My website fully exposes the corruption within the Winnipeg police department: Human Rights report by Dianna Scarth and Jerry Woods cites racial brutality attacks upon natives and blacks outside the city perimeters… Canadian Press report by Tamara King cites unprecidented levels of corruption and perjury or brutality charges against police systemic across Canada.
See my site winnipegpoliceexposed(dot)blogspot(dot)com and you will see the Winnipeg Police exposed in systemic rapes, brutalities, drug dealings, gang affiliations, cross border abductions (of which my case is just one amongst many) racism, and systemic abuses.

Total 11 attempts upon my life by Wpg police-they are trying to abduct me prior to Sept3/08 hearing at which we can expose their involvement in our attempted cross border abductions/ kidnapping and jail them for felony acts!
They have gone so far as to terrorized family friends and associates - have also terrorized my 64 yr old mother upon one abduction attempt, demanding entry yet I was not present. We both now suffer chest pains and I have been hospitalized several times as a result of the combination of the original attack and 3 years ongoing trauma/ fear for lives.
Winnipeg Police chief Keith Mc Caskill is deeply involved. He is an FBI graduate with liason to MN police. MN police and Wpg Police Similar MN police are now undergoing lawsuit for KKK threats upon their own black police and Black/Muslim congressman Keith Ellison, and in Minneapolis where we were profiled/attacked 21 blacks are imprisoned for every 1 white due to judicial corruption documented by the Council on Crime and Justice.

CORROBORATIVE CONTACTS: Our Journalist Lesley Hughes (204) 275 5757 e:lesleyhughescanada@yahoo.com, also: Roch Tasse International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group: rocht@iclmg.ca, Communities United Against Police Brutality Michelle Gross (CUAPB.org) 612 703 1612 e:mgresist@minn.net,

She never really conceded the nomination to Obama. Listen to her speeches. She acknowleged the support for him, and promised him, but she did not concede her delegates.

And so far, her “support” for him has been getting him to go out and beg for money to pay off her campaign debt.

Also I noticed Obama seemed to take his turn to the right, right after her people started nosing around in his campaign. I mean come on, Cowboy hats, vacationing on the fourth of July in Montana, eating steak and wearing flag pins while promising to extend Bush’s illegal “Faith Based Initiatives” program?

This sounds like her schtick, not his.

And then, she suddenly changed her vote to Nay on HR 6034, this past Wednesday, as if she had convinced Obama she was voting for it, then at the last minute taking a hard left.

I still think she may be planning a coup at the convention this fall, and honestly, I’m wondering if she doesn’t deserve it.

After all, anyone smart enough to fool the presumptive nominee into turning into the oppositions darling child, while at the same time putting herself out there as the bastion of our values, pretty much demonstrated they at least are no dummy.

And we’ve had “dummy” in the White House, long enough.

Them then again = than them again (say that three times fast)

and

Declaring to not only extend George Bush’s Constitutional nightmare program “Faith Based Initiatives”, =

Declaring to not only extend George Bush’s Constitutional nightmare program “Faith Based Initiatives”, but to expand them.

Sorry for the typos. I type this stuff quick and spell checkers are for sissy’s, lol.

I agree with the sentiment, that is, this country could do a lot worse than seeing Professor Turley finally in a position where he is not defending justice, but dispensing it.

But I do have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of condeming the FISA vote, then supporting the man who voted for it.

I’m being serious here, and usually get immediatly attacked for questioning why I, or anyone should or would support Obama after he voted to, as Professor Turley so aptly stated to Rachel Maddow on Countdown, “eviscerates the 4th Amendment”, and “its gonna hurt”.

I believe one term he used was it “strikes at the marrow” of the Amendment.

And more accurate statements have not been made regarding this vote. The vote Professor Turley admonished Mr Obama, and rightly so, was not a “compromise, but a cave in”.

Now what I’d like to hear, and have been searching the blogosphere for, is an explanation of why we don’t hold Obama accountable for this vote? I tried prior to the vote, to rally opposition to the vote and vocalize our opposition to it, so Mr Obama would “take the hint”. No one however seemed to want to touch it, and instead attacked me for even suggesting we withold our campaign donations and threaten to withold our votes if he proceeds to vote with the republicans on this one.

And thats what he did after all, vote with the republicans.

There certainly wasn’t one shred of sanity or concern for public safety in this thing. It was clearly a “we broke the law, got caught, so now will change the law” bill.

Q: If Obama thinks we’re going to vote for him, no matter what he does, just to beat McCain, then what is it exactly that will persuade him to actually care about our values?

Recently, Obama started wearing the flag pin. While I get attacked anytime I bring up the flag pin, the fact is, I saw this as a sign of weakness in the face of a little opposition. Right when the republican crybaby chorale was warming up, and trying to paint him as unpatriotic for not wearing a 50 cent piece of tin on his lapel, or more aptly put, wearing his “patriotism on his sleeve”, …or lapel, as it were…he caves.

His campaign comes up with this phony photo op where some troops hand him a flag pin and walla. He’s wearing the pin.

Why?

So he could look more like Bush?

Some tried to profess that he was “picking his fights”, but what I saw, was a man who caved instantly on the “little fights” and so naturally would cave when the big bouts came.

And he did.

Public Financing turnaround. Declaring to not only extend George Bush’s Constitutional nightmare program “Faith Based Initiatives”, and now FISA?

Even on Iraq, although he claims he hasn’t changed his position, he still made an obvious effort to give himself an out, using the exact same cop out used by Bush for not ending the war;

I’ll listen to the commanders on the ground”

It seems to me that we are doing precisely what we accuse the right wing of doing, day in and day out.

Condemning the opposition candidate for the same things we’re giving a pass to, for our own.

Am I the “only” one who feels this way? And if so,can someone explain to me (without calling me a neocon stooge) what it is again exactly,that makes us different them then again?

Cause I really wanna know.

Can we immediately challenege the Constituionality of the soon-to-be-passed FISA Bill that grants telecom immunity?

Jim

In an editorial in the L.A. Times on the 16th, Kirchick said that “Bush never lied to us about Iraq” and then went on to substantiate his claim in a style that runs contrary to the Media and nutroots meme that “Bush lied and people died.”

The left narrative, one the media is happy to parrot, has been that Bush lied us into war. Kirchick points out that “the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.”

But Kirchick then steps out into some of the most intellectually honest analysis I’ve seen from the left since before the 2000 election when BDS first began to infect the media.

Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House “manipulation” –that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction –administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

Kirchick goes on to chronicle some of the agencies and investigative bodies that have found absolutely no evidence that the Bush Administration manipulated Congress as it made the case for the war.

Kirchick also comes as close to calling John D. Rockefeller (D, W. Va.) a liar as you can without using those specific words when he notes that Rockefeller’s “highly partisan” Senate Intelligence Committee report does not support the wild eyed claims made in its summation.

Yet Rockefeller’s highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that “top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.” Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were “substantiated by intelligence information.” The same goes for claims about Hussein’s possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

Kirchick also trenchantly notes that the latest partisan attack that is being presented as a “report” conveniently forgets to mention the words of the many dozens of highly placed Democrats who’s words were nearly identical to Bush’s in the run up to war.

In 2003, top Senate Democrats — not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others — sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month’s report, titled “Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information,” includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees — who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors — many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

In the end, Kirchick finds no shred of proof that Bush “lied” about anything. In fact, he scolds every Democrat and partisan leftist for saying that he did and that the claim that Bush lied us into war is an “unsubstantiated allegation” that is “cowardly and dishonest.”

So, kudos to James Kirchick for an honest look at the record. Certainly we can agree to disagree right now, at this point, if the war was a good idea or not. But, it is beyond question that there were no lies disseminated by the Bush Administration and neither did the president “manipulate” any evidence to “mislead” the nation into war.

Go read Kirchick’s piece and marvel that it came from a lefty. He really nailed it. “Bush never lied to us about Iraq” is worth your time.

It says: “Limit the risk of sudden amendments and text changes that change the meaning of a bill”

SGIAS® II is a comprehensive bill tracking and data transport solution for monitoring proposed legislation. The efficiency of retrieving only those bills with a change of action, with one search, is a real time-saver for busy legislative liaisons and staff. SGIAS® II reduces manual record keeping, produces convenient and concise reports and includes a safety net that eliminates the risk of unknown text changes or losing track of a bill. The search process is further streamlined by the ability to download multiple texts in various data bases at one time. The automatic wake-up feature is a robot that checks the status of tracked bills while staff is performing other important duties. In addition, Master/Client options will enable reporting bill activity in a timely, selective, secure and user-defined environment.

Service Group, Inc., provides a Win 95/98/2000/XP/NT product that directly interfaces with individual state’s Internet web sites. SGIAS® II provides the value-added enhancements for bill tracking, data exports and file management. The bill reporting capability significantly reduces the time delay of forwarding updates to multiple locations and offers quick and easy custom comments on individual bills. SGIAS® II is an effective solution for companies that follow a volume of bills. SGI will monitor the State’s changes to their Site, search engine and changes to Committee Action Fields to provide software updates on the fly.

After watching the House hearing today with the EPA administrator Steven Johnson and his minions, I’m very concerned that this organization have lost their way to the truth. It seems to be documented in the record repeatedly that he has no opinion other than what he’s told by the White House. This is NOT what the EPA is suppose to be for our country.

Is there a way that Congress can remove Mr. Johnson from his office? Can the courts remove him? Can the courts or Congress stop his rulings?

It’s clear that his rulings are ignoring the science behind the recommendations that his organization brings to his office and he ignores them completely!

Please advise….

I would enjoy reading your views on a Senate bill (S. 1926) introduced by Sen. Dodd, endorsed by Sen. Obama, and adopted by the latter as part of his economic plan.

Perhaps worthy of column? I have attached the URL for the text of the bill.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s1926is.txt.pdf

it translates to “the thing speaks for itself”

it’s a subtle, but important difference.

one is a statement. the other is an argument.

Robert’s footnote 2 by implication gives the Supremacy Clause a new reading, and the conservative bloc voted as expected even though it was against their Commander in Chief and against some of their originalist instincts.

At issue now is how many other treaties are scuttled sub silentio by this decision. What about the CAT?

But what do I know anyway…not much. Mespo?

Thanks.

So what is being said is we have no recourse against these criminals in any forum. While the rest of the world laughs us out of the room; our economy tanks at the expense of the big corporations that Bush and cronies on the Supreme Court now protect; Bush just says this morning that torture must be in the US bag of tricks, against every international law/treaty we as a country have ever agreed to because of some imagined threat the Cheney makes up in his sleep; and, we sit by quietly watching all this happen with no way it seems to stop it??

It seems to me that justice for the Bush dictatorship will have to be outside the US.

I’m not sure you are the right person for this query but you’re better than 99.6% of everyone else in the community, so here goes..

How do we the people, or whom in our representation, can refer George Bush and Dick Cheney (and others in this current administration) to the International Criminal Court in the Hague?

I understand we as a nation have not “recognized” this court but does that make a difference??

The mayor denied under oath during the trial of the affair. Since then, new evidence (probably leaked from the confidential settlement agreement) indicates he lied under oath. A 2004 Michigan Supreme Court ruling says perjury does NOT have to be material.

After the judge ruled today to release ALL documents, the mayor (apparently not in need of city council affirmation) announced “the city will immeidately appeal this decision”.

Will this all end up staying in state court or do the feds move in and take it over?
Check it out at wxyz.com

Leave a Reply
Logged in as . Logout »

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website

——————————————————————————–
« Capturing the Pedaphile Market?: Woolworths Forced to Pull “Lolita” Beds from StoresRent-a-Justice: New Orleans Supreme Court Faces Allegations of Favoritism for Contributors »
——————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————–

Topics
Academics (42)
Bizarre (368)
Columns (51)
Congress (254)
Constitutional Law (328)
Criminal law (264)
Environment (59)
Justice (412)
Lawyering (241)
Military (32)
Politics (296)
Roll Call (14)
Society (692)
Supreme Court (73)
Testimony (14)
Torts (167)
Uncategorized (37)
USA Today (49)
Washington Post (16)
Blogroll
Jonathan’s GW Page
Recent Posts
Court Reduces Punitive Damages Against Radical Anti-Homosexual Church
Court of Appeals Upholds Termination of Police Officer Over Private Porn Site
Roger Clemens Testifies Without Immunity in Congress
Let the Games Begin: China Prepares for Olympics by Convicting Journalist for Writing About Government Corruption
Winston Who?: One in Four British Citizens Believe Churchill Never Existed
Archives
February 2008 (22)
January 2008 (108)
December 2007 (171)
November 2007 (166)
October 2007 (130)
September 2007 (109)
August 2007 (195)
Recent Comments Hugh Gilpatric on Court of Appeals Upholds Termi…
rcampbell on Court of Appeals Upholds Termi…
Vincent Caminiti on Let the Games Begin: China Pre…
binx101 on Let the Games Begin: China Pre…
deeply worried on Let the Games Begin: China Pre…

As most of you know, I have a phone and I’m not afraid to use it…

I agree with you that JT would be perfect as a Supreme, but I am also selfish enough to want to keep him here, with us, for now. And also because ‘here’ is where is most needed and is being, quite obviously, most effective.

Besides that, we are a blast to hang out with about now. Right, JT?

P.S. Hey,you guys, I’m thinkin’ about changing my handle to
‘One Ringy Dingy,Two Ringy Dingy’. Whaddya think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9e3dTOJi0o

And some of us may have some tiny, miniscule modicum of influence, who can say?? I think of Patty C and her telephone.

In any case, we should all keep our day jobs for now. Massive changes are afoot and not all political at that. A job is a nice thing to have….

Thanks so much for your kind words. I will keep my day job for the moment!

Best,

Jonathan

Can I get an “Amen” brothers and sisters?

Thank you for this post, Prof, Turley and Happy New Year!!!

Do you have any plan to appear on TV anytime soon? I am always eager to hear what you have to say.

I must second the idea of your becoming a comedian. And since the writers’ strike is on, this might be a good time to approach MSNBC about doing a show.

Thank you for your kind note. With people like you, this country has a bright future. Have a great holiday!

Jonathan

Or so I imagine in my outsider, out-of-the-loop way….

I realize that I have been shamelessly indulging myself with promoting you for the position and that it is graceless and awkward, so this will be my last on the topic and no reply necessary!

Seasons greetings.

This column is very entertaining; I kept giggling while reading it..I am sure it was quite serious and dangerous situations then, but looking back I think it is one of those stories that you can pass on to your children (if they don’t remember them, that is ). But I really hope that you will keep yourself safe through these dangerous(?) holidays because you are one of the most admired intellectuals in this country and whom this country needs. Your blog (actually your stands on the constiution) opened my eyes to see the things I’ve ignored about what is going on with this country in terms of our rights and freedom. I think I took so many things for granted…but now I realize basic rights and freedom are something we have to guard for not something to take granted for. I am a naturalized U.S. citizen. I used to think that the U.S. was one of the greatest countries because of its stands on human rights and freedom along with other great things. And no doubt now the image of the country is very much tainted due to the course this administration has taken on these issues which are totally against what this contry is founded upon. I want to see the restored image of this country so that I can say that I am proud to be an American. So please keep being a hero for those of us who believe in true American values and who understand what defines Americans.

Happy holidays to you and your familay!!

I apologize; I didn’t mean to make the comment this long. And this comment is quite different from my original one that did not make it

Sincerely,

Sue (AlwaysCurious)

LOL!!! If your career as a brilliant and gifted constitutional law professor/media commentator ever founders, you could always make the payroll by doing a little stand up! Striking Hollywood writers: Beware!