Showing posts with label Civil Liberties and Freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Liberties and Freedom. Show all posts

May 2, 2022

Biden, Democrats Surpass Orwell's Imagination; Proclaim Power to Discern and Delete Harmful Speech

Facing political disaster in the mid-term elections this Nov, the Biden administration and its media acolytes want the American people to know something: Fear Elon Musk.

That's right, Elon Musk's buying Twitter is a dire threat, and we ought not worry about inflation, looming recession, supply chains, student loans, healthcare costs, household debt and corporate takeover of elected government.

Because you the American people have never had it so good, and you need to trust your betters, and stay away from disinformation.

Now, Musk 'threatens' to open up Twitter to dissident voices who are popular with the American people, but the wrong kind of people who voice the wrong kind of speech and think the wrong kind of thought.

It's obvious Democrats and liberal allies fear the mid-terms because they fear the American people. And when information and thought are presented that threatens Democrat rule, the medium that conveys this information must be policed, and the thought must be purged.

Notes Glenn Greenwald this morning: "The worst, most egregious and most nefarious official US disinformation campaign in years was the pre-election CIA lie that the authentic Biden emails were 'Russian disinformation.' It was led by liberal outlets: CNN, Politico/Natasha Bertrand, HuffPost, Mother Jones, Intercept."


Liberals have long besmirched social media because, they say, they fear platforms in which accredited "lies have unfettered access to the American electorate," in the words of corporatist Democrat, Aaron Sorkin, writing in the New York Times in 2019 in favor of censorship of Facebook.

Sorkin well represents the liberal mindset that reasons liberals and content managers are able to sift and winnow social media writing without being corrupted and misled, but most Americans are not equipped with liberals' powers of discernment.

I read about about Sorkin's call for heavy censorship in 2019, but now his narcissism and silly condescension have become Democrat orthodoxy, terrified of the American population.

Time again for a refresher on free speech.

Free speech need not be defended on grounds that consequences of liberty make for a healthy classical liberal society, ala New York Times v Sullivan (1964), an inspiring statement for liberty against those advocating for authoritative selection of published views.

However, the words of Justice William Brennan and other 20-century jurists speak forever to those who believe only they are immune from corruption of unorthodox thought, and their politcal rule must be protected against the vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks.

Writes Brennan in Sullivan:


The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand,

presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many, this is, and always will be, folly, but we have staked upon it our all. United States v. Associated Press, 52 F.Supp. 362, 372 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1943).
Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-376, gave the principle its classic formulation:
Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. ... Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
Thus, we consider this case [New York Times v. Sullivan] against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. (New York Times v. Sullivan).
Aaron Sorkin and Democrats ought consider the foundations of Sullivan today, because free speech protections may not be around forever.

Facebook and other social media well serve our national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited.

Consider the thoughts of Glenn Greenwald this morning, and don't worry, you won't be corrupted.

Jul 10, 2018

Brett Kavanaugh Is a Lie, Senate Dems Need to Stop Vote by Any Means

Opponents of Brett Kavanaugh rallied outside the Untied
States Supreme Court last night. "Are you ready for a fight,"
said Bernie Sanders. Yes, America appears ready for a fight
that may dwarf the 1987 Bork nomination by comparison.

Kavanaugh and Bork Are Two of a Kind


"He looked, and talked, like a man who would throw the book at you — maybe like a man who would throw the book at the whole country," said Tom Shales, media critic at the Washington Post, commenting on the Robert Bork confirmation hearings in 1987, cited in the exhilarating book, Battle for Justice: How the Bork Nomination Shook America, (W. W. Norton), by Ethan Bronner. [Pick a copy of Bronner's work if you have even a passing interest in the biggest political event since 2016, stopping the Kavanaugh nomination.]

Bronner chronicled a landmark breaking point in American political history when the people rose and the United States Senate listened, defeating the Bork nomination 58-42. The vote led to the nomination and confirmation of Anthony Kennedy, a corrupt justice responsible for the among worst decisions in American judicial history: Bush. v. Gore (2000), Citizens United (2010) and Shelby County v. Holder (2013), among them.

Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) publicly warned the zombie-like Senate Dems to assume war footing against the Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh who is even worse than Kennedy.

Defeating this radical corporatist-statist Kavanaugh presents problems vis a vis the radical corporatist-statist Bork.

First among the challenges is the current composition of the Senate — 51 (R) to 49 (D), (115th Congress).

In 1987, Bork faced a Senate controlled by Democrats 55 (D) to 45 R), (100th Congress).

In 1987, six Republican senators voted against Bork, (Los Angeles Times).

In 2018, only a fool would count on any Republican senators rejecting the Christian fascist nominee.
---
Bork was a public relations disaster on a superficial visceral level.

Kavanaugh came across as a blend of Jimmy Stewart and Matt Damon, who above all loves his family and likely says nice things about your mother.

Kavanaugh's unmistakably appealing image is a lie. The visible malice of Kavanaugh as a younger man has melted into the kind visage we watched last night.

Kavanaugh comes prevetted by the radical, anti-civil liberties Federalist Society, armed with a jurisprudence that is savage and hateful.
---
Trump is a malignant clown, but whatever delusions from which Trump suffers, he knows how to unite the right into a fascist, corporate, Christian state that animates the political animal Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh will vote to further degrade civil liberties and target women, minorities, immigrants, gays and elevate corporate power, executive branch power and any level of law enforcement over everyone in the name of god-almighty.

Our rights mean next to nothing.

The Republican Party and Kavanaugh will use the Supreme Court as a means of decimating the rights of the citizenry and any competing political opposition.

Make no mistake Kavanaugh is ambitious, vicious and deceitful. A woman's right to her body is gone with Kavanaugh on the Court.

Plan A should be no hearing, no vote until the Congress convenes in 2019.

Stopping Kavanaugh and Trump is doable.

We have the anti-Trump infrastructure in place, public opinion and mid-term elections. Trump and Republicans in Congress enjoy consistently low levels of approval.

We need determination and political competence.

This is the time of Bernie Sanders and it is the time of us. Our rights depend on what we do in the next six months.

As Stephen Macedo writes in The New Right v. the Constitution:

When conservatives like Bork treat rights as islands surrounded by a sea of government powers, they precisely reverse the view of the Founders as enshrined in the Constitution, wherein government powers are limited and specified and rendered as islands surrounded by a sea of individual rights.

Think of the younger generations, because the country we are leaving them will not be recognizable — a society of diminished rights, and people living as tools to power, tightly constrained, with little legal recourse.

A democracy without rights is tyranny.

Do we trust the future of our democracy to these six senators? Not on our lives:

Apr 18, 2017

Kiron and Kenosha—Dumb and Dumber

White and proud of it. Freedom ain't free. Jesus is watching.
Washington Post reporter, Stephanie McCrummen, penned a feature reporting from Kiron, Iowa revealing a defining characteristic of the white supremacist, Trump voters working to make America great again.

McCrummen paints a picture of people of this western Iowa town resembling a composite of Twilight Zone episodes, waking up to discover white supremacists reign in rural America, a psychopath has been elected to the presidency and a white-power party controls Congress.

Writes McCrummen:

Russell [Paulson] listened; he had known Walt [Miller]. At the age of 80, he knew almost everyone in Kiron, a town of 229 people, one of whom is U.S. Rep. Steve King, who has a house on the edge of town. Russell knew King, too, knew that he was the sort of person always stirring controversy, often by raging against what he called 'cultural suicide by demographic transformation.' More recently, King had said that 'we can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies,' a comment embraced by prominent white supremacists and widely condemned around the country as demonizing Latino and other non-European immigrants.

There was little controversy across King’s district, though, a swath of rural America made up of tiny towns with tiny, aging white populations that routinely elected King with more than 70 percent of the vote. In Kiron, people brushed it off as King being King, a man they all knew, expressing a plain truth they all understood: The white population was shrinking, and towns like theirs were vanishing, with the few exceptions being places such as Denison, a pork-processing town 20 minutes down the highway where population growth was being driven by immigrants from Mexico and Central America.

No, fretting about immigrants blocking restoration of civilization stirs little controversy in the Kirons of America.

Nor among the know-nothings in Kenosha, Kiron's cultural neighbor to the northeast.

Recall the Chris Hayes Show broadcast from Kenosha in December as Bernie Sanders patiently listened and took questions from confused Trump voters.

Reports Josh Feldaman in Mediaite from Dec. 2016:

During another part of the town hall, a Muslim woman spoke up about Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric about a Muslims and immigrants on the campaign trail.

The reaction from the Trump voters to the Muslim ban was to say 1) they don’t want that to happen and 2) it won’t happen because either Trump didn’t mean it or Congress would never allow something like that.

Oops.

American political culture is going to have to come to grips with the fact that the Kirons and Kenoshas are full of people for whom bigotry, racism and hate are not disqualifying in candidates for public office, and the impolitic fact that Trump voters are kind-of stupid.

Each new generation comes of age, learning to blame black, brown, immigrant and the flavor of the month for whatever ails white people.

Trump is due in Kenosha today.

No doubt he'll offer dialogue with the natives as edifying as the conversations at the Quik Mart in Kiron, Iowa: What happened to America? Black, browns and Muslims did it.

Oct 24, 2016

Wisconsin Police Complicit in Human Rights Violations

State-sponsored terrorism at Dakota Access Pipeline
Little by little, violation by violation, small municipal and county police units are destroying the human and civil rights of American citizens.

This travesty is accomplished because police can. As a publicly funded profession police forces typically do not attract civil liberties champions nor human rights activists. What most police manifest are the inadequate personality types who are able and willing to inflict harm, including violence, onto those whom they dehumanize. [This is not news to American ethnic minorities.]

Claims of civil liberties violations typically are met with skepticism, incredulity or hostility from the media, and increasingly from the judiciary.

From North Dakota comes this appalling report:

Madison, Wisconsin Common Council Alderperson Rebecca Kemble speaks out after her arrest while working as a legal observer during the growing resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline.

State-sponsored terrorism is SOP, and police units from all over the Midwest are getting in on the gig.

Nov 27, 2015

Increasing Public Awareness of the Problems with Prosecutors

Conviction Integrity Units of varying effectiveness are springing up around the country as prosecutorial misconduct is now a common a feature of the criminal justice system.

The New York Times today has an op-ed by Brandon Buskey on criminal prosecutors and judges and an under-used federal law: Title 18, Section 242, of the federal code.

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. [U.S. DoJ]
The political reality is prosecutors and judges protect each other as effectively as the Blue code of silence, a more insidiousness venality when wielded by the Sovereign—prosecutors and judges representing the state in all its oppressive and malevolent systemic manifestations, motivated by careerism and complacency—"base motives" such as bigotry and hate making matters worse in the words of Robert Jackson.

Jul 24, 2015

Feds Regularly Monitored Black Lives Matter Since Ferguson

"The Department of Homeland Security has been monitoring the Black Lives Matter movement since anti-police protests erupted in Ferguson, Missouri last summer, according to hundreds of documents obtained by The Intercept through a Freedom of Information Act request."

George Joseph at The Intercept has the story.

Jul 2, 2014

Winnebago County Sheriff's Dept Attack Man for Filming Hostile Questioning

It's a safe bet the Winnebago County Sheriff's Department—Winnebago County (Wisconsin) is infamous for its corrupt district attorney's office (see DA Joe Paulus bribery scandal and DA Vince Biskupic's misconduct scandal, for example)—does not take the idea of community policing and civil liberties too seriously.

So, it's open season on citizens filming sheriff deputies caught in the act of deceit, misconduct and hostile questioning.

Ask Bryan Payne (Facebook). Concerned about the way the Winnebago County Sheriff's Department were questioning his girlfriend, he decided to film the questioning with his phone.

This provoked retaliation, and a hostile and violent response by deputies who pretended Mr. Payne was attacking a deputy. [video is below] "Get your hands off me," yelled a deputy, fabricating a crime of the victim.

Another deputy then screamed, "do not fight," twice while attacking Payne, again fabricating a crime of the victim.

This is a crime by the deputies, is corruption and certainly grounds for a civil action.

Contacted by phone this morning, both the Winnebago County Sheriff's office and Winnebago County District Attorney's office refuse public comment on the policy of filming law enforcement and refer all public comment to voice-mails (the blow-off).

I asked the woman answering the phone at the Winnebago County District Attorney's office if I could get a comment on what the law is in Wisconsin filming law enforcement. She replied, "that's something we do not provide to citizens."

The law is an individual may video tape police as long as the taping does not obstruct the police.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press site states, in Wisconsin "An individual who is a party to either an in-person conversation or electronic communication, or who has the consent of one of the parties to the communication, can lawfully record it or disclose its contents, unless the person is doing so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Wis. Stat. Ann. § 968.31 (West 2011)."

The ACLU site for photographers states, "Taking photographs of things that are plainly visible from public spaces is a constitutional right – and that includes federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties. Unfortunately, there is a widespread, continuing pattern of law enforcement officers ordering people to stop taking photographs from public places, and harassing, detaining and arresting those who fail to comply." (emphasis added)

Watching the video below indicates more evidence that those entrusted with police power need to be monitored in a free society, no matter how hostile some police are to the idea.

Writes Payne: "Was not resisting, but was standing by while the Winnebago County Sheriff's Department was questioning my girlfriend. The situation was then turned onto me because I was intimidating [the police] with the filming of my phone. You be the judge... resisting or not resisting."

Watch the video of police misconduct and deceitful machinations caught on tape:

Apr 2, 2014

Time for Obama to Acclaim Rights over Militarism

Someone close to me traveled to Poland in 1979 and her most enduring memory is the papers of legitimacy that Poland demanded each foreigner carry at all times, under threat of immediate arrest.

In a classical liberal democracy organized upon human rights, the proper response to a militaristic demand for papers is: Fuck off.

But human rights and Poland were never close, and one can state the United States is happily skipping down the same road.

I mention the experience of one American a few decades past the totalitarian, anti-Semitic hell of 1940s Poland because the United States does not require even a demand for papers to "arrest U.S. citizens, strip them of due process and indefinitely detain them," as Chris Hedges notes in his widely ignored, must-read piece on the federal case,  Hedges, Chomsky, Ellsberg, O’Brien, Bolen, Jonsdottir and Wargalla v. Obama.

Notes Hedges: "The lawsuit, Hedges v. Obama, challenges Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It was signed into law the last day of 2011" as the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

'The administration’s unstated goal appears to be to get court to agree that [the administration] has the authority to use the military to detain U.S. citizens,' Bruce Afran, one of two attorneys handling the case, said when I spoke with him Sunday. 'It appears to be asking the court to go against nearly 150 years of repeated decisions in which the court has refused to give the military such power. No court in U.S. history has ever recognized the right of the government to use the military to detain citizens. It would be very easy for the government to state in the brief that citizens and permanent residents are not within the scope of this law. But once again, it will not do this. It says the opposite. It argues that the activities of the plaintiffs do not fall within the scope of the law, but it clearly is reserving for itself the right to use the statute to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely.'"

What's up with this, Mr, President? Will you defend this nonsensical position in a public address?

I ask, in part because I maintain that many Americans would have a serious problem with this totalitarian position, redolent of Poland, 1940s. On a more uplifting note, check out today's The Dimming Prospects for Human Survival by Noam Chomsky.

Feb 16, 2014

Voter ID Protection Act: Here's the Language of HR 3899 Amending the Voting Rights Act

Update: Here's a quote from the official statement (January 2014) of the NAACP's Lorraine C. Miller, Interim President and CEO, NAACP on HR 3899: "The NAACP appreciates that the U.S. Congress has made a bipartisan effort to update the Voting Rights Act, however we have serious concerns about the ability of some provisions in this bill to protect ALL voters from discrimination at the polls.
 
As the nation's oldest and largest grassroots civil rights organization we have the responsibility to ensure that any proposed legislation is in the best interest of our members, our community and our country. Participation in our democracy should be unfettered and all votes should be properly counted. From the exceptions for voter ID laws to decreased preclearance coverage to increased reliance on costly litigation, there are essential revisions and amendments to this bill that must take place to ensure ALL voters have fair and equitable access to the ballot box."
---
Translation: Get rid of this voter ID law protection nonsense or kill this stupid, fracking bill.

From the Library of Congress:
H. R. 3899  To amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to revise the criteria for determining which States and political subdivisions are subject to section 4 of the Act, and for other purposes.
Here's the problem: GOP-passed state laws designed to obstruct voters are specifically excepted as violations of the Voting Rights Act.

If singed into law H. R. 3899 would be the basis of a decision devastating the arguments of League of United Latin American Citizens of Wisconsin v. Deininger alleging violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by disenfranchising Latinos and African Americans.

This is of course Sensenbrenner's objective, protecting Voter ID laws across the country from legal challenge. Here's the bill's language regarding photo identification laws:
SEC. 2. VIOLATIONS TRIGGERING AUTHORITY OF COURT TO RETAIN JURISDICTION.

... violations of this Act (other than a violation of section 2(a) which is based on the imposition of a requirement that an individual provide a photo identification as a condition of receiving a ballot for voting in an election for Federal, State, or local office); ...

SEC. 3. CRITERIA FOR COVERAGE OF STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.

`(3) DETERMINATION OF VOTING RIGHTS VIOLATION- For purposes of paragraph (1), a voting rights violation occurred in a State or political subdivision if any of the following applies: ...

... `(D) The Attorney General has interposed an objection under section 3(c) or section 5 (and the objection has not been overturned by a final judgment of a court or withdrawn by the Attorney General), and thereby prevented a voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting from being enforced anywhere within the State or subdivision, other than an objection which is based on a voting qualification or procedure which consists of the imposition of a requirement that an individual provide a photo identification as a condition of receiving a ballot for voting in an election for Federal, State, or local office. ...
In other words, this so-called Voting Rights Act fix would devastate the legal argument that obstructive Republican Voter ID laws are violations of the Voting Rights Act, and voters are left with GOP justices regard for the 14th and 15th and perhaps the 24th amendments protecting voters against discrimination, an appalling fate in this democracy.

Feb 15, 2014

National Journal: Voting Rights 'Fix' Will Pass Congress; Why It Should Be Vetoed

Updated - The exemption for voter ID laws was written to win the support of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and other Republicans. The legislation strengthens Section 3 of the VRA, which has been described as the Act’s 'secret weapon.' Under Section 3, jurisdictions not covered by Section 4 could be 'bailed-in' to federal supervision, but plaintiffs had to show evidence of intentional voting discrimination, which is very difficult to do in court. Under the new Section 3 proposal, any violation of the VRA or federal voting rights law – whether intentional or not – can be grounds for a bail-in, which will make it far easier to cover new states. One major caveat, again, is that court objections to voter ID laws cannot be used as grounds for “bail-in”under Section 3.) - Sharon McClosky in The Progressive Pulse.

The National Journal's Jack Fitzpatrick has a piece that argues convincingly that the so-called fix to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (and its subsequent reauthorizations) will pass Congress in the wake of its evisceration by GOP justices on the U.S. Supreme Court last year in Shelby County v. Holder.

Major civil rights groups are on board, notes Fitzpatrick, and voter obstruction operative Hans von Spakovsky offers qualified support. The North Carolina NAACP dissents.

And no wonder, the Voting Rights Act contains language protecting the main voter obstruction weapon of the Republican Party, restrictive voter ID laws.

The Voting Rights Amendment (VRA) Act (HR 3899), introduced by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) specifically in Sensenbrenner's words "includes strong, nationwide anti-discrimination protections and continues to permit states to enact reasonable voter-ID laws. Therefore, it prevents racial-discrimination and gives states the ability to address voter fraud."

That there is virtually no in-person voter fraud is of no consequence to the Republican Party.

How does the U.S. DoJ file a Section 3 lawsuit of the Voting Rights Act when language in the fix protects obstructive voter ID laws? And what good is a new Section 4 when voter obstruction statutes are specifically protected?

No legislator in Congress has addressed this question.

"The deletion of voter ID laws from the list of discriminatory violations is a steep price to pay for [GOP] support," reads a NYT editorial.

Not steep, devastating. Not a poison pill, a nuclear bomb aimed at voting rights protection.

The legislation comes as an order and opinion from a challenge to Wisconsin's voter ID law in federal court is anticipated in the coming weeks; and civil rights activists are optimistic that an injunction and a favorable opinion may set a precedent, as well as a favorable opinion from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. [The two cases are Frank v. Walker, (Case 11cv1128) andLeague of United Latin American Citizens of Wisconsin v. Deininger (Case 2:12-cv-00185).]

Suppose voting rights advocates do get a favorable opinion from the Seventh Circuit, the Ninth Circuit (Nevada) and the Fourth Circuit (which includes North Carolina and Virginia), does anyone feel as optimistic that a voting rights lawsuit facing the new, proposed plain language protecting states' voter obstruction laws can survive a U.S. Supreme Court with five GOP justices?

Here again is what Sensenbrenner had to say about Texas's voter ID law in August last year: "

This Voter ID law is reasonable?

Voting rights lawsuits appeal to the Fourteenth and Twenty-fourth Amendments, but this Court is not so hot or consistent in protecting rights expansively under these Constitutional protections.

The DoJ has also used Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act against intentional obstruction efforts as in Texas.
(Section 3) is functionally similar to the system the court struck down last month, but Section 3 has several distinguishing features. It does not contain a preset list of jurisdictions, and it is forward-looking: instead of relying primarily on historical evidence of discrimination, it allows individual voters or the government to ask courts to zero in on any jurisdiction, like Texas, that continues to try to impose racially discriminatory voting laws. (NYT. July 28, 2013)




Dec 10, 2013

Republican Jurisprudence—Protecting Police Felons, Preventing Civil Liberties

Update: See also Texas campus cop empties gun on unarmed student: ‘Oh, you’re gonna shoot me?’ Student killed in traffic stop.

The following video of a recent police assault against a mother and her family demonstrates anew why the GOP's 5-4 decision in Atwater V. Lago Vista (2001) is of critical importance as a virtual police state holds sway in many spheres of police-public interaction.

From the Lawrence O'Donnell Show, is a video of a panicked mother fleeing police felons in New Mexico. The officer then incredibly opens fire on the vehicle fleeing the police crime. The officer was later fired after the video aired on national TV. More and more, we see police officers acting as felons and an American public becoming victims of police empowered by law enforcement administrations and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sep 13, 2013

Did Wisconsin District Attorney Indict Himself under Own Letterhead

Title 18 USC § 201
District Attorney Martin Lipske appears to be in violation of a federal corruption statute

Updated - When Iron County (Wisconsin) DA Martin Lipske sent a letter earlier this year to the man he unjustly prosecuted in 1997, Donald Miller, after destroying DNA evidence it appears Lipske conditioned the performance of a specific act of his public office upon Don Miller's parents' not complaining about Lipske's shady law practice to the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).

A letter written by Lipske to Don Miller, dated July 11, 2013, reads in part: "My intentions were to send a copy of the stipulation in which I agreed to your release. However, between the time that I received the form and the due date, I received another letter through the actions of your parents challenging my license to practice law. Therefore, nothing was sent as I intended." (Copy of letter is below.)

The Millers, Norm and Patricia, say they received a Feb 21, 2013 response letter from the OLR, and word from up north is that Lipske was not happy about the OLR complaint.

Reached by phone, Norm Miller does not remember sending the OLR a complaint to begin with, but in any event retaliation by a sitting District Attorney, and the performance of an official action should not be conditioned upon what the Miller parents do, as they attempt to prove their son's innocence in their retirement as they live in Hurley, Wisconsin.

Put another way, Lipske's seeking to clear his name (he was suspended for almost four years for professional misconduct before Judge Patrick Madden recruited him to run for DA in 1994) by withholding a promised action of his office is a corrupt use of public office, and a violation of federal law.

The Wisconsin Innocence Project has taken up this case, and has not returned phone calls.

What appear to be clear, however, is that Lipske is using the power of his office to stop people from challenging his misconduct in public office, and this appears to be a violation of a federal corruption statute.

Title 18 USC § 201 reads in part:

Whoever being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
 
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;

So Lipske on his own Office of Iron County (Wisconsin) District Attorney letterhead delivered his message to the Millers: Stop reminding people of my professional misconduct (as is your right), or I won't help release an innocent man, your son, from prison by stipulating to his release.

Lipske's letter is below:

Aug 29, 2013

Civil Rights Movement Is Right; GOP Is Wrong

President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, and
former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter walk past
the statue of President Lincoln to participate in the
ceremony on the 50th anniversary of the historic
March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech,
at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., Aug. 28, 2013.
(Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)
Congressional Republicans were a no-show at the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.

Predictable.

Republicans are on the other side of the Civil Rights Movement as the GOP makes common cause with racism.

This is not to rah-rah the Democratic Party but on the issue of civil rights, there simply is no comparison between the two major parties.

The Republican Party, trapped in its "diseased, hate-filled minds" of its white base truly is the Party of fascism, "standing alone in (its) own diminishing circle," to borrow from Ralph McGill.

More to the Parties of course but on this point of racism and hate, the perpetration of political terrorism and hate against racial minorities by today's Republican Party is not in dispute among serious minds.

Racism ought not to be a matter of small import in this American experiment.

Remarks by the President at the "Let Freedom Ring" Ceremony Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington

Lincoln Memorial

3:07 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT:  To the King family, who have sacrificed and inspired so much; to President Clinton; President Carter; Vice President Biden and Jill; fellow Americans. 

Five decades ago today, Americans came to this honored place to lay claim to a promise made at our founding:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

In 1963, almost 200 years after those words were set to paper, a full century after a great war was fought and emancipation proclaimed, that promise -- those truths -- remained unmet.  And so they came by the thousands from every corner of our country, men and women, young and old, blacks who longed for freedom and whites who could no longer accept freedom for themselves while witnessing the subjugation of others.

Across the land, congregations sent them off with food and with prayer.  In the middle of the night, entire blocks of Harlem came out to wish them well.  With the few dollars they scrimped from their labor, some bought tickets and boarded buses, even if they couldn’t always sit where they wanted to sit.  Those with less money hitchhiked or walked.  They were seamstresses and steelworkers, students and teachers, maids and Pullman porters.  They shared simple meals and bunked together on floors.  And then, on a hot summer day, they assembled here, in our nation’s capital, under the shadow of the Great Emancipator -- to offer testimony of injustice, to petition their government for redress, and to awaken America’s long-slumbering conscience.

We rightly and best remember Dr. King’s soaring oratory that day, how he gave mighty voice to the quiet hopes of millions; how he offered a salvation path for oppressed and oppressors alike.  His words belong to the ages, possessing a power and prophecy unmatched in our time.

But we would do well to recall that day itself also belonged to those ordinary people whose names never appeared in the history books, never got on TV.  Many had gone to segregated schools and sat at segregated lunch counters.  They lived in towns where they couldn’t vote and cities where their votes didn’t matter.  They were couples in love who couldn’t marry, soldiers who fought for freedom abroad that they found denied to them at home.  They had seen loved ones beaten, and children fire-hosed, and they had every reason to lash out in anger, or resign themselves to a bitter fate.

And yet they chose a different path.  In the face of hatred, they prayed for their tormentors.  In the face of violence, they stood up and sat in, with the moral force of nonviolence.  Willingly, they went to jail to protest unjust laws, their cells swelling with the sound of freedom songs.  A lifetime of indignities had taught them that no man can take away the dignity and grace that God grants us.  They had learned through hard experience what Frederick Douglass once taught -- that freedom is not given, it must be won, through struggle and discipline, persistence and faith.

That was the spirit they brought here that day.  That was the spirit young people like John Lewis brought to that day.  That was the spirit that they carried with them, like a torch, back to their cities and their neighborhoods.  That steady flame of conscience and courage that would sustain them through the campaigns to come -- through boycotts and voter registration drives and smaller marches far from the spotlight; through the loss of four little girls in Birmingham, and the carnage of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, and the agony of Dallas and California and Memphis.  Through setbacks and heartbreaks and gnawing doubt, that flame of justice flickered; it never died.

And because they kept marching, America changed.  Because they marched, a Civil Rights law was passed.  Because they marched, a Voting Rights law was signed.  Because they marched, doors of opportunity and education swung open so their daughters and sons could finally imagine a life for themselves beyond washing somebody else’s laundry or shining somebody else’s shoes. (Applause.)  Because they marched, city councils changed and state legislatures changed, and Congress changed, and, yes, eventually, the White House changed.  (Applause.) 

Because they marched, America became more free and more fair -- not just for African Americans, but for women and Latinos, Asians and Native Americans; for Catholics, Jews, and Muslims; for gays, for Americans with a disability.  America changed for you and for me.  and the entire world drew strength from that example, whether the young people who watched from the other side of an Iron Curtain and would eventually tear down that wall, or the young people inside South Africa who would eventually end the scourge of apartheid.  (Applause.)

Those are the victories they won, with iron wills and hope in their hearts.  That is the transformation that they wrought, with each step of their well-worn shoes.  That’s the debt that I and millions of Americans owe those maids, those laborers, those porters, those secretaries; folks who could have run a company maybe if they had ever had a chance; those white students who put themselves in harm’s way, even though they didn't have; those Japanese Americans who recalled their own internment; those Jewish Americans who had survived the Holocaust; people who could have given up and given in, but kept on keeping on, knowing that “weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.” (Applause.)

On the battlefield of justice, men and women without rank or wealth or title or fame would liberate us all in ways that our children now take for granted, as people of all colors and creeds live together and learn together and walk together, and fight alongside one another, and love one another, and judge one another by the content of our character in this greatest nation on Earth.  (Applause.)

To dismiss the magnitude of this progress -- to suggest, as some sometimes do, that little has changed -- that dishonors the courage and the sacrifice of those who paid the price to march in those years.  (Applause.)  Medgar Evers, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, Martin Luther King Jr. -- they did not die in vain.  (Applause.)  Their victory was great.

But we would dishonor those heroes as well to suggest that the work of this nation is somehow complete.  The arc of the moral universe may bend towards justice, but it doesn’t bend on its own.  To secure the gains this country has made requires constant vigilance, not complacency.  Whether by challenging those who erect new barriers to the vote, or ensuring that the scales of justice work equally for all, and the criminal justice system is not simply a pipeline from underfunded schools to overcrowded jails, it requires vigilance.  (Applause.)

And we'll suffer the occasional setback.  But we will win these fights.  This country has changed too much.  (Applause.)  People of goodwill, regardless of party, are too plentiful for those with ill will to change history’s currents.  (Applause.) 

In some ways, though, the securing of civil rights, voting rights, the eradication of legalized discrimination -- the very significance of these victories may have obscured a second goal of the March.  For the men and women who gathered 50 years ago were not there in search of some abstract ideal.  They were there seeking jobs as well as justice -- (applause) -- not just the absence of oppression but the presence of economic opportunity.  (Applause.)

For what does it profit a man, Dr. King would ask, to sit at an integrated lunch counter if he can’t afford the meal?  This idea -- that one’s liberty is linked to one’s livelihood; that the pursuit of happiness requires the dignity of work, the skills to find work, decent pay, some measure of material security -- this idea was not new.  Lincoln himself understood the Declaration of Independence in such terms -- as a promise that in due time, “the weights should be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance.” 

And Dr. King explained that the goals of African Americans were identical to working people of all races:  “Decent wages, fair working conditions, livable housing, old-age security, health and welfare measures, conditions in which families can grow, have education for their children, and respect in the community.”

What King was describing has been the dream of every American.  It's what's lured for centuries new arrivals to our shores.  And it’s along this second dimension -- of economic opportunity, the chance through honest toil to advance one’s station in life -- where the goals of 50 years ago have fallen most short.

Yes, there have been examples of success within black America that would have been unimaginable a half century ago.  But as has already been noted, black unemployment has remained almost twice as high as white unemployment, Latino unemployment close behind.  The gap in wealth between races has not lessened, it's grown.  And as President Clinton indicated, the position of all working Americans, regardless of color, has eroded, making the dream Dr. King described even more elusive.

For over a decade, working Americans of all races have seen their wages and incomes stagnate, even as corporate profits soar, even as the pay of a fortunate few explodes.  Inequality has steadily risen over the decades.  Upward mobility has become harder.  In too many communities across this country, in cities and suburbs and rural hamlets, the shadow of poverty casts a pall over our youth, their lives a fortress of substandard schools and diminished prospects, inadequate health care and perennial violence.

And so as we mark this anniversary, we must remind ourselves that the measure of progress for those who marched 50 years ago was not merely how many blacks could join the ranks of millionaires.  It was whether this country would admit all people who are willing to work hard regardless of race into the ranks of a middle-class life.  (Applause.)

The test was not, and never has been, whether the doors of opportunity are cracked a bit wider for a few.  It was whether our economic system provides a fair shot for the many -- for the black custodian and the white steelworker, the immigrant dishwasher and the Native American veteran.  To win that battle, to answer that call -- this remains our great unfinished business.

We shouldn’t fool ourselves.  The task will not be easy.  Since 1963, the economy has changed.  The twin forces of technology and global competition have subtracted those jobs that once provided a foothold into the middle class -- reduced the bargaining power of American workers.  And our politics has suffered.  Entrenched interests, those who benefit from an unjust status quo, resisted any government efforts to give working families a fair deal -- marshaling an army of lobbyists and opinion makers to argue that minimum wage increases or stronger labor laws or taxes on the wealthy who could afford it just to fund crumbling schools, that all these things violated sound economic principles.  We'd be told that growing inequality was a price for a growing economy, a measure of this free market; that greed was good and compassion ineffective, and those without jobs or health care had only themselves to blame.

And then, there were those elected officials who found it useful to practice the old politics of division, doing their best to convince middle-class Americans of a great untruth -- that government was somehow itself to blame for their growing economic insecurity; that distant bureaucrats were taking their hard-earned dollars to benefit the welfare cheat or the illegal immigrant.

And then, if we're honest with ourselves, we'll admit that during the course of 50 years, there were times when some of us claiming to push for change lost our way.  The anguish of assassinations set off self-defeating riots.  Legitimate grievances against police brutality tipped into excuse-making for criminal behavior.  Racial politics could cut both ways, as the transformative message of unity and brotherhood was drowned out by the language of recrimination.  And what had once been a call for equality of opportunity, the chance for all Americans to work hard and get ahead was too often framed as a mere desire for government support -- as if we had no agency in our own liberation, as if poverty was an excuse for not raising your child, and the bigotry of others was reason to give up on yourself.
All of that history is how progress stalled.  That's how hope was diverted.  It's how our country remained divided.  But the good news is, just as was true in 1963, we now have a choice. We can continue down our current path, in which the gears of this great democracy grind to a halt and our children accept a life of lower expectations; where politics is a zero-sum game where a few do very well while struggling families of every race fight over a shrinking economic pie -- that’s one path.  Or we can have the courage to change.

The March on Washington teaches us that we are not trapped by the mistakes of history; that we are masters of our fate.  But it also teaches us that the promise of this nation will only be kept when we work together.  We’ll have to reignite the embers of empathy and fellow feeling, the coalition of conscience that found expression in this place 50 years ago.

And I believe that spirit is there, that truth force inside each of us.  I see it when a white mother recognizes her own daughter in the face of a poor black child.  I see it when the black youth thinks of his own grandfather in the dignified steps of an elderly white man.  It’s there when the native-born recognizing that striving spirit of the new immigrant; when the interracial couple connects the pain of a gay couple who are discriminated against and understands it as their own.

That’s where courage comes from -- when we turn not from each other, or on each other, but towards one another, and we find that we do not walk alone.  That’s where courage comes from. (Applause.)
And with that courage, we can stand together for good jobs and just wages.  With that courage, we can stand together for the right to health care in the richest nation on Earth for every person.  (Applause.)  With that courage, we can stand together for the right of every child, from the corners of Anacostia to the hills of Appalachia, to get an education that stirs the mind and captures the spirit, and prepares them for the world that awaits them.  (Applause.)

With that courage, we can feed the hungry, and house the homeless, and transform bleak wastelands of poverty into fields of commerce and promise.

America, I know the road will be long, but I know we can get there.  Yes, we will stumble, but I know we’ll get back up.  That’s how a movement happens.  That’s how history bends.  That's how when somebody is faint of heart, somebody else brings them along and says, come on, we’re marching.  (Applause.)

There’s a reason why so many who marched that day, and in the days to come, were young -- for the young are unconstrained by habits of fear, unconstrained by the conventions of what is.  They dared to dream differently, to imagine something better.  And I am convinced that same imagination, the same hunger of purpose stirs in this generation.

We might not face the same dangers of 1963, but the fierce urgency of now remains.  We may never duplicate the swelling crowds and dazzling procession of that day so long ago -- no one can match King’s brilliance -- but the same flame that lit the heart of all who are willing to take a first step for justice, I know that flame remains.  (Applause.) 

That tireless teacher who gets to class early and stays late and dips into her own pocket to buy supplies because she believes that every child is her charge -- she’s marching.  (Applause.)

That successful businessman who doesn't have to but pays his workers a fair wage and then offers a shot to a man, maybe an ex-con who is down on his luck -- he’s marching.  (Applause.)

The mother who pours her love into her daughter so that she grows up with the confidence to walk through the same door as anybody’s son -- she’s marching.  (Applause.)

The father who realizes the most important job he’ll ever have is raising his boy right, even if he didn't have a father -- especially if he didn't have a father at home -- he’s marching.  (Applause.)

The battle-scarred veterans who devote themselves not only to helping their fellow warriors stand again, and walk again, and run again, but to keep serving their country when they come home -- they are marching.  (Applause.)

Everyone who realizes what those glorious patriots knew on that day -- that change does not come from Washington, but to Washington; that change has always been built on our willingness, We The People, to take on the mantle of citizenship -- you are marching.  (Applause.)

And that’s the lesson of our past.  That's the promise of tomorrow -- that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it.  That when millions of Americans of every race and every region, every faith and every station, can join together in a spirit of brotherhood, then those mountains will be made low, and those rough places will be made plain, and those crooked places, they straighten out towards grace, and we will vindicate the faith of those who sacrificed so much and live up to the true meaning of our creed, as one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.  (Applause.) 
END
3:36 P.M. EDT

Aug 28, 2013

Dream of Equality Is GOP's Nightmare, and the Deceitful James Sensenbrenner's

Updated - Today, August 28, President Obama and 10,000s will mark the 50th anniversary of the March for Jobs and Freedom in D.C.

Republican Congressional leaders will not be attending though they were invited, reports










Sensenbrenner refuses to support the mega Voting Rights Act -- the Mark Pocan proposed Right-to-Vote constitutional amendment. But he won't, and neither will many House Republicans.









Texas’ Voter ID law. He's not.

Here's a roadmap for redrafting Section 4 for Sensenbrenner's benefit:





March for Jobs and Freedom, how about we make it public policy to reach full employment?

Sure, Republicans will shout their slogan: 'Governments doesn't make jobs, the private sector does,' and then run with their hands out to the Kochs and other plutocrats.

How about we keep it local and consider asking Oshkosh Corporation for comment on this GOP talking point? 

Will Oshkosh Corp respond and say: 'Yes, we don't accept government contracts, that money comes from government.' 

Take a look at the U.S. Dept of Defense Contracts page, enter "Oshkosh Corp," and golly if $100s of millions in contracts don't come up for the last 10 years. 

Good jobs. Maybe the Republicans will cry, 'hey, that's government money creating those jobs; that's no good.' 

Right, and Sensenbrenner is the second coming of SNCC.

Here's a partial listing of what you get when enter "Oshkosh Corp" into the search field of the
U.S. Dept of Defense Contracts page.

It would take a while to load all the results, but even Republicans might see the picture emerging after a few seconds. That's one company in one small Wisconsin town.

Think if we invested publicly one-tenth of this sum total for jobs for peace, jobs for the environment, jobs for infrastructure, jobs for education.

About 134 results
  •   Advanced Search
Defense.gov: Contracts for Monday, August 01, 2011
www.defense.gov/.../contract.aspx?contractid=4589...
CONTRACTS. ARMY Oshkosh Corp., Oshkosh, Wis., was awarded a $904,184,088 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the modification of an ...
Defense.gov: Contracts for Monday, January 07, 2013
www.defense.gov/.../contract.aspx?contractid=4951...
Lockheed Martin Corp. -- Missiles and Fire Control, Grand Prairie, Texas, was awarded a $ ... Oshkosh Corp., Oshkosh, Wis., was awarded a $ ...

Defense.gov: Contracts for Wednesday, September 05, 2012
www.defense.gov/.../contract.aspx?contractid=4869...
CONTRACTS. NAVY Oshkosh Corp., Oshkosh, Wis., is being awarded $67,540,517 for fixed-price delivery order #0007 under previously awarded indefinite ...

Defense.gov: Contracts for Friday, July 02, 2010
www.defense.gov/.../contract.aspx?contractid=4315...
CONTRACTS. ARMY Oshkosh Corp., Oshkosh, Wis., was awarded on June 29 a $584,914,693 firm-fixed-price, requirements contract.

Defense.gov: Contracts for Friday, December 03, 2010
www.defense.gov/.../contract.aspx?contractid=4422...
Oshkosh Corp., Oshkosh, Wis., was awarded on Nov. 30 a $27,971,404 firm-fixed-price contract. This procurement is for a ...

Defense.gov: Contracts for Thursday, November 12, 2009
www.defense.gov/.../contract.aspx?contractid=4160...
Oshkosh Corp., Oshkosh, Wis., was awarded on Nov. 10, 2009, a $438,440,000 firm-fixed-price contract for 1,000 of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, All Terrain ...

Defense.gov: Contracts for Tuesday, December 29, 2009
www.defense.gov/.../contract.aspx?contractid=4189...
CONTRACTS ARMY Oshkosh Corp., Oshkosh, Wis., was awarded on Dec. 22, 2009, a $258,364,288 firm-fixed-price contract for the purchase of ...

Defense.gov: Contracts for Wednesday, July 30, 2008
www.defense.gov/.../contract.aspx?contractid=3830...
McDonnell Douglas Corp., DBA the Boeing Company, St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $ ... Oshkosh Corp., Oshkosh, Wis., is being awarded ...

Defense.gov: Contracts for Thursday, May 20, 2010
www.defense.gov/.../contract.aspx?contractid=4285...
CONTRACTS. ARMY Oshkosh Corp., Oshkosh, Wis., was awarded on May 17 a $72,686,593 firm-fixed-price contract for the procurement of 1,460 ...

And on and on.

Aug 16, 2013

Fascism-free Zone—Not Our Wisconsin State Capitol

The reverence toward the officious is a defect to be overcome in a classical liberal democracy

by Jackie Captain

Over-reliance on officiousness is a hallmark of fascism.

"Just doing my job," won't cut it for the Capitol police.

The black-booted thugs at the Capitol who are arresting protesters -- the elderly, veterans, and journalists -- know what they are doing is wrong.

They are violating the civil rights of Wisconsin citizens -- the very people who paid for the construction and restoration of the chapel of democracy wherein their representatives do work on behalf of those same citizens. One of the great pleasures of living in Madison was the ability to walk through the Capitol and show it to visitors -- no longer.

Grabbing hold of the notion that citizens need to file a permit to assemble at their own State Capitol is a product of little minds and malicious spirits. The lockstep following of this ludicrous directive is belittling everyone involved. I am ashamed of my state government.

The right to assemble peacefully and protest political policies are central tenets in the Wisconsin State Constitution. Transparency in government had been enshrined in Wisconsin via the open meetings and open records laws. Why then has the Department of Administration declared that citizens cannot gather in their own Capitol?

What Scott Walker's police are doing is a violation of civil liberties, raising the question what recourse do we have when the police in the People's House turn against us?

Certainly not petitioning the Wisconsin Department of Justice; they stand with Walker on this and in fact are perpetrating the prosecutions of Wisconsin citizens arrested for walking, talking, and singing, or as the police say, "obstructing."

Is a class-action civil lawsuit an answer?

Can an emergency petition for injunctive relief (a judicial order to halt the police targeting and arresting citizens in this instance) be filed in federal court?

Do we call the Lawyer's Guild, the ACLU, Madison civil liberties attorney Jeff Scott Olsen?

To be candid, I don't what to do when someone in my household wants to visit our state representative in the Capitol because I can't have someone arrested and detained for watching, posing a question, or as Matt Rothschild is aware, shooting a picture or trying to report on these events, when we have domestic responsibilities that demand attention at home.

I am proud of those who have been at the Capitol and have stood up for all our rights even at great risk to their own freedom and financial stability.

So who let Scott Walker turn the Capitol into an armed camp that subverts our civil liberties?

We cannot stand complacently by and let our rights be eroded. Leaders are going to rise up out of this movement (Rep. Chris Taylor?) -- perhaps even the next governor -- but where are they now? Why aren't they standing together against these violations?

There has been much commendable social-psychological research of obedience to authority in the 1950-60s trying to come up with some ideas how the rise of twentieth-century fascism could have happened, and how do we in the United States of America prevent it from happening here.

When Capitol police began telling people that they are subject to arrest for "spectating," watching the videos online I wondered if and when someone would speak up and how far the police would go.

Where will they stop?

I have no answers, but I do know that more people of good will need to stand up and speak out against the officiousness of the weak-minded.