------------ New ------------

Shifting Sands: Jewish Women Confront the Israeli Occupation

Shifting Sands: Jewish Women Confront the Israeli Occupation (Paperback)

~ Osie Gabriel Adelfang (Editor), Cindy Sheehan (Foreword), Amira Hass (Foreword)

   
Progressive Partners





United Progressives does not necessarily endorse the views of our contributors.

Search

Books by Anna Baltzer

Banner

Rethink Afghanistan

Order the complete Rethink Afghanistan documentary on DVD
Banner

Books by Members

Banner
Refresh page to see more titles.

Endorsements

Green Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney Endorses United Progressives Platform

Endorsements

Tennessee Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate Chris Lugo endorses our platform

From FPIF

FPIF Latest Content
FPIF Latest Content
Supreme Court
The Age of the 'Unperson' PDF Print E-mail
Written by Len Hart   
Friday, 12 March 2010 11:04
Len HartThanks to the increasingly absurd, bought-and-paid for Supreme Court, corporations are now people but real people can be declared Orwellian 'un-persons' with but a stroke of a pen. This is an unconstitutional power given POTUS by SCROTUS but has no basis in law.

Everything you were told in school with respect to the Bill of Rights, habeas corpus, the rule of law, the right to trial, the right to be confronted by your accusers --all of that is by the boards, 'repealed', rendered moot, defunct with yet another idiotic, stupid and dead wrong decision by the most subversive, traitorous 'Supreme Court' in history.

Moreover, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that government officials are immune from lawsuits because --at the time --it was unclear whether abusing prisoners at Guantanamo was illegal. Let me help them out on this one: every 'prisoner' held in Guantanamo is held in violation of every treaty and international principle to which the U.S. is obliged. This affront to the rule of law must not stand! It is more repugnant than
Last Updated on Friday, 12 March 2010 11:16
 
Corporate Speech is Our Silence PDF Print E-mail
Written by Richard Whitehead   
Friday, 29 January 2010 09:15
Richard WhiteheadIn a disheartening 5-4 decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that a government restriction prohibiting corporations and unions from using general funds money to campaign on behalf or against political candidates, was an unconstitutional restriction. After this scandalous ruling was made, some nascent progressive efforts, led by Congresswoman Donna Edwards and constitutional law professor Jamie Raskin, have been gaining some distinct notoriety as credible measures pushing for a constitutional amendment rejecting the Court's ruling. As defined by Movetoamend.org, a constitutional amendment needs to “firmly establish that money is not speech” and that “human beings” are the only entities “entitled to constitutional rights”.

There are a number of similar petitions out there, and, to the best of my knowledge, I've signed every one of them. Why are these petitions important and why should you sign them? As any casual observer can easily guess, the Supreme Court's ruling crucially alters the political balance of power away from a political system already favorable to business interests, to a system where corporate money has the potential to define the terminology of
Last Updated on Friday, 29 January 2010 09:46
 
Public Interest Groups Condemn Supreme Court's Ruling on Corporate Money in Elections PDF Print E-mail
Thursday, 21 January 2010 18:33
Supreme CourtCALL FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO OVERTURN COURT DECISION

"Free Speech Rights Are For People, Not Corporations"

WASHINGTON, DC – A coalition of public interest organizations strongly condemned today's ruling by the US Supreme Court allowing unlimited corporate money in US elections and announced that it is launching a campaign to amend the United States Constitution to overturn the ruling.

The groups, Voter Action, Public Citizen, the Center for Corporate Policy, and the American Independent Business Alliance, say the Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC poses a serious and direct threat to democracy. They aim, through their constitutional amendment campaign, to correct the judiciary's creation of corporate rights under the First Amendment over the past three decades. Immediately following the Court's ruling, the groups unveiled a new website – http://www.freespeechforpeople.org –
 
Supreme Court May Rule on Tuesday to Allow Unlimited Corporate Funding of Elections PDF Print E-mail
Monday, 07 December 2009 07:50

Supreme CourtCampaign to Be Launched in Response to Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court may rule on Tuesday, December 8th, or in the coming weeks, in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, that the American people are powerless to stop corporations from using corporate funds to influence state and federal elections. The restrictions on corporate expenditures in elections contained in the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (known as BCRA or "McCain-Feingold") would then be violations of the First Amendment protections of free speech. To make this ruling, the Supreme Court would have to overrule two previous cases, including a 2003 decision, McConnell v. FEC, and a 1990 decision, Austin v. Chamber of Commerce, where the Court ruled that a Michigan law limiting corporate expenditures in elections did not violate the First Amendment.

Such a ruling would dramatically expand the new "corporate rights" doctrine that has transformed the First Amendment in recent years, and expose an already-corrupted political process to a new flow of

Last Updated on Monday, 07 December 2009 08:01
 
Supreme Court drama in the works PDF Print E-mail
Written by Mary Shaw   
Tuesday, 06 October 2009 07:45
Mary ShawThe new 2009-10 U.S. Supreme Court term officially began yesterday, and they've got some interesting cases on the docket:

McDonald v. Chicago could overrule a state's right to regulate firearms.

Salazar v. Buono will test the wall of separation between Church and State.

Citizens United v. FEC will decide on the constitutionality of limiting corporate spending on political campaigns.

Then there's Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. As they describe it over at thinkprogress.org, "[this case] concerns the power of Congress to create 'independent agencies' whose members cannot be fired at the whim of the president. Should the Court gut Congress'[s] power to create such agencies, the next Karl Rove could pressure the FCC to fine the Rachel Maddow Show while ignoring the antics of Glenn Beck, and he could strongarm the FEC into manipulating elections to benefit
Last Updated on Tuesday, 06 October 2009 07:50
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 3

Artwork by Nohad Nassif

Free Membership

By joining, it is understood that you support progressive values, as generally defined by our platform. Notice: We are currently having difficulties with attempts to log in using Internet Explorer v.6. For the moment we recommend using a different browser.

Members Online

None

Smart Bookmarker

Banner

Hiyam Noir Poetry

Hiyam Noir Avatar

"In the Toxic Garden"
those dead uncountable


The impossibilities
of my dreams
did not discourage me
from continuing to believe

so I am returning

as in my worst nightmares

more

Books We Recommend

The Bush dynasty, the powerful forces that put it in the White House, and what their influence means for America
Banner

News & Opinion

Think Progress
  • NM Corrections Secretary Refusing To Penalize Contract-Breaching Private Prison Company He Used To Work For

    joeThe escape of three detainees from a privately-run prison in Arizona last month “put the spotlight on…private prisons,” as critics of prison privatization pointed to the “lax oversight” of the private prison system as one reason the inmates were able to so easily break out of their facilities.

    Now, the New Mexico Independent (NMI) reports that neighboring state New Mexico is experiencing similar lax oversight as “the New Mexico Corrections Department has not collected penalties from two private prison operators despite repeated contract violations, costing the state potentially millions of dollars in uncollected fines.” The two prison operators in question, GEO Group, and Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), have been found to be understaffing the prisons they operate, not meeting contractual obligations.

    In an interview with NMI, New Mexico Corrections Secretary Joe Williams “acknowledged that the vacancy rates at the prisons GEO and CCA operate often are higher than their contracts allow,” but said he “decided against punishing the firms because the prisons they manage ‘are outstanding.’” He explained that the prisons’ contract doesn’t say that he “shall” fine the companies for violating the terms of the agreement, but rather that he “can”:

    The New Mexico Corrections Department has not collected penalties from two private prison operators despite repeated contract violations, costing the state potentially millions of dollars in uncollected fines, state officials have told The Independent. [...]

    Williams acknowledged that the vacancy rates at the prisons GEO and CCA operate often are higher than their contracts allow, but he decided against punishing the firms because the prisons they manage “are outstanding,” he said. “They are not having escapes; there are no substantial problems. If there were a problem I would be down there penalizing them,” he said. [...]

    “The contract does not say I shall do it. The contract says I can do it,” Williams told The Independent.

    In choosing not to penalize the GEO and CCA prisons for understaffing their facilities, Williams is far from an impartial arbiter. As his biography page on the New Mexico Corrections Department website boasts, in 1999, the “Geo Group, Inc. (formerly known as Wackenhut) hired Joe as the warden for the Lea County Correctional Facility, and charged him with turning around the troubled prison in Hobbs, New Mexico. The facility eventually became a flagship prison. Agreeing to serve as its warden proved to be the right move, both professionally and personally. In fact, Joe liked the city of Hobbs so much, he named his beloved basset hound Sir Hobbs.” It adds that Williams’ experience at GEO gave him “rare insight into the world of private corrections” and made him an “ideal candidate for the job he now holds.” The biography notes that the state’s incarceration system is “44 percent privatized, and leads the nation in prison privatization.”

    The Governor’s website notes that Williams is “the first private sector Warden ever to be selected to head a state correctional system in the nation.” It now appears that Williams still has some loyalty to his former employer, and in refusing to penalize GEO for its clear violation of its contract, is exhibiting a clear conflict of interest.

  • Rick Scott’s Immigrant Running Mate Accused Of ‘Evading’ Questions On Immigration

    Last week, gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott (R-FL) tapped Jennifer Carroll (R-FL), an African American immigrant from Trinidad, to share the Republican ticket with him as lieutenant governor. “Working together, we will broaden the base of our party,” Scott said as he introduced Carroll. However, if Scott hopes to use Carroll to broaden a minority base that includes disgruntled Latino and immigrant voters who he has isolated via his hardline immigration stance, he may want to ask his running mate to brush up on her talking points. The Palm Beach Post published an awkward exchange between one of its reporters and Carroll:

    CARROLL: I agree with Rick and his position on legal immigration. Illegal immigration I do not support because I feel that we should not be rewarding illegal activities.

    PALM BEACH POST: But does that mean you support bringing an Arizona-style immigration enforcement law to Florida?

    CARROLL: Well let me you ask you back, what is your impression about Arizona-style immigration laws?

    PALM BEACH POST:What is my impression?

    CARROLL: Yes.

    PALM BEACH POST:It’s a law that requires police when enforcing other laws to check immigration status if there is a suspicion. [...]

    CARROLL: We haven’t gotten into the nitpicky as to how a bill is going to be crafted. There’s already a bill by Will Snyder that the House has already filed. What the containment of that bill is, how it is going to come out of the House or Senate, is another story

    PALM BEACH POST:Do you support Representative Snyder’s bill?

    CARROLL: I have not read the bill, so I cannot tell you.

    Watch it:

    During his primary against Bob McCollum (R-FL), Scott poured millions of dollars into ads supporting Arizona’s tough immigration law and advocating for one like it in Florida. Snyder’s immigration bill, which McCollum unveiled as part of his campaign platform, was largely a desperate response to Scott’s pandering on the issue. Since then, GOP Latino leaders have been publicly asking Scott to abandon his anti-immigrant rhetoric. So far, there is no indication that either he or his running mate is listening. Read more at the Wonk Room.

  • Montana Tea Party Leader Fired For Advocating Violence Against Gays — But Is Backed By State GOP Candidate

    ravndalpicUp until Sunday, Tim Ravndal was the president of the The Big Sky Tea Party Association, a prominent Montana Tea Party group. He was removed from that position, however, after apparently endorsing violence against gays and citing the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard on his Facebook page.

    On July 23, Ravndal declared his opposition to gay marriage in a Facebook status update. Another user replied: “I think fruits are decorative. Hang up where they can be seen and appreciated. Call Wyoming for display instructions.” Ravndal then responded: “Where can I get that Wyoming printed instruction manual?”

    The post was deleted, but here is a screenshot of their exchange:

    ravndalexc

    In 1998, University of Wyoming student Matthew Shepard was beaten and tied to a fence post. Police said Shepard was attacked because he was gay. The almost inescapable conclusion is that Ravndal and the other user were referencing that murder, especially when the other user replies to Ravndal that he should be able to find Wyoming’s “manual” in newspaper archives “a bit over ten years” ago.

    Ravndal now says he “never made the connection” between the Wyoming reference and Shepard’s murder. Nevertheless, the Big Sky Tea Party Association’s Board of Directors voted unanimously to remove him. However, the organization’s secretary, Kristi Allen-Gailushas — who is also a Republican candidate for Montana’s state senate — continues to back Ravndal, and defended his comments. On Sept. 3, she posted this to his Facebook page:

    No matter what you guys say, Tim is a great American and Patriot. He does have a right to say what he wants. I know that he didn’t mean it, but in the heat of his anger with the ACLU might not have realized what he was saying. The people who are in the TEA party movement are called names all of the time. Racist, extreimest….you name it. Tolerance needs to be done on both sides especially the homosexual side. There isn’t any tolerance for people who have a different opinion than yours. If we say yes to gay marriage where does it stop? The people who want to have more than one spouse will be next and that is against the law. The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, are we now going to change the definition?

    Allen-Gailushas subsequently wrote on Facebook, “The Gay community wants a war….they’ve got one!!” Clarifying later, she added, “I didn’t mean a literal gun war, but a war of the truth and the hypocrisy they espouse.”

CB Workflows

Favorite Quotations

"We have to be willing to tell the hard truth about the power we have to corrupt the most pure, most sublime recognition of truth.

You can't finally tell the truth through the mind, because the mental process is busy with damage control. But there are a few questions you can ask to support truth telling, and you can deeply examine and ruthlessly, often painfully, answer them.

The questions are, 'What is my life standing for?' What has it stood for?' 'What is the deepest call for my life to stand for?' All you have to do is be really willing to look very carefully and see." - Gangaji