Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Matthew Staver / The Washington Post / Getty Images

Cannabis plants in a “flower room” at a medical cannabis cultivation facility in Denver, on March 4, 2013.

For nearly a century, the United States has been one of the fiercest advocates and practitioners of marijuana prohibition in the world. At the height of the Americas anti-pot fervor in the 1950s and 60s, one could even receive life imprisonment for simple possession of the drug.

But the puritanical fervor that once dominated the national discussion surrounding cannabis has been conspicuously absent of late. Earlier this month, the Colorado State legislature, by order of a November referendum, passed bills to implement the legalization and regulation of recreational marijuana use. Washington State voters also approved legalization by referendum on election day. And these events have recently been followed by more good news for supporters of cannabis law reform. The Organization for American States recently suggested that marijuana legalization could be a way to cut down on drug-violence in the western hemisphere.Perhaps most important, the movement has finally found a voice on Capitol Hill, as representatives Earl Blumenauer and Jared Polis submitted legislation earlier this year that would end federal prohibition of the drug, and allow states to tax and regulate it as they see fit. As Bill Keller put it recently in theNew York Times, Today the most interesting and important question is no longer whether marijuana will be legalized eventually, bit by bit, it will be but how.

(MORE:Will High Marijuana Taxes Encourage Black Markets?)

Indeed, the feeling that the further liberalization of marijuana laws is inevitable is backed up by the polling trends. According to Gallup, as recently as 2005, two-thirds of Americans opposed legalization of marijuana. Now 48% percent of the population supports it. And a similar poll from Pew puts the number even higher at 52%. But what exactly explains this sudden change in American attitudes towards pot?

Undoubtedly, part of the reason for the increased acceptance is demographic. It might make you feel old to read this, but on Friday, both Bob Dylan and Tommy Chong celebrated birthdays, turning 72 and 75 respectively. The aging of these counterculture icons hasnt directly changed American attitudes towards marijuana, of course, but it does underscore the fact that the vast majority of Americans living today came of age during a time when marijuana was widely in use. The data bear out the prevalence of marijuana use in todays society, with 48% of Americans claiming they have tried the drug at least once.

(MORE:U.S. Marijuana Laws Ricochet Through Latin America)

But familiarity with marijuana isnt by itself going to drive changes in the legal code. Political consensus is necessary too. And while national political leaders arent necessarily falling over themselves to endorse marijuana legalization, there isnt a lot of room in the current political climate to defend prohibition, either. The political right has done an excellent job over the past thirty years convincing the American public of the limitations of government. They have argued that even when the government has the best of intentions it can be astoundingly ineffective at achieving its stated goals, and often creates unintended and pernicious consequences to boot. This is the same argument that has led to deregulation of industry, historically low tax rates, and legislative efforts like welfare reform. Its only logical to extend it beyond social welfare programs to something like drug policy.

And supporters of ending marijuana prohibition do indeed point to the unintended consequences of the policy as reason to legalize. According to the FBI, in 2011, 1.5 million people were arrested on drug charges, and roughly half of those were for marijuana, costing billions per year in law enforcement and court costs. And that doesnt count the human toll on those arrested, like potential loss of work, government benefits, the right to vote, and student aid. Meanwhile,the government simply hasnt come anywhere close to achieving the stated goal of marijuana prohibition, which is to prevent drug addiction. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, since the beginning of the so-called war on drugs, the addiction rate in America has remained steady at 1.3%, despite the fact that each year state and local governments spend more and more money over $1 trillion in total fighting the drug war.

See the original post:
Legalization of Pot Moves Slowly Toward Reality

Gene Policinski

Senior Vice President/Executive Director, First Amendment Center

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Freedom to report the news requires the freedom to gather it.

In the months ahead, that basic concept so central to the First Amendments protection of a free press will also be at the heart of the ongoing debate over how far government officials may go in pursuit of those responsible for leaking classified information to journalists.

The debate kicked off new fervor with disclosure of a wide search conducted by the Department of Justice in which it seized phone records of The Associated Press that spanned two months, multiple offices and even some personal lines.

The bushel-basket, clandestine nature of the seizure meant AP was not given the opportunity to argue for even a more-focused search on a specific leak leaving the work of up to 100 journalists on multiple stories exposed to government scrutiny.

Then there was the report of the outright label of criminal conduct, as a co-conspirator and/or aider and abettor, attached by an FBI agent to James Rosen, chief Washington correspondent for Fox News. Justice Department officials apparently believe Rosen solicited confidential information from a U.S. State Department source about a 2009 pending North Korean missile launch.

In seeking a search warrant in 2010 to secretly examine Rosens e-mails, the agent said the journalists tactics included employing flattery and playing to the sources vanity and ego. The source later was indicted, and reportedly the FBI also riffled through Rosens e-mails for at least 30 days, along with extensive review of phone data and computer records of Rosens trips in and out of the U.S. State Department buildings.

Mass collection of journalists phone call information. Threats of criminal liability aimed at reporters who get information from confidential sources in the government. The idea that journalistic flattery equals espionage. Combined with an unprecedented six prosecutions for alleged leaks double the number under all previous administrations combined it all adds up to a not-so-subtle message: Dont ask, dont tell.

See the rest here:
Freedom to report the news requires the freedom to gather it

May 272013



First Amendment, Government Religion at Williamsburg, VA
A re-enactment of a discussion in colonial America about the need to prohibit the government from interfering with the free practice of religion, and the dangers of not doing so.

By: worship dotcom

Continue reading here:
First Amendment, Government

May 272013

Jonah Goldberg

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thats the full text of the First Amendment. But (with apologies to the old Far Side comic) this is what many in the press, academia and government would hear if you read it aloud: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, blah blah blah, or abridging the freedom of the press, blah blah blah blah.

Dont get me wrong: That the Obama Justice Department has gone to unprecedented lengths to hamper or punish journalists is real news.

DOJ trawlers dropped a gill net over The Associated Press in the hope of landing a single fish. James Rosen, a reporter for Fox News (where Im a contributor), is the first journalist ever treated as a criminal under the Espionage Act. Other reporters at Fox a news outlet Obama has spent years trying to delegitimize have been investigated by the DOJ as well.

The press can always be counted upon not just to speak up for itself, but to lavish attention on itself. And thats fine. Whats not fine is the way so many in the press talk about the First Amendment as if its their trades private license.

The problem is twofold. First, we all have a right to commit journalism under the First Amendment, whether its a New York Times reporter or some kid with an iPhone shooting video of a cop abusing someone.

I understand that professional journalists are on the front lines of the First Amendments free-press clause. But many elite outlets and journalism schools foster a guild mentality that sees journalism as a priestly caste deserving of special privileges. Thats why editorial boards love campaign-finance restrictions: They dont like editorial competition from outside their ranks. Such elitism never made sense, but its particularly idiotic at a moment when technology Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Vine, etc. is democratizing political speech.

Second, the First Amendment is about more than the press. First Amendment experts and watchdogs are really scholars and activists specializing in the little slice dedicated to the press. The Newseum, a gaudy palace in the nations capital celebrating the news industry, ostentatiously reprints the entire First Amendment on its facade. But if the curators of the Newseum are much interested in the free exercise of religion or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, Ive seen no evidence of it.

White House press secretary and former journalist Jay Carney repeatedly insists that the president is a strong defender and firm believer in the First Amendment.

See the original post:
First Amendment clause-trophobia

Website merely under maintenance? Entirely gone? Or shut down by the government? These are the questions owners of Liberty Reserve accounts are asking, now that the official site is currently inaccessible.

As of this writing, Liberty Reserves official site (www.libertyreserve.com) shows a Webpage Not Available error which could mean that the site may have been taken down or shut down.

What is Liberty Reserve?

Liberty Reserve is an online currency or digital payment processor used by customers to send and receive funds anonymously on the internet.It is a company incorporated and operated in Costa Rica since 2002 that allows customers to facilitate online transactions, including payment of goods and services and personal exchanges or fund transfers.

Unlike Paypal, another global payment processor, Liberty Reserve payments cannot be reversed. What also attracted users to Liberty Reserve is the anonymity and privacy offered to users.

Any user, for example, can sign up for and use a Liberty Reserve account without having to verify identity, submit identification cards, or link to a bank account. Users can also use any name (fictitiousor otherwise) when signing up. Multiple accounts by the same user are allowed. In addition, Liberty Reserve offers a private payment option that hides ones account number when making a payment.

Down, gone, shut down?

In the past, site maintenance concerns that make Liberty Reserves website inaccessible are usually announced to the public days ahead, but in this recent case, there was no official announcement from the owners of the digital currency.

Rumors about Liberty Reserve being shut down by the government intensified when news reports emerged saying one of the owners of the payment processor was arrested.

News article: Costa Rican arrested in Spain for alleged financial crimes

See more here:
Liberty Reserve: Down, gone, shut down?

Rapper Ice-T, left, and Ted Nugent are teaming up for a documentary about guns.Reuters/ AP

When music fans think of West Coast rapper Ice-T, Ted Nugent may not be the first name that immediately comes to mind. But thats who the rapper is teaming up with for a new documentary about the heated gun control debate.

The recently announced film, Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire, looks at the background of the Second Amendment.

‘Assaulted turns the gun debate around. It is a civil rights issue, and we take a look at the history of the Second Amendment. Its a right that has been abused over the years and one that gets overlooked the most, the films executive producer, writer and director, Kris Koenig, told FOX411s Pop Tarts column. Its a self-defense right that gets distorted into self-offense. Our civil rights are very precious to us. The reason our country exists is to balance individual rights against the whole. It has kept our country safe.

Narrated by Ice-T, the film features myriad voices on the topic. Nugent appears along with Dan Gross, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence,as well as UCLA professor and author Adam Winkler. The movie aims to take a critical look at our current gun laws, Koenig explained, and how the concept of people rising up against the government in the U.S. may not be so farfetched.

When you look at what is happening with the IRS targeting certain groups, or the FBI looking into media phone records, you realize it doesnt take a lot to push a government into tyranny. Im not suggesting we are anywhere near that point now, but governments do break down, Koenig cautioned. Look at what happened after Hurricane Katrina, or the L.A riots. The government wasnt there to protect the people, and Koreatown was left as something of a battleground. We see small incidences like this where the government does fail us.

Koenig insisted that its crucial to understand the roots of gun violence, mostly tied to gangs, drugs and the black market.

And you cant ignore the mental health aspect, he continued.

The push to ban assault weapons has also sparked dispute in recent months, with many arguing there is no reason for the average American to possess such a weapon, yet this documentary filmmaker begs to differ.

When dealing with anything to do with our Second Amendment, our lawmakers need to keep in mind that it serves to protect us as individuals… Incidences of violence with an assault weapon are few and far between, less than 1 percent, Koenig said. We shouldnt give up our civil liberties for a false sense of safety.

View original post here:
Documentary exploring history of Second Amendment features Ted Nugent, Ice-T

The whole premise of Steve Provosts opinion on the Second Amendment is absurd. The government needs to give itself permission to have a standing army?

Perhaps Mr. Provost doesnt know that the Bill of Rights is a set of rights that the people reserve unto themselves and that government doesnt have the right to take away. These are fundamental and individual rights. Not one of the original Bill of Rights has anything to do with the rights of the government. The people in the language of the Second Amendment refers to all the people and not to the government.

Read more:
Faulty premise on Second Amendment

PEOPLE using tax havens have deprived governments worldwide of STG100 billion ($A155.63 billion) in revenue, enough to end extreme poverty twice over, according to Oxfam.

The charity says the total amount of lost tax revenue is far higher than STG100 billion, as the figure only includes tax dodged by individuals, and not companies.

More than STG12 trillion is held in tax havens around the globe and more than a third of this is believed to be held in British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, according to Oxfam estimates.

Emma Seery, Oxfam’s head of development finance and public services, says it is time for the British government to act.

“The figures put the UK at the centre of a global tax system that is a colossal betrayal of people here and in the poorest countries who are struggling to get by, and put the government on the side of the privileged few,” she said.

The figures were released as British Prime Minister David Cameron attends a European Council meeting in Brussels where European heads of state will discuss the global tax system and tax evasion.

Oxfam has called for a blacklist of tax havens and an agreement that EU member states will impose sanctions against tax havens and those using them.

The charity is part of the Enough Food for Everyone IF campaign, which is calling on the G8 to make all tax havens end secrecy by sharing tax information.

Go here to see the original:
Tackle tax havens to help poor: Oxfam

May 222013

People using tax havens have deprived governments worldwide of STG100 billion ($A155.63 billion) in revenue, enough to end extreme poverty twice over, according to Oxfam.

The charity says the total amount of lost tax revenue is far higher than STG100 billion, as the figure only includes tax dodged by individuals, and not companies.

More than STG12 trillion is held in tax havens around the globe and more than a third of this is believed to be held in British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, according to Oxfam estimates.

Emma Seery, Oxfam’s head of development finance and public services, says it is time for the British government to act.

‘The figures put the UK at the centre of a global tax system that is a colossal betrayal of people here and in the poorest countries who are struggling to get by, and put the government on the side of the privileged few,’ she said.

The figures were released as British Prime Minister David Cameron attends a European Council meeting in Brussels where European heads of state will discuss the global tax system and tax evasion.

Oxfam has called for a blacklist of tax havens and an agreement that EU member states will impose sanctions against tax havens and those using them.

The charity is part of the Enough Food for Everyone IF campaign, which is calling on the G8 to make all tax havens end secrecy by sharing tax information.

See the article here:
Tackle tax havens, urges Oxfam



Individual Liberty or Government Security: you can't have BOTH
Trading ANY amount of Liberty for an ILLUSORY Government Security will yield a bondage so complete that the tyranny which springs from this arrangement will …

By: OneTruth4Life

View original post here:
Individual Liberty or Government Security: you can’t have BOTH – Video

Screenshot of a computer-generated prototype of a drone armed with a machine gun.

In April 2012, Rand Paul’s nightmare seemingly came true nearly a year before he’d even gotten the chance to dream it. Four people were having a dinner party and playing cards when all of a sudden, a robotic plane showed up outside their window and interrupted their game with a barrage of bullets.

[PHOTOS: The Expansion of the Drone]

For 13 hours on the Senate floor this March, Paul railed on the government’s willingness to use armed drones on American civilians, even suggesting that the government could use an unmanned plane to kill an American eating dinner with his family. But he never mentioned the possibility that the person flying the drone could be a neighbor.

That idea sounds farfetched, but some legal scholars think that Second Amendment rights might extend to robotic arms, including drones outfitted with weapons.

Fortunately, the poor card players that went down in a hail of drone-borne gunfire last year was a family of prop dummies, and the bullets were computer generated. The video was designed to promote the release of Call of Duty Black Ops 2, where players can control an unmanned attack drone. But the nation collectively freaked out when Kyle Myers, known online for blowing stuff up with big guns, posted video of that “Prototype Quadrotor with Machine Gun” on YouTube. It has since been viewed more than 18 million times.

But soon, the technology to arm your own personal drone might become a reality.

Most commercially-available drones, for the time being, aren’t strong enough to carry a firearm, and experts say the recoil from firing most types of guns would likely down a small drone. But as technology improves and guns with little- or no-recoil become more commonplace, armed drones could become an issue.

In Texas, for instance, the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department floated the idea of arming drones with a no-recoil shotgun that shoots rubber bullets and tear gas dispensers. In other YouTube videos, hobbyists claim to have created homemade armed drones.

Read the original:
The Next Gun Debate? Armed Drones Could Be Protected By the Second Amendment

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) pledged that the Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will get to the bottom of the “IRS’ abuse of taxpayers’ First Amendment rights,” which he said members of the Obama administration have been aware of since last summer when he and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) called for an inspector general’s investigation.

“At the risk of sounding, I guess a little boastful, we’d like to think that because Congressman Issa and I requested the audit of the IRS — when Tea Party groups from all over the country and specifically from the fourth district of Ohio, came to us and said ‘look we’re getting harassed,’ — we said let’s check into this and so we requested the audit and the audit by the inspector general is what prompted the IRS to actually come forward and admit to what they did,” Issa said in a video response (below) via TellDC.com, a website that allows people to ask questions to their elected representatives.

Jordan and Issa requested the audit in a June 28, 2012 letter sent directly to Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George that pointed out examples of IRS “overreach.”

Gearing up for a hearing next Wednesday, Jordan told TellDC.com that the committee is planning to seek testimony from other IRS witnesses in addition to Lois Lerner, the director of the IRS’s Exempt Organizations Division, who will be a key witness.

Watch the rest of Jordan’s response to Melissa Hopkins, Executive Producer at TellDC.com:

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

Video courtesy of TellDC.com.

Front page image credit: AP

Visit link:
Rep. Jordan Pledges to Get to Bottom of IRS ‘Abuse of Taxpayers’ First Amendment Rights’



(O) Offshore Banking Government – Jordan Maxwell
offshore company, offshore banking – http://www.worldwideoffshore.com/

By: brianna kenson

Original post:
(O) Offshore Banking Government – Jordan Maxwell – Video

May 192013

Protecting the country’s beaches is the aim of a campaign being launched by the Greens today.

The aim is to stop risky deep sea drilling and it’s being supported by surfing champion Mischa Davis and rowing champ Rob Hamill.

A tender process for new permits to conduct exploratory deep sea drilling in waters off the west coast of Auckland kicks off this week.

Greens co-leader Metiria Turei wants people to sign up to what she’s calling a Kiwi Bid, a petition that will be presented to the Government calling on it to protect the beaches, not exploit them.

“New Zealanders come out every year strongly in defense of their beaches from pollution and damage. And we love our beaches, they’re part of our national identity.

“So we’re asking people to again stand up for this heritage.”

Ms Turei says you only need to see the damage caused by the Rena wreck to know why action is needed to stop the plans.

“Exploration wells are more dangerous than productive wells actually, because they don’t know what the pressure is like, they don’t know what they’re digging into.

Original post:
Campaign to protect NZ's beaches



First Amendment – Freedom of Religion — Government
Kory O'Kelly, Miguel Carrillo, Devon Miller, Molly Maine.

By: KORYOKELLY

The rest is here:
First Amendment – Freedom of Religion — Government – Video

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

This is the week the First Amendment was made for.

Those of us who regularly work on freedom of expression issues are sometimes hard-pressed to convey the urgency of protecting these core freedoms. Concepts like freedom of speech, faith and assembly can seem abstract. Many view freedom of the press as just a news media issue. And few recognize the role of petition in shaping our nation.

But this week we learned that the Internal Revenue Service used its power to impede conservative political organizations with patriot and tea party in their names. Theyve even targeted groups that try to educate the public about constitutional issues. (Well try not to take that personally.)

Days later, we discovered that the U.S. Department of Justice had seized the records of phone calls made from 20 lines used by about 100 Associated Press journalists. There was no advance notice to the AP and no communication with the news organization beyond a brief e-mail sent on Friday.

In a letter objecting to the records seizure, AP CEO Gary Pruitt called it a massive and unprecedented intrusion by the Department of Justice into the newsgathering activities of The Associated Press.

Theres still no way of knowing exactly what the Department of Justice sought in its probe of government leaks, but theres little question that the subpoena was overly broad and clumsily-handled. News media organizations across the country have echoed Pruitts criticism.

The news this week gives us a glimpse into a very different America. Imagine a nation in which a government agency with the power to tax every citizen can play favorites, rewarding or punishing people for their political views. And consider a country in which no American would dare call a news organization about government misconduct for fear of being identified in a dragnet.

Thats a chilling and perhaps overly dark vision. Yet the news of the week is a sobering reminder that government bureaucracies cant be counted on for self-restraint. Thats why the first generation of Americans insisted on a Bill of Rights, including the guarantee of freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition.

When the government goes too far, we have the freedom to raise our voices and say Not so fast. Thats exactly what weve seen throughout the news media and social media the last few days.

Read more:
The week the First Amendment was made for

>> new york city is the largest city united states . we all think of it as a sprawli sprawling metropolis. it is easy to forget you are on an island in the north atlantic . manhattan is surrounded by water. staten island is surrounded by water. all the new york city boroughs have coastlines and it is possible to do some very good fishing, so north atlantic fishing in se brooklyn, new york . i know this because i caught this fish in brooklyn on friday morning before i came to work. look at the size of that striper that i caught in brooklyn . you can fish in prook lynn. and there are a lot of people who to it for fun and people who do it commercially and on june 14th , 1971 , at a fish company in brooklyn , a very strange thing happened. the previous day, “the new york times ” had started publishing the pentagon papers along four multivolume narrative history of a war in vietnam. this thing was never supposed to be made public, but it was stolen from the government by a whistleblower who thought the public should have access to the same information about the war the government had. it was smuggled to the “new york times ” an the times made the difficult decision to publish the papers and when the times published the first installment on june 13th , 1971 , the paper must have been waiting for the other shoe to drop. they knew what they were doing. how big a storm this was going to cause. they were waiting. they must have been waiting for what would be the inevitable response from the government, the demand they cease publication and all the rest, but they published this thing on june 13th and there was no response from the government. and that’s because it turns out that on june 14th , the day after they started publishing the pentagon papers , there had been an angry, threatening telegram written by the attorney general to the “new york times ” demandinging that they cease publication of these document, but the fbi accidentally sent the telegram to a fish company in brooklyn instead of to the “new york times .” and so what the “new york times ” heard the day they published the pentagon papers and the day after was nothing. and this fish company in brooklyn must have been very, very confused by the angry telegram they got from the attorney general. eventually, the attorney general and fbi got it together and stent telegram to the “new york times ” demanding the return of the pentagon papers and no further publication. the times said no. they published on the 13th, the 14th, the 15th, then the government got a temporary restraining order blocking them from publishing anything further. pentagon papers was the first time the government had used courts to — based on national security grounds. and that temporary restraining order they got of the pentagon papers , that ended up becoming a major federal first amendment case. the newspaper involved in the case within a week had lost the district court level. they appealed to the circuit court level and by the end of the month, june 30th , 1971 , the case had gone to the supreme court . they started publishing it on the 13th. by the 30th, the supreme court rule thag the government could not block newspapers from publishing this stuff. some government lost that effort to block the press from publishing something that the press wanted to publish but the government said would be dangerous to publish. the government lost at the supreme court . but that does not mean they got over it. you know how in watergate , the burglars r were called the plumbers? they were not called the plumbers because they dressed up like plumbers. the reason they were breaking into the various places they broke into was that they were plugging leaks. they were plumbers deal wg leaks, but these were leaks of information. they were trying to find out who in government was providing secret information to the news media, including the pentagon papers . that was the whole orgin of the plumbers and there by stop the press from publishing something the government does not want published. it has been really important from the beginning of our republic. there is a reason the freedom of the press is the first amendment. it’s because the founders knew how important it was to tell the truth and they knew the interpreter temptations for people in power to stop the press from doing that. they said amendment one, we are taking sides of this fight. we know it is going to persist throughout this nation. we are taking sides and we are taking the side of the press. the press housed the constitution’s protection clearly in these inevitable fights and that is a fundamental part of what our country is. i take it as a sign of their wisdom in being so clear on the matter in that these are not seen as settled. they keep happening all over again in every century, ever presidency just about. we need to reread and demand respect from the first amendment because this is an important fight. the important fights are the ones that don’t go away. at tend of 2005 , just decided they always needed warrants before, they didn’t anymore. the response to the administration to the publication of that story was not just to deny the story or to express unhappiness with the fact that this government policy was known and they wanted to keep it secret. the response from the administration was instead to demand that reporter be thrown in prisen. that he be compelled to reveal his sources, to reveal who had given him the secret information. they subpoenaed him to demand he give up his sources and jim made clear in his fighting with the court, that the administration was really using everything it had to go after him. quote, the first subpoena issued to me was the culmination of a long campaign against me by the bush administration and it’s supporters. president bush called the — a shameful act and the administration and its supporters publicly speculated about me for espionage. after that, an organized campaign of hate mail was launched. meanwhile, protesters supporting the bush administration picketed my office. pundits and bloggers supporting the bush administration took to tv and internet to call for the white house and justice department to prosecute me for espiona espionage. going after reporters, using the full power of the federal government to stop reporters from publishing things the government did not want published. pete hoekstra , quote, they will be sitting in jail by the end of the year unless they reveal their sources. around the time that the right had the torches and pitch forks out, abc news reported that the government was not just demanding reporters reveal their sources and threatened to put them in jail if they did not, they were secretly going through journalist’s phone records. accord iing to a senior federal law enforcement official, the incoming and outgoing numbers were being monitored by the government as part of a widespread leak investigation. the title was federal source to abc news, we know who you’re calling. it’s chilling, right? you’re a reporter. trying to find out what the government is doing, but if you find out too much about what the government is doing, hey, you might end up in jail. you certainly can’t tell your sources that you’ll keep their identity safe. you can’t tell your sources that they can trust you to keep their identities out of it. if you have to tell them, yeah, they’re probably going to put me in prison until i tell them. this is chilling. this is chilling on purpose and those details reported by abc news in 2006 to reporters to try to fair it out who was leaking to these reporters, right, it appears to be exactly what the administration is doing now. it is exactly the same thing. in an investigation that appears to be related to a p p reporting on the cia busting up an al-qaeda bomb plot a few years ago, the justice department has notified the ap that at least 20 of their phone lines including numbers of their reporters were swept up in a dragnet by the justice department . two months worth of phone records were obtained by the fbi . it is over and done with. when the ap published that story about a year ago about the bomb plot, the response on the right was kind of a mini version of the torches and pitch forks that came out in the 2000s . but in this case because it’s a democratic p president, the outrage on the right was directed at not just the reporters, it was against the government. they were alleging that the administration doesn’t care enough about classified information being leaked. if they really cared, they would freaking investigate it. they would chase this thing down.

>> what the president ought to be saying is that this is very damaging to the country. and we’re going to do everything we can to get to the bottom of it, whether it involves my white house or where ever in the intelligence community .

>> well, we certainly need to have an investigation of what has happened.

>> the question is, do we really have an independent and aggressive investigation because these leaks are very, very disturbing.

>> republicans last june demanding a serious investigation into these dastardly leaks. well, they got their investigation and as part of that, the attorney general himself was investigated as to whether maybe he was the leak to those ap reporters or perhaps did he know who was the leak and because the attorney general himself was interviewed as part of the investigation, he could not himself head up the ingag so, he recused himself to avoid a conflict of interest, but two u.s. attorneys were appointed to investigate the leaks. we now know as part of this investigation that we got this unprecedented tracking of 20 timpbt phone lines and that justice department just decided to do that on their own. never had to get permission from a court. there had been a media shield law that said if you want to wiretap reporters, you have to get a court to sign off on it. a few new details. one additional name today in terms of ap reporters and editors who were targeted by the subpoena of their phone records. we know it was outgoing phone calls that were subpoenaed by the justice department . not necessarily the incoming numbers or duration of those calls. the deputy attorney general who was in charge of this investigation also said today that supposedly, the content of these reporter’s calls was not monitored. it was just — out and what number it went to, we got the white house denying any involvement or knowledge. the attorney general saying this was out of his call, he was out of the loop. we got the ap today, more livid today than yesterday that this is happening as they get more information from the government about what their news bureaus and reporters were subjected to and we’ve got all of this happening within the context of this great american fight. the inevitable prime and pressure of an aggressive free press. the repeated familiar overreaching efforts of the government to stop the press from doing that. and most importantly, the fact that the writers of our constitution knew that government would always be tempted to act this way and that’s why they made it very, very clear that our constitution takes sides. this fight is inevitable, but in america, the winner of this fight is also inevitable. so, how is the p going to win this fight? joining us now is david schultz , thank you for being with us tonight.

>> thank you, rachel.

>> i’m sure that long exposition of the facts and my take on them does not exactly comport with yours, but in term of the ap ‘s role in this, i should ask you —

>> i think you got it just right.

>> it is a constant balancing act in the united states . freedom of the press or national security or anything the government doesn’t want disclosed. is the it ap ‘s position that the justice department is within its rights to be investigating these leaks? it’s just that they are doing it in a way that is too rushed.

>> sure. i think the key, there is an inherent conflict between the government’s ability to keep secrets ab the ability of people to oversee their government, that you have to have access to government information . you need confidential sources to give you u that information or the only things you’re going to know about the government is what they’re going to tell you. the real problem here is is that in the mess after watergate — to set up rules that would help us not overreach, the give the press a zone of protection they would operate in. those were in the form of regulations that were imposed, adopted by the adopt of justice and they formed provisions. one was that the government was required under the regulation not to go after reporters information unless it was critical. number two, they could only go after it if there were no alternative sources. they had to exhaust all of their alternative sources and number three, if they were going after it, they had to make it as narrow as possible so they weren’t interfeeing with the press and the fourth one is that they are supposed to negotiate with the press ahead of time. go to the press and say we need this information from you. here’s why and have a negotiation over how broad it is. what happens here is that the regulations were just ignore d. the jus disdidn’t, they said we follow it to the letter, but this is really an unprecedented action. they weren’t just individual. they were — they were the bureau, the north beer row. the washington bureau. in those bureaus, 100 or more ap reporters — about who they were calling —

Visit link:
Freedom, security at odds again in DoJ seizure of AP records

The First Amendment broadly protects political speech and the use of resources (printing presses, the internet, money) to facilitate that speech. Yet when someone wants to engage in the most obvious kind of political speech supporting election campaigns the government is allowed to restrict this important constitutional right. In a new case coming to the Supreme Court, Shaun McCutcheon, a wealthy political donor, and the Republican National Committee contend that the limits on political donations are unconstitutionally low and not supported by a sufficient governmental interest.

Currently, an individual may contribute up to $2,500 per election to federal candidates, up to $30,800 per year to a national party committee, and up to $5,000 per year to any non-party political committee. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended most recently by McCain-Feingold in 2002, also imposes an overall limit on the aggregate amount one may contribute in a two-year period. For 2011-2012, an individual could contribute up to $46,200 to all federal candidates combined, and $70,800 to political action committees and political party committeesa total of $117,000.

Of course, this isnt the first time that the Supreme Court has dealt with contribution limits. In the seminal 1976 case ofBuckley v. Valeo, the Court held that while contribution limits implicate fundamental First Amendment rights, such limits are justified if theyre closely tied to an important governmental interest, such as preventingquid pro quocorruption or the appearance thereof.

But the Court also decided that restrictions on campaignspendingput a heavier burden on political expression, one which the government couldnt justify. One of the plaintiffs arguments here is that the biennial contribution limits are simultaneously a limit on expendituresa position which Cato elaborated in a newamicusbrief.

We argue thatBuckleys distinction between contributions and expenditures, with limits on the former but not the latter being constitutional, is problematic. Not only does it allow infringements on the freedom of speech, but it has led to an unbalanced and unworkable campaign finance system.

Various justices over the years, some even inBuckleyitself, have questioned the Courts logic on this point. Justice Thomas in particular has assailed the distinction, pointing out that both contributions and expenditures implicate First Amendment values because they both support political debate. Moreover, candidates must spend an inordinate amount of time fundraising instead of legislating because they face an unlimited demand for campaign funds but a tapered supply. At the same time, money has been pushed away from politically accountable parties and candidates and towards unelected advocacy groups, leading to a warping of and decrease in political competition.

The special three-judge district court that first heard this case was legally bound to the framework the Supreme Court laid out inBuckleyand restated that contribution limits are constitutional as such, dismissing the lawsuit. Still, Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote that the constitutional line between political speech and political contributions grows increasingly difficult to discern.

In a truly free society, people should be able to give whatever they want to whomever they choose, including candidates for public office. We urge the Supreme Court to strike down the biennial contribution limits and give those who contribute money to candidates and parties as much freedom as those who spend money independently to promote campaigns and causes.

The Supreme Court will hear argument inMcCutcheon v. FEC this fall.

More:
The First Amendment Protects Both Political Donations and Campaign Spending

LOS ANGELES–(BUSINESS WIRE)–

The Hugh M. Hefner Foundation is pleased to announce the winners of the 2013 Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Awards. Christie Hefner established the Awards in 1979 in conjunction with Playboy magazines 25th anniversary to honor individuals who have made significant contributions in the vital effort to protect and enhance First Amendment rights for all Americans in the fields of journalism, government, book publishing and education. A press reception with the winners, judges and special presenters will be held on May 22, 2013, at the Playboy Mansion, where winners will receive a cash award of $5,000 and a commemorative plaque.

This years Lifetime Achievement Award will be bestowed to Norman Lear for his unwavering defense of the fundamental values laid out in the Bill of Rights, and his commitment to nurturing a new generation of young leaders fighting for the American Way. Lear has enjoyed a long career in television and film and as a political and social activist and philanthropist. Concerned about the growing influence of radical religious evangelists, Lear formed People for the American Way, a nonprofit organization designed to speak out for Bill of Rights guarantees and to monitor violations of constitutional freedoms.

Additional Award winners, many of whom are unsung heroes, come from various walks of life and include Jessica Ahlquist, a Rhode Island high school student, who is being honored with a Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award in the Education category for her courageous and successful lawsuit over a prayer banner in her high school, a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Four distinguished journalists who responded to the urgent need for cutting-edge transparency journalism to create the Freedom of the Press Foundation to support those organizations and individuals that publish leaks in the public interest. The following four share an award in the Journalism category:

John Perry Barlow, cofounder of the Freedom of the Press Foundation and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is a former Wyoming cattle rancher who also wrote songs for the Grateful Dead. His 1993 Wired essay, “The Economy of Ideas,” was the first announcement that the music industry (as we then knew it) was doomed. He is currently working on turning sewage into jet fuel.

Daniel Ellsberg is a cofounder of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. He is best known as the whistleblower who released the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times in 1971. He receives a Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award for his indefatigable defense of a free and uncensored press and creating an organization to promote and fund aggressive public-interest journalism.

Rainey Reitman is a cofounder and chief operating officer of Freedom of the Press Foundation. She’s also a founder and steering committee member for the Bradley Manning Support Network, a network of individuals and organizations advocating for the release of accused WikiLeaks whistleblower Pfc. Bradley Manning. She serves on the board of the directors for the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, a nonprofit whose mission is to organize and support an effective, national grassroots movement to restore civil liberties, and on the steering committee for the Internet Defense League, which organizes Internet users to combat imminent threats to online rights.

Trevor Timm is the cofounder and executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which supports and funds independent journalism organizations dedicated to transparency and accountability in government. Since 2011, he has also been an activist and writer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He has contributed to The Atlantic, Foreign Policy, The Guardian, The New Inquiry, Al-Jazeera and Harvard Law and Policy Review.

Colonel Morris Davis, former Assistant Director and Senior Specialist in National Security, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, who despite great risks expressed his personal views on the Guantanamo Military Commissions, a matter of intense public interest and debate, thus inspiring others to speak out. He is receiving an award in the Government category.

More here:
Winners Announced for 2013 Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Awards

Credit: Steven Puetzer/Getty Images

Last month we managed to track down “Dave,” a member of the elusive Illuminati organization, who answered “Guy Code” fans’ burning questions. After explaining how he orchestrated the Bulls’ first round win and messing around with Beibs, “Dave” agreed to answer more Illuminati inquiries. Once again, through a series of complicated sources and connections, we’ve made this happen.

We love when people ask this! The plan is very simple: First, we lead you to believe that you are your own person, a unique snowflake with a brain full of fluffy dreams, puppy dogs, rainbows and mint chocolate chip ice cream. Meanwhile, we kick back with drinks and “Fresh Prince” reruns after a long day of combining animal species and conversations with aliens from space.

I can only assume by “it,” you mean “us,” and the answer is no. We have plenty of other reasons and tools for your death than you merely questioning us. If it were that simple, then it wouldn’t be as fun watching the demise of a human through cigarette smoking, too much diet soda and “Deadliest Catch.”

What does this even mean, you fool? We do not have LeBron “raw.” He’s doing exactly what’s expected. When he was in high school, there was huge rift between the organization about LeBron playing basketball or football.

Some members died defending the decision to get him into the NBA. The opposition insisted he become a wide receiver for the Raiders. LeBron as a football player? Those cushy bones wouldn’t have lasted more than three seasons. If the other side had its way, the world would’ve been stuck watching Kobe winning his ninth ring this year.

Is your government corrupt? We don’t believe it is. We believe the government is functioning as efficiently as we allow it to. Perhaps you’d prefer we go back to the days of chopping off hands and feeding people to lions? Or maybe you’d like it if we let maniacs march into countries whenever they feel like it because total world domination is within reach? No matter. We’re proud of the men and women we have in government and they, in turn, are happy to do our bidding…I mean, governing.

Very simple. We keep track of the most ridiculous things that will preoccupy a good part of the population (The Kardashians, a car chase in L.A., Miley Cyrus’s silly haircuts, etc.) and go out of our way to make sure they stay relevant enough to trend on Twitter. What’s amusing is how you think this is a decision. Trending topics on Twitter are nothing more than a hasty errand for us. In fact, we usually let our children do it. They think it’s “goofy” to get people talking about crime and reality TV and all sorts of things that waste our time, while the adults try to figure out a better way to live under the oceans.

In your sister’s bedroom.

+ Follow Guy Code on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr and Google+

Originally posted here:
'Dave' From The Illuminati Answers More Twitter Questions



FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company
Web Hosting Advertise Here $10 a Month Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin




Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com