed by Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Meaning it is impossible for such to be a democratic principle when only one community and people benefit from such and not others. I can say this with ease being a logically thinking person since facts demonstrate that Zionism absolutely requires that Palestinians and even Africans, as non-Jews, were forced to leave in 1948 and never be allowed to return - blatant racism.

What these recent attacks on Africans show are that all who are not Jewish in a Zionist state will be confronted with considerable discrimination. It is even more lucid and totally obvious the force behind the policies of the present and all past Israeli governments in Israel and in the occupied lands was designed and implemented to assure the predominance of Jews over other racial-ethnic groups. For when a powerful nation like Israel that “kills hundreds of civilians from another ethnic group; confiscates their land; builds vast housing complexes on that land for the exclusive use of its own nationals” and does not offer equal protection to non Jews, that is not democracy but racist.

What has just happened and continues today, without any major media news coverage is racism at its worse. In particular when speakers at such events include prominent politicians, like Knesset ministers Miri Regev, Danny Danon, Yari Lev

in and Michael Ben-Ari. Ms Regev during here address to the crowd even described African immigrants as a "cancer in our society". Danny Danon, a member of Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party, wrote in a Facebook status later the same evening: "Israel is at war. An enemy state of infiltrators was established in Israel, and its capital is south Tel Aviv."

There are around 60,000 African asylum seekers in Israel, most from Eritrea and Sudan. Although she did not retract her statements, Ms Regev stated "Israel should adopt the US protocol of returning infiltrators to the border within 72 hours ... Jews and Israelis are scared of living in their country," she said although only non-Jews were the objects of violence. Mr. Danon's desires to deport the city's African residents “to detention facilities and remove Africans from population centers".

Obama and Susan Rice cannot turn a blind eye to this as well as the average American citizen. Fromm my perspective, I cannot have a disdain for what is going on in Syria without have the same bad taste for Israel and their treatment of Africans or the massive deaths occurring daily in the Sudan (more than Syria). Racism and xenophobia are huge problems in Israel society that we ignore as a nation. We should hold Israel’s feet to the flame as we do other nations, making them abide by the 1951 UN Refugees convention since Israel is one of the signatory nations. If we do not, we will at least learn something, that In Israel if you are black, the call you nigger too and beat you like the KKK and white citizens councils did across the South in America.

Affordable Care Act May not be too Affordable for Many Blacks in the Long Run

To contact us Click HERE
The November Presidential election became a little bit moreexciting. Upon its 5 to 4 affirmation of“the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court has set the stage for what will bea dramatic political circus. With thedeciding vote, Chief Court Justice Robert’s wrote the opinion for the majorityand outlined the limitations of the court and the constitutionality of what iscalled Obama care in a fifty-nine page opinion.

In simple terms, the government can mandate that people beforced to buy health insurance from the small group of companies thatmonopolize the market. The Court avoidedthe issue of addressing the Commerce Clause by ruling that it was merely a taxinstead. The decision was split on partylines. Conservative Justice AnthonyKennedy asserted that in additional to the other three conservative jurists;their preference would have been to strike down the entire law. This is thefirst time in US history that the courts have supported a requirement forAmerican citizens to enter a contract with private corporations to purchase aproduct or service. Many like Dr. Ron Paul fell that the law is a clearviolation of Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. He states that regulating “commerce cannotinclude the power to compel commerce.”
In the long run, it is yet to be known how this decision mayimpact African Americans. There will beboth good and bad. However, the law’srequirement that some individuals will have to pay a financial penalty for notobtaining health insurance as being a reasonable tax may be damaging to many,in particular given the massive disparity in income, net worth and unemploymentamong African Americans. As it currentlystands, ACA requires that all citizens must have health care coverage or face apenalty of 2.5 percent of their income. In addition, the court limited the Medicaidprovision which would have expanded coverage to those under the age of 65 whoearn less than $30,000 a year for a family of four. This would have expanded coverage to anadditional 16 million Americans.
This is a major victory for the Obama administration and hishistorical legacy. The question remainshowever, it is yet to be determined if the Affordable Care Act will beaffordable to lower income and minority populations, or the inability for manyto pay fines for services they cannot afford, will result in prison terms asmandated by the law.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion Use Pro Slavery Argument Suggesting 14th amendment is unconstitutional

To contact us Click HERE
With the recent ruling by the Supreme Court pertaining to the Arizona immigration law, most pundits have focused on the subject of the “show me your papers” clause. However, for African Americans what is more interesting and significant is the dissenting opinion proffered by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
In his own words, Scalia wrote: “Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there,” Scalia’s opinion said.

“In other words, the naturalization power was given to Congress not to abrogate States’ power to exclude those they did not want, but to vindicate it.”What is interesting is that to support this, Scalia criticizes Obama's immigration policy by relying on pro-slavery laws excluding free persons of African descent from much of the south to justify allowing Arizona to target undocumented immigrants: “In the first 100 years of the Republic, the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens, including convicted criminals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks. State laws not only provided for the removal of unwanted immigrants but also imposed penalties on unlawfully present aliens and those who aided their immigration.”

This means that Scalia believes that the passing of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868 during the Reconstruction era along with the 13th and 15th amendments, which are collectively known as the Reconstruction amendments, are unconstitutional. Four principles were asserted in the text of the 14th amendment which state that “State and federal citizenship for all persons regardless of race both born or naturalized in the United States was reaffirmed, No state would be allowed to abridge the "privileges and immunities" of citizens, No person was allowed to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law, and No person could be denied "equal protection of the laws."

It is clear how Scalia perceives individuals that are not white and even worse, that he remains in a faltered world view in which the laws of pro-slavery America are in the best interest for the America of 2012.

Fifty Percent Unemployment for Blacks in New York – may become national norm

To contact us Click HERE
With the growing troubles of the Eurozone economic crisis, most recently as it pertains to Greece, massive bailouts for Italy and Spain and a recent request for European Central Bank support for more loans for Cyprus, the US economy continues to stall with projections of stagnant growth and perpetual unemployment above 8 percent. Now, with major banks being downgraded across the nation, it is clear again that blacks will bear the brunt of the economic downturn.
Historically, blacks always suffer disproportionately in times of economic hardship. Today it may be even worse than past decades, in particular in urban areas. According to a new study conducted by Dr. James Parrott, chief economist for the Fiscal Policy Institute, more than half of all of African-Americans in New York city who were old enough to work had no job at all in the past year based on an analysis of employment data compiled by the federal Labor Department.

Dr. Parrott’s results indicate that 49.2 percent of all black women of working age in the city had jobs in the year that ended in May – a figure approximately equal to the rate for black men in the same period, as well as in the first four months of 2012.New York is just a microcosm of the nation. Real unemployment (when you included those incarcerated, who have dropped out of the job market or in college full-time) for African Americans is in excess of 40 percent in May urban areas including Memphis, Detroit, Chicago and Detroit among others.

Many factors contribute to these outside of racism and included, low literacy and graduation rates, lower numbers of African Americans attending college, and very few blacks involved or interested in math and science of which most employment opportunities currently exist. Regardless, if the trend continues, 50 percent unemployment in urban areas for African Americans may become the norm.

5 Temmuz 2012 Perşembe

Lynne Stewart Loses Appeal

To contact us Click HERE

Lynne Stewart Loses Appeal
by Stephen Lendman
For 30 years, Lynne heroically defended America's poor, underprivileged, unwanted, and forgotten. Without advocates like her, they never have a chance for due process and judicial fairness.
Lynne championed equity and justice. She devoted her life and work to upholding principles too important to reject.
She defended controversial figures like Weather Underground activist David Gilbert, United Freedom Front's Richard Williams, Black Liberation Army figures Sekou Odinga and Nasser Ahmed, and many others like them.
She knew the risks, yet took them courageously. She did so because it's the right thing to do.
At former US Attorney General Ramzy Clark's request, she joined his Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman's defense team.
In 1995, he was wrongfully convicted of seditious conspiracy, solicitation of murder, solicitation of an attack on American military installations, conspiracy to commit murder, and conspiracy to bomb in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center attack. Evidence proved his innocence, not guilt on all charges.
No matter. He never had a chance. Prosecutorial injustice framed him. Show trial theatrics assured imprisoning him for life. He's currently at Butner (North Carolina) Federal Medical Center northwest of Raleigh.
Defending Rahman got Lynne spuriously charged with:

"conspiring to defraud the United States;

conspiring to provide and conceal material support to terrorist activity;

providing and concealing material support to terrorist activity; and

two counts of making false statements."

Charges stemmed from claiming she violated US Bureau of Prisons Special Administrative Measures (SAMs). They included a gag order on her client.
They prohibited discussing topics the Justice Department (DOJ) ruled outside "legal representation." Doing so inhibits how lawyers defend any client.
Ramsey Clark issued press releases like Lynne's. So do other attorneys for their clients. Punishment doesn't follow. Penalties at most might be mild reprimands. Vengeful recrimination is inconceivable.
Charging Lynne had nothing to do with alleged SAMs violations. It was about silencing a powerful voice for justice. Tactics involved disbarring and imprisoning her.
They took aim at the American Bar Association's Model rules. They say all lawyers are obligated to:
"devote professional time and resources and use civic influence to ensure equal access to our system of justice for all those who because of economic or social barriers cannot afford or secure adequate legal counsel."
They're also about practicing law ethically, morally and responsibly. It's to assure everyone is afforded due process and judicial fairness in US courts.
Reality belies the rhetoric. US courts give kangaroos a bad name. Lynne was denied what she did for others heroically and unselfishly.
Doing so sent other lawyers a chilling message not to defend clients Washington wants convicted.
Lynne devoted her life and career to it. She's now in prison for doing the right thing.
On February 10, 2005, she was convicted on all counts. She was automatically disbarred. New York's Supreme Court's Appellate Division denied her petition to resign voluntarily.
On October 17, 2006, she was sentenced to 28 months in prison. At the time, she remained free on bond pending appeal before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
On November 17, it revoked her bond, upheld her conviction, ordered her surrender forthwith, but stayed it until November 19 to permit filing a motion for reconsideration. It was denied. She reported to federal marshals and was imprisoned.
At the behest of Second Circuit judges, her sentence was increased from 28 months to 10 years. She appealed and lost.
On June 28, AP headlined "NY court upholds lawyer's 10-year prison sentence," saying:
Second Circuit justices upheld her sentence. They claimed "she earned it through serious crimes that she refuses to acknowledge."
Saying so reflects police state justice. Defendants charged are guilty by accusation. Innocence doesn't matter. The power of the state decides what's right or wrong. Heroic figures like Lynne suffer. She never had a chance.
Imprisoning her for 10 minutes is unjust. Second Circuit justices claimed 28 months was too lenient. They wanted her put away for life.
They remanded her case back to district court Judge John Koeltl. They settled for increasing her sentence to 10 years. They pressured him to comply.
Originally he felt 28 months was unjust. He pronounced sentence then under pressure. Venal systems operate that way.
Lynne's lawyer, Herald Price Fahringer, said options going forward will be considered. "We're awfully disappointed in the decision but we're going to keep going," he explained.
Lynne's imprisoned at Federal Medical Center, Carswell.
She can be reached as follows:
Lynne Stewart #53504-054Federal Medical Center, CarswellPO Box 27137Ft. Worth, TX 76127
She recently underwent surgery. Fahringer said she remains "awfully weak and apparently has difficulty moving around."
On June 29, New York Law Journal contributor Mark Hamblett headlined "Circuit Rejects Speech Claim in Upholding Stewart Term," saying:
Lynne failed to win a sentence reduction. She claimed her First Amendment rights were violated. Second Circuit judges disagreed, saying:
"Stewart was not punished for violating a governmental restriction on speech."
"The district court did not treat her speech as a violation of any law—it considered the content of that speech to be helpful in enabling the court to craft a sentence 'sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth' " elsewhere in sentencing guidelines.
"Stewart does indeed argue that she was prosecuted and punished for her political beliefs. The most obvious — and fatal — shortcoming in Stewart's argument in the context of this appeal is that there is not a hint in the record of any fact to support an assertion that the district court did so."
"The sentencing judge was determining the characteristics of the defendant, which were legally relevant to a determination of the appropriate sentence to impose on Stewart, through the comments she voluntarily and publicly made."
Jeff Mackler is West Coast Coordinator of the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee. On June 29, he headlined "Court Confirms Ten-Year Sentence for Lynne Stewart," saying:
Lynne's 2005 conviction was "outrageous." Her "crime" was doing the right thing. US "justice" finds that intolerable in defending clients prosecutors want to convict.
"Barring an unlikely Supreme Court reversal, she will now serve her ten-year sentence with perhaps a one-year or ten percent reduction for 'good behavior.' "
Justice Department prosecutors and hanging judges sought vengeance. They took issue with Lynne's sworn duty to represent all clients honorably. She didn't "bow to authority (or show) required deference." They rejected her three core arguments:
(1) Violating her fundamental First Amendment rights.
(2) Unreasonably increasing her original sentence fourfold. Doing so failed to consider her lifetime commitment to justice.
(3) Falsely claiming she perjured and misused her position.
She did her job honorably and courageously. She deserves praise, not prison. She's one of many thousands wrongfully imprisoned in America's gulag.
Judicial fairness is just a figure of speech. Malice substitutes for doing the right thing. Federal courts are especially repressive. They're infested with right-wing hacks.
They're ideologically hardline. They hand down rulings any despot would love. They defend privilege at the expense of justice. They deplore civil liberties and social fairness.
They oppose labor rights, environmental protections, regulatory checks and balances, and women's reproductive choice. They mock rule of law principles.
Guilt by accusation is policy. Lynne and others like her never have a chance. Why else would America have by far the world's largest gulag. Their job is supplying it with more warm bodies. Innocence is no just defense.
Mackler said " 'Free Lynne Stewart' must remain the rallying cry of all those who cherish civil liberties and democratic rights."
She wouldn't kiss their ring and paid dearly.
America is on a fast track to tyranny. Nations that imprison its best and most honorable aren't fit to live in.
Lynne's treatment symbolizes what's wrong. Only public rage can change things. There's no other way.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

US Intelligece Says Turkish Warplane Downed in Syrian Waters

To contact us Click HERE

US Intelligence Says Turkish Warplane Downed in Syrian Waters
by Stephen Lendman
On June 29, the Wall Street Journal headlined "Doubts Cast on Turkey's Story of Jet," saying:
US intelligence contradicts Ankara. Turkey's "warplane (was) shot down....by shore-based antiaircraft guns while it was inside Syrian airspace, American officials say, a finding in tune with Syria's account and at odds with Turkey."
Ankara falsified its account. An unnamed senior US defense official also said:
"We see no indication that it was shot down by a surface-to-air missile...."
If a missile struck the plane, Damascus would have ordered it. Antiaircraft fire suggests "a local commander" spotted the plane and acted "on his own initiative," according to US officials and analysts.
The Journal said antiaircraft fire suggests Turkey's plane "was flying low to the ground....(It) likely came closer to the Syrian shoreline than Turkey says, US officials say."
A former unnamed US official with close ties to Turkey said Ankara didn't act by mistake. He stopped short of what he knows was a willful provocation, whatever other reasons were involved.
One official said both countries test each other's air defenses. They're "testing how fast they get picked up and how fast someone responds. It's part of training."
In fact, Turkey's provocation went far beyond a normal exercise. Flying low and fast clearly shows hostile intent.
Journal writers said discrepancies in Ankara's account could strain relations with Washington. Don't bet on it.
Turkey is a valued ally. It's a NATO country. American missile shield installations will be based there. It shares a common border with Syria. It provides safe haven territory for insurgents. It supplies them with weapons. It runs cover for Washington. It participated in its Libya war. It's ready for more against Syria if asked.
On July 3, Turkey's Hurriyet daily headlined "NATO chief backs Turkey," saying:
NATO Secretary-General Fogh Rasmussen condemned Syria's downing a Turkish warplane as "unacceptable." He also "indirectly criticized a Wall Street Journal report which contradicted Turkey’s claims that its jet was shot down in international waters."
He told a Brussels news conference that "unnamed sources should not be trusted." His comments came a day after Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused the Wall Street Journal of "biased journalism."
He wants sources used named.
On July 3, AFP headlined "Assad regrets Syrian downing of Turkish plane," saying:
"I would have wished 100 percent that we had not attacked it."
"The plane was flying in an air corridor used three times in the past by the Israeli air force."
"A country at war always acts like this, this plane was flying at a very low altitude and was shot down by anti-aircraft defences which mistook it for an Israeli plane, which attacked Syria in 2007."
"If this plane had been shot down in international airspace (as maintained by Ankara) we would not have hesitated to apologize."
"We have nothing to gain in attacking a Turkish fighter jet."
Syria acted in self-defense. It forces won't be sent to Turkey's borders, he said, despite Ankara militarizing it days earlier.
"If was communication between our armies," this wouldn't have happened. At the same time, he said, he believes Turkey "has an inclination for war with Syria, but the Turkish people absolutely" don't want it. War would harm both countries. He'll use all his influence to avoid it.
Nonetheless, he accused Turkey of "destroying everything we have built" together. "We are aiming to maintain" good relations. But the Turkish government" undermined the relationship.
He added that soldiers who shot down the plane had no radar. They couldn't identify its country of origin. He sent condolences to the families of two downed pilots. They haven't been found. They're presumed dead.
As for international and opposition element calls for him to step down, he said:
"I would, of course, leave if millions didn't want me. Why would I stay? I've never had any interest in this (presidential) seat."
"I would not stay as a president for even a single day if the salvation of my nation and country depended on my departure."
At the same time, he insists Syrians alone must decide who'll lead them. International law supports him. No nation may interfere in the international affairs of others except in self-defense.
His full interview can be read on Syria’s SANA state media.
Syria threatens no one. No nation claims it with a straight face. Externally-generated conflict is lawless. It's naked proxy aggression.
Assad and most Syrians want it ended peacefully. Washington spurns efforts to do it. No end of violence looks likely. Geneva discussions solved nothing. Syria and Iran weren't invited.
Kofi Annan claims he's "ready to support any honest effort to solve the situation." In fact, he and Ban Ki-moon are reliable imperial tools. Their pro-Western marching orders mandate it. They're stalking horses for war.
Geneva's final communique called for establishing a "transitional governing body" with "full executive powers. It could include members of the present government and the opposition and other groups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent."
Syrians must "determine the future of the country."
According to Annan:
"The government will have to re-form by discussion, negotiation and by mutual consent, and I will doubt that the Syrians who have fought so hard for their independence….will select people with blood on their hands to lead them."
Assad is more victim than villain. Annan represents Western interests responsible for thousands of Syrian deaths. His hands drip with blood. So do Ban's.
Mutual consent excludes foreign interests. Elements stoking violence have no legitimacy in any future government. Washington and key NATO allies want Geneva language interpreted to mean Assad must go.
They want pro-Western puppet leaders replacing his government. They'll interpret Geneva language as authorization for war. Libya 2.0 looms. It's coming.
Libya today is violent, chaotic, and dysfunctional. War assures replicating similar conditions in Syria. Isolating Iran is key. The road to Tehran runs through Damascus. New sanctions took effect July 1. More on that below.
Iran conducted missile drills. Foreign Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said they're intended to convey a message of sovereignty and preparedness.
Deputy Commander of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Brigadier General Hossein Salami said they serve as a "firm response" to looming threats. They aim "to demonstrate the Iranian nation's political resolve to defend (its) vital values and national interests."
Three days of Great Prophet 7 missile war games began on Monday. They're intended solely for defense. Iran threatens no one. Its neighbors know it. So do hostile Western and Gulf states.
Weapons involved include the Shahab (Meteor) 1, 2, 3, Khalij Fars (Persian Gulf), Tondar (Lightning), Fateh (Victor) and Zelzal (Quake) as well as Qiam (Uprising). Drills involved firing them at mock targets.
On July 3, Mossad-connected DEBKAfile (DF) headlined "US military strength beefed up at Hormuz as nuclear talks with Iran fade," saying:
Obama officials released new details. They claim it's "to fend off any Iranian attempt to endanger international shipping by blocking or planting mines in the Strait of Hormuz."
Washington also said current Istanbul talks are "probably the last." Technical experts are meeting to determine if enough common ground exists for full-fledged discussions. Don't expect it. Washington won't tolerate breakthroughs. Confrontation is policy.
"Tehran has refused to give way on the key issues of the 20-percent grade enrichment of uranium and the closure of its underground nuclear facility at Fordo," said DF.
Tehran, of course, won't yield to unreasonable demands. It's nuclear program is peaceful. No evidence suggests otherwise. Claiming it is cover for regime change.
DF suggested Iran's missile tests showed hostile intent. They "simulat(ed) attacks on 'enemy air bases.' " In fact, they were against mock targets.
DF claims "Tehran had US air bases in the Persian Gulf and Middle East, including facilities used the US Air Force in Israel and Turkey, well within the sights of its missiles. It was stressed that short-, medium- and long-range missiles were being put through their paces."
All nations test weapons. Doing so doesn't reflect hostile intent. Most Western and Israeli tests aren't reported. Tehran's draw rebukes.
US regional land, sea and air forces threaten Iran. Double the number of "fast warships....are capable of instantaneously responding to Iranian moves (to close the) Straits of Hormuz.”
Minesweeper numbers were also doubled. Several squadrons of F-15s and F-22 stealth technology aircraft are present. Combat forces are positioned Iraq, Kuwait, and elsewhere in the region.
According to a Defense Department official:
"Don’t even think about closing the strait. We’ll clear the mines. Don’t even think about sending your fast boats out to harass our vessels or commercial shipping. We’ll put them on the bottom of the Gulf."
On July 2, Iran's parliament tabled a motion to close the Strait. The measure hasn't passed. Its purpose is to show Tehran's resolve. Closure would be a last resort.
DF said "US, Saudi and other Gulf armies (are) on high alert....on two counts:"

escalated Syrian violence, and

Iran's potential Hormuz threat.

Washington and Gulf state buildups represent "a fraction of the (concentrated) strength" challenging both countries.
Large numbers of US troops are involved. Contingents were flown to two strategic islands: Masirah off Oman's east coast and Socotra, the largest of four archipelago islands by the same name in the Indian Ocean.
Whether saber rattling or something more serious is involved remains to be seen. Washington and Israel are spoiling for war. Expect it to erupt sooner or later. It's coming.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

PRI Regains Mexican Presidency

To contact us Click HERE

PRI Regains Mexican Presidency
by Stephen Lendman
Like its northern neighbor, wealth and power dominate Mexican politics. Elections are notoriously tainted. Populist candidates are excluded. The late John Ross said Mexico perfected the art of electoral theft.
Longstanding problems fester. For millions, they're unbearable. They include extreme poverty, unemployment, underemployment, deep-seated private and public corruption, drug-related crime and violence, and political repression.
Beyond lip service, none of the candidates addressed them. Conditions are worse now than years earlier.
Sunday's election changed nothing. Privately, Nieto assured Washington that business as usual will continue.
On July 2, AP headlined "Mexican elections: PRI, former ruling party, voted back into office," saying:
Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) candidate Enrique Pena Nieto "promis(ed) a government that will be modern, responsible and open to criticism."
A New York Times editorial headlined "Mexico Elects a New President," saying:
"Many voters clearly felt the need for change....Nieto has a chance to restore his party's reputation and do a lot of good for Mexico if he can deliver on his promises to make belated reforms, increase accountability and end the bloodshed."
The Times gave Nieto op-ed space. He headlined "Mexico's Next Chapter," saying:
His campaign "was about....improv(ing) economic conditions for millions of struggling Mexicans" and ending political polarization and paralysis.
He's committed to democracy, he said. Change no longer can be postponed, he claimed.
Mexicans know better. PRI's history reflects a shameful legacy of subordinating populist interests to predatory capitalism, the military, and bourgeoisie privilege.
Established in 1929, it emerged from the 1910 - 1917 Mexican Revolution. During the Great Depression, class harmony and nationalist slogans co-opted workers and campesinos. Class struggles were controlled.
Revolutionary change never came. Post-war strikes were brutally repressed. In the 1980s, greater integration into global markets occurred. A new billionaire class emerged.
Crisis conditions affected ordinary Mexicans. They still do. Farmers and small businesses went bankrupt. NAFTA drove millions north. Drug trafficking spawned violence. Thousands have been killed in recent years.
Elections don't change things. Washington and Mexico partner in criminality, repression, and militarized control.
James Petras calls "narco-finance....the most advanced stage of neo-liberalism. When the respectable become criminal, the criminals become respectable," he explains.
Like America, money power and imperial interests run Mexico. Ordinary people are entirely left out. Each electoral cycle, everything changes but stay the same. Nieto's election assures more of the same.
PRI leaders ran Mexico from 1929 - 2000. National Action Party (PAN) candidate Vincente Fox ended its 70 year rule in 2000. Both parties represent common interests. It hardly matters which one rules.
Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador ran a populist 2006 campaign. Thereafter, he shifted markedly right. Earlier he promised expanded social benefits. No longer. Mexico's power elite knows he safe.
Mexican-style democracy reflects America's. Wealth and power run both countries. Promised change won't come. Nieto's agenda reflects it. Neoliberalism's death grip assures punishing hard times for ordinary people at a time of protracted economic Depression.
Popular support for Nieto was unimpressive. With most returns counted, Reuters said his margin was 37.6% over PRD's Obrador 32.2% and PAN candidate Josefina Vazquez Mota's 25.4%.
New Alliance Party's (PANAL) Gabriel Quadri got 2.3%. Another 2.4% of ballots were declared invalid. Turnout was about 62%.
From 2005 - 2011, Nieto served as State of Mexico governor. Critics call him a product created by Mexico's TV giants. He's a proxy for the country's biggest businesses and ruling elites.
"He's been imposed on us by powerful interests like the (corporate owned) TV stations and old presidents," said biochemist Javier Aguilar. "How can it be that a country this miserable is home to the world's richest man."
He referred to business tycoon Carlos Slim. Other billionaires, major banks, and corporate giants run Mexico. They replicate business interests in America and other Western countries.
Other critics called PRI's return to power a major setback. University students staged opposition marches in the final weeks of Nieto's campaign. They expressed no faith in his promises.
He's also dogged by accusations that he overspent his $330 million campaign funding limit and got favorable Mexican corporate media coverage.
A London Guardian expose headlined "Spotlight falls on Televisa, Mexico's all-powerful TV station," saying:
Historian Andrew Paxman called Televisa "like Murdoch on steroids in the sense (it) has operated under far fewer constraints...."
"The company's alleged use - abuse, say critics - of programming for political and commercial ends has become an explosive issue in Sunday's election."
"....Nieto, has been thrown on the defensive over evidence uncovered by the Guardian detailing his links to Televisa, whose channels account for about two thirds of free-to-air television. Its rival, Azteca, accounts for most of the other third."
Concentrated television ownership threatens democracy, said former under-secretary of communications Purificacion Carpinteyro. "It gives them enormous power to extort....because nobody wants to be insulted or rubbed out or (negatively) exhibited on TV."
WikiLeaks cables helped expose the corrupt Televisa/Nieto relationship. One explained how the network gave him "extraordinary amounts of airtime and other kinds of (favorable) coverage."
Televisa maintained close ties to PRI for decades. Like US television giants, it supports wealth and power interests.
Voters also elected 300 Mexican lower house Chamber of Deputies members and 168 senators. Governors were chosen in six states, and Mexico City got a new mayor. PRI candidates appear to have won control of the nation's Congress.
PRD candidate Obrador questioned election results. He claimed pollsters manipulated pre-election surveys. His supporters also questioned electoral fairness.
Fraud is endemic in Mexican politics. In 2006, vote totals were falsified for current President Felipe Calderon. Millions of ballots weren't counted. Around 900,000 were declared void, blank, annulled and discarded.
Obrador won. Calderon's brother-in-law, Diego Hildebrando Zavala, designed the vote-counting software.
Mexico City mayor-elect Marcelo Ebrard said, "There is now so much evidence of fraud that the court will have to act." Nothing followed. Calderon took office.
He acknowledged Nieto's victory. He and Obama congratulated him. A White House Office of the Press Secretary release said:
"Today the President called Enrique Peña Nieto, President-elect of Mexico, to congratulate him on his victory based on the initial results issued by Mexico’s electoral authorities."
"The two leaders reaffirmed the close bilateral partnership the United States and Mexico enjoy based on mutual respect, shared responsibility, and the deep connections between our people."
"The President reiterated his commitment to working in partnership with Mexico, and looks forward to advancing common goals, including promoting democracy, economic prosperity, and security in the region and around the globe, in the coming years."
"The President also congratulated the Mexican people who have once again demonstrated their commitment to democratic values through a free, fair, and transparent election process."
Obama acknowledged that Mexico is safe in his hands. Money power keeps control. The worst of what harms ordinary Mexicans will continue. Dire economic conditions assures hard times getting harder.
Mexico's history reflects revolutionary outbursts every 100 years or so. In 1810 and 1910 they erupted. Perhaps another is due any time.
In 1910, Francisco Madero triggered what Emiliano Zapata Salazar led. His supporters were called Zapatistas.
Mexicans wondered if Subcommandante Marcos was his modern incarnation. Their hopes remain unfulfilled. Indigenous struggles continue. Beneficial social change is long overdue.
The only solution is world revolution. The best way to beat organized money is with organized people. Famed Chicago community organizer Saul Alinsky (1909 - 1972) explained.
Change depends on taking to the streets, striking, boycotting, challenging authority, disrupting business, and sustaining grassroots efforts for change.
There is no other way. Throwing the bums out for more of the same fails every time.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour