NEW DELHI: The climate is changing on climate change. And IPCC chief R K
Pachauri is feeling the heat. The
latest dent to claims that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 has
clearly ruffled the climate man.

But while his credibility and that of the IPCC has taken a battering,
Pachauri maintains his chutzpah in the face of growing skepticism, arguing
that his acceptance that the research on glaciers had been dodgy had
actually somehow enhanced the credibility of the body.

But the IPCC chief seems to be feeling some unease, particularly as he has
even had to recently defend himself against attacks on his own integrity,
with the British press accusing him of using his position to help companies
he was associated with, pointing to a clear conflict of interest.

Facing a barrage of questions from the media about his `loss of
credibility', Pachauri maintained that all ``rational people'' would
continue to repose their faith in IPCC and its findings.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...ow/5493066.cms

Best Regards
Tom.

Because of the gravity of the crime against the Constitution
committed by a gang of 5 right wing judicial outlaws on our Supreme
Court yesterday, we are launching two critical action pages at once

Action Page: Corporations Are NOT The People
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1029.php

Action Page: Impeach The Supreme Court 5
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1030.php

By any fair legal definition, the decision yesterday by The Supreme
Court 5 constitutes nothing less than an act of TREASON against the
people of the United States. Having read and analyzed the entire 183
page decision and all of its concurring and dissenting opinions
ourselves, we are fully prepared to support this accusatory
conclusion.

Having so grossly abused its jurisdiction by presuming to decide a
question expressly WAIVED by the petitioner in the Court below (p
12), this rogue Supreme Court ruled for the FIRST time that NO
corporation can be constrained from unlimited influence over our
elections. And even assuming that the Court intended the decision to
only apply to American corporations, the Court expressly DECLINED (pp
46-47) to reach the question of whether foreign ownership stakes in
American corporations should likewise be given carte blanche to put
their thumbs on the scales of our democracy.

Thus, until Congress FURTHER acts (and it must, though it could not
have escaped the attention of The Supreme Court 5 that the current
Republican minority has vowed to obstruct ANYTHING of consequence
that Congress might try to pass), there is now nothing to constrain
foreign nationals, even our most sworn enemies, from usurping what
even the most die hard Tea Bagger takes as an article of faith, that
the rights of citizenship of this country are ONLY for Americans.
This must be construed, within the four corners of our Constitution,
as deliberately and knowingly exposing the United States of America
to harm in the interim, by giving "aid and comfort" to our enemies
(Constitution Article 3, section 3), should our enemies now wish to
take advantage of this unprecedented and rash decision. In simple
Constitutional terms . . . treason!!

The fact is that we now live in a world of giant transnational
corporations, with allegiance to NO sovereign government, let alone
our own, sworn only to exploit the most vulnerable and desperate
workers they can find in any country of the world. How does The
Supreme Court 5 propose parsing which of these extra-national legal
artificialities should be allowed to corrupt our democratic election
process? Apparently in their minds, all of them.

Action Page: Corporations Are NOT The People
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1029.php

So what is it that we can and MUST do? The first and most prominent
proposal we heard yesterday, and which we of course support, was to
amend the Constitution to clarify that corporations have no such
rights as people (which is to say U.S. citizens). While this
certainly could not hurt, and would obviously help (assuming such a
proposed amendment could garner 67 votes in a Senate already
stalemated by obstructionism, let alone be ratified by 3/4 of the
states, including many "red" ones), what we must first assert is that
there is nothing WRONG with our Constitution, and demand that
Congress do whatever it can to protect it.

Action Page: Impeach The Supreme Court 5
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1030.php

Because just as importantly, we are on ominous and clear notice that
there is no further outrage these 5 gangsters in black robes are not
gleefully and arrogantly capable of. Indeed, in his dissenting
opinion (that the majority did not go far ENOUGH), Clarence Thomas
characterized the decision as only a "first step" (Thomas opinion p.
1). It is worth noting that the authorship of the majority opinion is
claimed by Anthony M. Kennedy, heretofore generally considered the
LEAST wing nutty of the 5. Therefore, the immediate and unavoidably
necessary recourse must be impeachment for all five, treason already
being a high crime, otherwise the horrors yet to issue from their
treacherous minds is too terrible to contemplate.

NEW FOUR COLOR BUMPER STICKERS

We will have much more to say on all this in subsequent alerts to
follow shortly, but for now we are making available for no charge
(not even shipping) your choice of one of two absolutely gorgeous
full 4 color process bumper stickers. Take a "Corporations Are NOT
The People" bumper sticker, OR a "Impeach The Supreme Court 5" bumper
sticker for free. Of course if you can make a contribution (or if you
want both), please DO contribute what you can, which is what allows
us to send these out for free to anyone who cannot make a donation
right now.

You can request your bumper sticker from the return page after you
submit either of the action pages above. Or you can do directly to
this page and get them there.

Bumper Stickers for no charge:
http://www.peaceteam.net/bumper_stickers.php

Facebook participants can also submit the action pages at

Corporations Are Not The People:
http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/a...?qnum=pnum1029

Impeach The Supreme Court 5:
http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/a...?qnum=pnum1030

And on Twitter, just send the following Twitter reply for the
Corporations Are Not The People action

@cxs #p1029

And this Twitter reply for the Impeach The Supreme Court 5 action

@cxs #p1030

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed
to be ours, and forward this alert as widely as possible.

If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at
http://www.millionfaxmarch.com/in.htm

Or if you want to cease receiving our messages, just use the function
at http://www.millionfaxmarch.com/out.htm

"William Wixon" wrote in message
...
Because of the gravity of the crime against the Constitution
committed by a gang of 5 right wing judicial outlaws on our Supreme
Court yesterday, we are launching two critical action pages at once

Action Page: Corporations Are NOT The People
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1029.php

Action Page: Impeach The Supreme Court 5
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1030.php

By any fair legal definition, the decision yesterday by The Supreme
Court 5 constitutes nothing less than an act of TREASON against the
people of the United States. Having read and analyzed the entire 183
page decision and all of its concurring and dissenting opinions
ourselves, we are fully prepared to support this accusatory
conclusion.

yawn Are you kidding, William? Why don't you convict John Adams for
treason in absentia? g

I think it was an unfortunate decision, but I'm not going to comment on it
until I read the case and the dissent. Maybe tomorrow. But forget the
treason, and make sure you know the precedent and reasoning behind the
ruling. I'm sympathetic to your thoughts but this is a legal case involving
a lot of precedent, and you may not like the consequences if you ignore it.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , "William Wixon" wrote:
Because of the gravity of the crime against the Constitution
committed by a gang of 5 right wing judicial outlaws on our Supreme
Court yesterday, we are launching two critical action pages at once

Action Page: Corporations Are NOT The People
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1029.php

Action Page: Impeach The Supreme Court 5
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1030.php

By any fair legal definition, the decision yesterday by The Supreme
Court 5 constitutes nothing less than an act of TREASON against the
people of the United States. Having read and analyzed the entire 183
page decision and all of its concurring and dissenting opinions
ourselves, we are fully prepared to support this accusatory
conclusion.

Too bad the nutjob that wrote this didn't bother to read the Constitution,
too, which sets forth an explicit, and quite narrow, definition of treason --
which this decision clearly does not even come close to meeting.

Having so grossly abused its jurisdiction by presuming to decide a
question expressly WAIVED by the petitioner in the Court below (p
12), this rogue Supreme Court ruled for the FIRST time that NO
corporation can be constrained from unlimited influence over our
elections.

Again, it's clear that the nutjob who wrote this hasn't read Bill of Rights
either. What part of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press" is unclear?

[remaining lunatic diatribe snipped]

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 02:51:05 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
I think it was an unfortunate decision, but I'm not going to comment on it
until I read the case and the dissent.
snip
==========
While there are some "free speech" issues involved, everyone
keeps "toe dancing" around what I consider to be a central and
critical concern, i.e. "corporate governance."

It should be noted that it is *NOT* the corporation's money that
will be spent on political activity but the stockholders. This
is simply a continuation and expansion of the on-going practice
of "skimming" corporate profits/assets for the benefit of the
directors and officers at the expense of the owners
[stockholders].


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

yawn Are you kidding, William? Why don't you convict John Adams for
treason in absentia? g

I think it was an unfortunate decision, but I'm not going to comment on it
until I read the case and the dissent. Maybe tomorrow. But forget the
treason, and make sure you know the precedent and reasoning behind the
ruling. I'm sympathetic to your thoughts but this is a legal case involving
a lot of precedent, and you may not like the consequences if you ignore it.


I tried to read it but my head started melting. Must be the head cold

Anyway, am I understanding that groups like unions, NRA, Bradybunch, and other
'corporations' are able to avocate for or against a candidate for office w/o the time
limit cutoff prior to an election?

Some may object to my inclusion of unions with corporations but I don't see much
difference between the NRA that is incorporated and a labor union.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

yawn Are you kidding, William? Why don't you convict John Adams for
treason in absentia? g

I think it was an unfortunate decision, but I'm not going to comment on it
until I read the case and the dissent. Maybe tomorrow. But forget the
treason, and make sure you know the precedent and reasoning behind the
ruling. I'm sympathetic to your thoughts but this is a legal case
involving
a lot of precedent, and you may not like the consequences if you ignore
it.


I tried to read it but my head started melting. Must be the head cold

Anyway, am I understanding that groups like unions, NRA, Bradybunch, and
other
'corporations' are able to avocate for or against a candidate for office
w/o the time
limit cutoff prior to an election?

Without having read it yet (after lunch), that's my understanding from the
reports.


Some may object to my inclusion of unions with corporations but I don't
see much
difference between the NRA that is incorporated and a labor union.

Wes

On the face of it, NRA, the ACLU, and other organizations that are formed at
least partly for the PURPOSE of advocacy are, to me, a pretty clear case.
Labor unions are more or less in that category. It's difficult to argue that
their advocacy contradicts the intent of their members.

Corporations formed for a business purpose are a little different. As George
says, they're using shareholder money for a purpose that the shareholders
may not agree with. As it is, though, shareholders have little recourse but
to sell their stock -- but their purpose in buying the stock may be
undermined if they sell it under such duress.

Speculating mode off. I'll read it after I finish my pork chop. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:11:29 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , "William Wixon" wrote:
Because of the gravity of the crime against the Constitution
committed by a gang of 5 right wing judicial outlaws on our Supreme
Court yesterday, we are launching two critical action pages at once

Action Page: Corporations Are NOT The People
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1029.php

Action Page: Impeach The Supreme Court 5
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1030.php

By any fair legal definition, the decision yesterday by The Supreme
Court 5 constitutes nothing less than an act of TREASON against the
people of the United States. Having read and analyzed the entire 183
page decision and all of its concurring and dissenting opinions
ourselves, we are fully prepared to support this accusatory
conclusion.

Too bad the nutjob that wrote this didn't bother to read the Constitution,
too, which sets forth an explicit, and quite narrow, definition of treason --
which this decision clearly does not even come close to meeting.


Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in
levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them
Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the
Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in
open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of
Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or
Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


Having so grossly abused its jurisdiction by presuming to decide a
question expressly WAIVED by the petitioner in the Court below (p
12), this rogue Supreme Court ruled for the FIRST time that NO
corporation can be constrained from unlimited influence over our
elections.

Again, it's clear that the nutjob who wrote this hasn't read Bill of Rights
either. What part of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press" is unclear?

[remaining lunatic diatribe snipped]

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Jan 24, 2:51*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"William Wixon" wrote in message

...





Because of the gravity of the crime against the Constitution
committed by a gang of 5 right wing judicial outlaws on our Supreme
Court yesterday, we are launching two critical action pages at once

Action Page: Corporations Are NOT The People
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1029.php

Action Page: Impeach The Supreme Court 5
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1030.php

By any fair legal definition, the decision yesterday by The Supreme
Court 5 constitutes nothing less than an act of TREASON against the
people of the United States. Having read and analyzed the entire 183
page decision and all of its concurring and dissenting opinions
ourselves, we are fully prepared to support this accusatory
conclusion.

yawn Are you kidding, William? Why don't you convict John Adams for
treason in absentia? g

I think it was an unfortunate decision, but I'm not going to comment on it
until I read the case and the dissent. Maybe tomorrow. But forget the
treason, and make sure you know the precedent and reasoning behind the
ruling. I'm sympathetic to your thoughts but this is a legal case involving
a lot of precedent, and you may not like the consequences if you ignore it.

rangerssuck wrote:

While you're reading it, make sure that you remember that it's a
damned lucky thing that we don't have a supreme court full of activist
judges who legislate from the bench ;-)


You mean like the ones that overturned Plessy v. Ferguson?

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:49:57 -0500, Wes wrote:

While you're reading it, make sure that you remember that it's a
damned lucky thing that we don't have a supreme court full of activist
judges who legislate from the bench ;-)


You mean like the ones that overturned Plessy v. Ferguson?

Wes
===========
Plessy v Ferguson was largely overturned by the rednecks. It
provided for schooling that was *seperate BUT EQUAL.* Billy Bob
Fuddpucker and his cousins were intelectually capable of
understanding one word but not three. In no school district was
segregated schooling even remotely equal. A contributing factor
was that many, possibly all, of the states attempting to maintain
segrigated school systems could not afford to maintain even one
functional educational system, let alone two. One point of irony
is that the case that oveturned Plessy was Brown v Board of
Education [Topeka, Kansas], which was in a "free state," rather
than a "deep south" school district. Kansas was a flash point
leading up to the American Civil War, e.g. John Brown, Quantrill
& the bushwhackers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantrill%27s_Raiders
http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/peop.../quantrill.htm

In the last analysis "Plessey v Furgeson" committed suicide and
the Warren court just administered the "last rites" in 1954 with
"Brown v Board of Education"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v...d_of_Education

IMNSHO Earl Warren has much to answer for, but Brown v Board of
Education isn't included.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

F. George McDuffee wrote:

In the last analysis "Plessey v Furgeson" committed suicide and
the Warren court just administered the "last rites" in 1954 with
"Brown v Board of Education"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v...d_of_Education

IMNSHO Earl Warren has much to answer for, but Brown v Board of
Education isn't included.



George, my point is sometimes the court fixes mistakes. Brown v BOE was a correction that
I fully support. I was responding to Rangersucks comment on activist judges.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:

While you're reading it, make sure that you remember that it's a
damned lucky thing that we don't have a supreme court full of activist
judges who legislate from the bench ;-)


Jeez, 183 pages. That wrecked my entire afternoon and half of the evening.
g

Ranger is right, this is a highly activist decision. The giveaway is that
Citizens United explicitly stated in their defense that they were not making
a facial challenge, but Kennedy (I'll bet it really was Scalia) decided the
Court would decide a facial challenge on Constitutional grounds anyway. His
argument for doing so is as transparently casuistic as the Court gets, and
Stevens in the dissent properly calls him on it, with appropriate sarcasm.
g

As for the decision itself, it's a case of cherry-picking precedent to
support a decision that was obviously made before the case was heard. It's
highly ideological. Several legal commentators have said that the Court
ignored some important points in the precedential cases; I'll have to let
that one go, because I'm not familiar with the key cases cited and I'm sure
not going to read them now. But the comments make it clear that the Court
was looking for bits and pieces that it favored before the fact.

Both Kennedy and Scalia like to make grand gestures, and their landmark
cases share another characteristic: When they're overturning precedent, they
go at it with the hammers of hell. Kennedy shot from all 360 degrees of the
circle, as Scalia had in the Heller case, and he has, like Scalia did, come
up with some questionable logic as a result. For example, Kennedy's
objection to limits on corporate political speech, aside from the legalisms,
is that there is little evidence that it does any good. Yet he uses the
contrary argument to dispute the Austin ruling, that "experience has
undermined" it. In fact, there has been no such experience any stronger than
that in favor of limits, nor did Kennedy cite any.

It used to be rare for a Court to try that approach because the Justices
realized they could only support an argument from a limited number of
positions. In this case, Kennedy stepped on several procedural problems that
Stevens identifies in the dissent.

The bottom line is that this was an ideology-driven decision, unnecessarily
broad in its scope, which is going to invite attacks from future courts. The
Court tried to sew it up so Congress would have no targets to shoot at; they
may have succeeded. That doesn't mean the Court was right, only that they've
already pre-decided several things that Congress might use as angles in on
the central issue.

It's pretty rare that the dissent is almost as long as the majority
decision, and even rarer that it's a better argument. But that's the case
this time. Stevens' dissent was better argued than Kennedy's argument for
the majority.

John McCain summed it up well today. Borrowing from LBJ, he said he
respected the Court's decision, but he'd feel better about it if at least
one of them had run at some time in their lives for County Sheriff.



You mean like the ones that overturned Plessy v. Ferguson?

No comparison. If you want to know why, we can take it up at another time,
but the essence is that a key point relied upon in Citizens United -- that
they claim there is no evidence of quid pro quo voting by members of
Congress -- is exactly the opposite of the same ruling point in Plessy,
which documented the fact that separate was not equal, in that it virtually
always resulted in different inputs and outcomes. So the Plessy rule failed
to meed the requirement of the 14th Amendment on the basis of evidence
alone.

Plessy was a bad ruling NOT because it violated the Constitution, but
because it made an incorrect and speculative judgment that turned out to be
wrong. Brown v. Board of Education was decided after decades of such
evidence had accrued.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:

In the last analysis "Plessey v Furgeson" committed suicide and
the Warren court just administered the "last rites" in 1954 with
"Brown v Board of Education"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v...d_of_Education

IMNSHO Earl Warren has much to answer for, but Brown v Board of
Education isn't included.



George, my point is sometimes the court fixes mistakes. Brown v BOE was a
correction that
I fully support. I was responding to Rangersucks comment on activist
judges.

Wes

Everybody has their idea of what constitutes "activism," but the Court in
Brown was just upholding an explicit point in the 14th Amendment, which the
Plessy decision tried to do (in a half-hearted way), but failed.

I don't know anyone who would call that "activist."

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...

You mean like the ones that overturned Plessy v. Ferguson?

No comparison. If you want to know why, we can take it up at another time,
but the essence is that a key point relied upon in Citizens United -- that
they claim there is no evidence of quid pro quo voting by members of
Congress -- is exactly the opposite of the same ruling point in Plessy,
which documented the fact that separate was not equal, in that it
virtually always resulted in different inputs and outcomes. So the Plessy
rule failed to meed the requirement of the 14th Amendment on the basis of
evidence alone.

Sorry. I meant that Brown v. Board of Education documented the fact that
separate was not equal, overturning Plessy.

--
Ed Huntress

On Jan 24, 8:08*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message

...

rangerssuck wrote:

While you're reading it, make sure that you remember that it's a
damned lucky thing that we don't have a supreme court full of activist
judges who legislate from the bench ;-)

Jeez, 183 pages. That wrecked my entire afternoon and half of the evening..
g

Ranger is right, this is a highly activist decision. The giveaway is that
Citizens United explicitly stated in their defense that they were not making
a facial challenge, but Kennedy (I'll bet it really was Scalia) decided the
Court would decide a facial challenge on Constitutional grounds anyway. His
argument for doing so is as transparently casuistic as the Court gets, and
Stevens in the dissent properly calls him on it, with appropriate sarcasm..
g

[lots of good stuff snipped for brevity (I've been doing this since
110 baud teletypes)]

The bottom line is that this was an ideology-driven decision, unnecessarily
broad in its scope, which is going to invite attacks from future courts. The
Court tried to sew it up so Congress would have no targets to shoot at; they
may have succeeded. That doesn't mean the Court was right, only that they've
already pre-decided several things that Congress might use as angles in on
the central issue.

And which future court would you expect to be attacking this decision?
The one appointed by a President bought by Exxon-Mobile and consented
to by the Senators bought by United Healthcare?

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Jan 24, 8:08 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message

...

rangerssuck wrote:

While you're reading it, make sure that you remember that it's a
damned lucky thing that we don't have a supreme court full of activist
judges who legislate from the bench ;-)

Jeez, 183 pages. That wrecked my entire afternoon and half of the evening.
g

Ranger is right, this is a highly activist decision. The giveaway is that
Citizens United explicitly stated in their defense that they were not
making
a facial challenge, but Kennedy (I'll bet it really was Scalia) decided
the
Court would decide a facial challenge on Constitutional grounds anyway.
His
argument for doing so is as transparently casuistic as the Court gets, and
Stevens in the dissent properly calls him on it, with appropriate sarcasm.
g

[lots of good stuff snipped for brevity (I've been doing this since
110 baud teletypes)]

The bottom line is that this was an ideology-driven decision,
unnecessarily
broad in its scope, which is going to invite attacks from future courts.
The
Court tried to sew it up so Congress would have no targets to shoot at;
they
may have succeeded. That doesn't mean the Court was right, only that
they've
already pre-decided several things that Congress might use as angles in on
the central issue.

And which future court would you expect to be attacking this decision?
The one appointed by a President bought by Exxon-Mobile and consented
to by the Senators bought by United Healthcare?

g You never know what a future Supreme Court will decide. They're always
full of surprises.

--
Ed Huntress