Sandra Finley

2010-02-15 WATCH: Dr. Gabor Maté: “When the Body Says No: Understanding the Stress-Disease Connection”

 Health  No Responses »
Feb 152010
 

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/15/dr_gabor_mat_when_the_body 

Approx. 20 mins. 

The Vancouver-based Dr. Gabor Maté argues that too many doctors seem to have forgotten what was once a commonplace assumption–that emotions are deeply implicated in both the development of illness and in the restoration of health. Based on medical studies and his own experience with chronically ill patients at the Palliative Care Unit at Vancouver Hospital, where he was the Medical Coordinator for seven years, Dr. Gabor Mate makes the case that there are important links between the mind and the immune system. He found that stress and individual emotional makeup play critical roles in an array of diseases.

2010-02-11 Manipulators without conscience. This is your food. Bayer’s GM rice. Triffid (U of S) GM flax. Jane Jacobs on separation of commerce and governance.

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Food, Genetically Modified, Take back the University  No Responses »
Feb 112010
 

How much rice do you eat, in various food products?

How much flax?

–        In 2006 there was a hullaballoo in the United Kingdom because the US knowingly shipped banned food to them – rice contaminated by GMO’s.

(The same rice is on store shelves in North America, but there is no testing to identify GMO’s in our food products.  GMO food does not have to be labeled here.  We fought and lost that battle.)

–        Following that, American rice farmers sued Bayer over loss of markets because of contamination from Bayer’s GM rice.

–        In December 2009 “Bayer was sentenced to pay about $2 million for losses sustained by two US farmers. The verdict of the federal court in St. Louis is seen as a test run for up to 3000 cases brought by other rice farmers in the US.”  (I’d like it if Bayer has to pay every one of those 3000 farmers $1 million dollars each for their losses.)

–        In spite of all that, in February 2010 Bayer is still seeking import approval to get its GM rice into Europe.  It is also trying to force GM rice on developing nations.

–        And then there’s Canada’s equally loathesome story of exporting to Europe, flax contaminated with “Triffid” GM flax developed at the University of Saskatchewan.

If the farmers sue for loss of markets this time (why wouldn’t they?), it will be tax-payers (the University) paying the bill.  We paid for the development of this flax, and we are paying big-time for all the other costs associated with the fiasco.

–        Often, at the end of the “research” stage at the University, a corporation cashes in on the patent. That’s not the case in this instance, but GM Triffid Flax is nonetheless another good example of “Privatize the profits, socialize the costs” in the real world when public institutions start to think that they are corporations.  It should be mandatory that they pass a test on Jane Jacobs’ book, “Systems of Survival”.

It is important for us to take supporting action to the work in the EU.

Canada has a bad reputation internationally as a consequence of its participation in trying to force genetically-manipulated herbicide-tolerant food crops, also “terminator technology” (sterile seeds) on the rest of the world.  The American corporatocracy has found Canadians to be a willing puppet state.  But WE ARE RESPONSIBLE for the actions of our Government officials.

To help the Europeans, and American and Canadian farmers, you could circulate this email to people in rural communities so it finds its way to farmers, or send it to the Crop Development Centre at the University of Saskatchewan, to persons in the research community, especially to students, and so on.  Persons from the East for whom rice is a staple should be aware of Bayer and its GM rice.

Just send it to your friends. They should know about the rice and flax they are, and will be eating, if we don’t circulate this information.  The email will find its way to the right people.  When time permits I will try to set up a meeting with persons at the University.  These very serious problems have their roots in corporatocracy and a corporate set of values.  We WILL find solutions.  /Sandra

CONTENTS

(1)   GM CROPS, MANIPULATORS WITH NO CONSCIENCE

(2)  Made into a separate posting, see   2010-02-11  The problems we get into when we do not have a separation of powers between the state and commerce, Jane Jacobs.

(3)   BAYER’S GM “LIBERTY LINK” RICE

(4)   HERE’S HOW IT WORKS, THE BIOTECH INDUSTRY IN GOVERNMENT & UNIVERSITY

(5)   MONSANTO AND BAYER:  GLYPHOSATE (trade name “Roundup”) AND GLUFOSINATE (trade name “Liberty”)

= = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

(1)   GM CROPS, MANIPULATORS WITH NO CONSCIENCE

This began as an email about efforts to stop the introduction of GM rice into Europe.

(GM = genetically modified or manipulated.  GE=genetically engineered, same thing).

How much of the rice on Canadian store shelves is GM?  Do we know or have a choice between GM and non-GM rice?

Then I was drawn in by the parallels between GM rice and the GM flax scandal that became known last fall.  GM rice and GM flax belong in the same discussion, following GM wheat (and GM canola, and GM pigs and fish).

We fought intensively along with farmers and many others to stop the introduction of GM wheat.  I wondered why we had to fight that battle:  NO ONE wanted GM wheat.  Not the farmers, not consumers, NO ONE.  The biotech industry working with the Government wanted it.  NO ONE ELSE.  And with very good reason.

At the time of the GM wheat battle, Terry Boehm told me the story of how the Flax Growers had kept flax out of the GM realm, back in 2001.  What a great story of success!

Then the news, fall 2009:  the discovery of GM “Triffid” flax in Canadian shipments to Europe is a devastating blow to Canadian farmers, and to European millers who lost a million dollars in product recalls.

Hmm . . if the GM flax (or rice) is in shipments to Europe, it will be in the flax products we are eating.  We never find out; the Europeans do.

“The GM flax was developed by controversial scientist and industry proponent Alan McHughen when he worked at the Crop Development Centre of the University of Saskatchewan.”

Farmers THOUGHT they had stopped the introduction of GM flax back in 2001.  People understood that all the Triffid seeds had been rounded up and destroyed, at considerable cost.  … So what happened?  Where did the GM flax found in 2009 come from?

The “Triffid” GM flax is a story of betrayal, and a predictable outcome that the University and the Government deny, deny, deny.

But who did the betrayal with GM flax?

–        Alan McHughen who developed it?  (He is currently at the University of California  http://www.facultydirectory.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/pub/public_individual.pl?faculty=1912 )

–        by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA – Ag Canada)?  Even today the CFIA lists Triffid GM flax as authorized for “unconfined release into the environment and livestock feed.”   http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/dd/dd9824e.shtml )

–        Is it betrayal by the University, part of their quest to serve corporate interests at public expense?

–        Or betrayal by “John Allen, director of market development for Quality Assured Seeds, a farmer-owned company that was licensed by the U of S to sell Triffid”?  (Not likely – the University sold the seed to more than John before it was to be collected and destroyed.)

–        Is it betrayal by the GM scientists who deny that Triffid flax events will happen?

–        What does the story of Bayer’s GM rice lend to the discussion?

–        Or, is it “we have seen the enemy and he is us”? …  These crops have very serious negative implications for the environment and for health.  The Europeans can stop these GM products . .  why are we impotent?

The tragedy is ours.  We are the ones who pay –  farmers, consumers of food, European millers.  Through lost sales, through product recalls, through contaminated food, and through our taxes we are the ones to pay for the Government officials who are “negotiating” with the Europeans, and for the clean-up.  We paid for the development of Triffid flax, our young people are “educated” by these researchers, the conflicts-of-interest go uncontested, the shaky integrity goes unchallenged.  Too few speak up.  No tongues.

The GM story is one of intrigue and betrayal.  It’s part of the SPP “de-regulation” and “harmonization” for the chemical/biotech/pharmaceutical complex of corporations.  When  I think of Triffid, I recall the news last summer:  University Presidents have now been welcomed into the Government – Corporate fold.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

(2)  Made into a separate posting, see   2010-02-11  The problems we get into when we do not have a separation of powers between the state and commerce, Jane Jacobs.

 

= = = = = = = = == = = = = = = == = = == = = = =

(3)   BAYER’S GM “LIBERTY LINK” RICE

How much rice do you eat, in various food products?

So maybe you know about Bayer’s GM Rice?

LL rice = Liberty Link rice.  Liberty Link is Bayers’ GM crop line, genetically-engineered to be resistant to Bayer chemicals (Liberty). (Bayer might be as well-known at the University of Saskatchewan College of Agriculture as Monsanto.)

See “Bayer,  HANDS OFF OUR RICE!”, a great YouTube video in item 12,  EU URGED NOT TO APPROVE BAYER’S GM RICE.  www.cbgnetwork.de/3017.html

When I read what these corporations are doing, I am sooo happy that the Americans are rallying behind the call for an amendment to their constitution, to define that corporations do not have the same rights as citizens (as discussed in email sent January 24).

Taking back control of grains, the basis of our food supply from Corporate + Government + University is the same battle as the constitutional amendment in the U.S., but in another form.   It may be David against Goliath, but a thousand stab wounds by citizens will eventually win the day.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

(4)   HERE’S HOW IT WORKS, THE BIOTECH INDUSTRY IN GOVERNMENT & UNIVERSITY

Grains are not an issue for farmers.  They are an issue for us, the basis of our food supply.

There is the fight to keep Bayer’s GM rice out of the European Union.  Our store shelves will be loaded with American GM rice, too.  There may be as many rice products on our store shelves as wheat.

GM grains contaminate and take over the seed stocks very quickly.   Once they are introduced, consumers lose choice.  You cannot buy GM-free canola oil, for example, because almost all of the registered seed stocks now contain GM canola.  You cannot visually distinguish between GM and non-GM seeds.  Seeds have to be tested in a laboratory to determine their genetic makeup.  The Europeans routinely test for contamination.  Canada does not; Canadians fought and lost the battle for labelling of GM food products.

A large majority of Canadians wanted the labelling, as poll after poll showed, but in Canada the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA – Ag Canada) is run by the chemical/biotech corporations like Monsanto and Bayer.  THEY, as agents of the North American corporatocracy, decided whether we would have labelling of GM food products or not.  (Note that the current president of the CFIA is Carole Swan.)

GM grains are designed to be resistant to applications of particular chemicals; GM herbicide-tolerant seeds become weeds that are resistant to applications of today’s chemicals.  They lead to the need for applications of more chemicals, and more toxic chemicals.

The chemical/biotechnology corporations (which are often owned by the pharmaceutical/biotechnology corporations) have an established history.  Here’s how it works:

–        Establish “partnerships” with Governments and with Universities.

–        The partnerships are established without any public knowledge of, or input to, or debate in Parliament.  They become known after-the-fact (true of the whole GM agenda).

–        Introduce the GM crop in Canada, or in the U.S.  Australia is another favourite production site. (European citizens have “zero tolerance” for GM grains.)

–        Create a corporate-friendly regulatory system.  With quislings well-placed.

–        The Governments of Canada, the U.S. and Australia use challenges through the World Trade Organization (WTO) to force the GM grains on the Europeans.  In the name of Free Trade.  In the name of “efficiency” which means “harmonization” of regulations.  And in the name of “progress”.  All to serve corporate interests.

–        If there are difficulties, “Leak” some of the GM grains into production.   Do it in North America.

–        Convince the Europeans it is only reasonable that “zero tolerance” should be adjusted downward to allow SOME contamination.  (Which will be more and more in the future as more and more GM seeds – OOPS! – – get “leaked” or multiply.)

(when the seeds grow in the wrong place they are weeds.  Application of the chemical they have been engineered to be resistant to, won’t kill them.  They take over.)

–        It’s pretty nice that we get to pay much of the bill.   We pay for Canadian Government officials working on the challenges through the WTO, we are paying for the attempts to straighten out the situation now that GM flax has been found by the Europeans in Canadian flax shipments, we generously pay for Government researchers and for GM crop development at the College of Agriculture, and the Crop Development Centre at the University of Saskatchewan.   We pay as the Canadian reputation for fairness gets trashed.  We, too, get in on the act of service to the corporations.

Meanwhile, the public interest, our interest, is left to us to fight for, relentlessly with whatever is left over.  Years – – but I think the tide has turned.  There is a huge and growing swell of resistance on the horizon.

Food crops should not be developed by the criterion that you can spray them with chemicals and they will survive.

Nor should life-forms (seeds) be patentable (corporate ownership which denies the right of farmers to save seed from which to grow next-year’s crop).  Seeds belong, like air, water, natural resources, and information to “the Commons”.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = =

(5)   MONSANTO AND BAYER:  GLYPHOSATE (trade name “Roundup”) AND GLUFOSINATE (trade name “Liberty”)

Monsanto manufactures the chemical “roundup” which is basically glyphosate.  Its GM crops are called “roundup ready”  (the more accurate label is “roundup resistant”; you can spray the crops with the chemical “roundup” and they won’t die.)

Monsanto’s biotech crops were a threat to Bayer’s market.  Bayer manufactures the chemical “liberty” which is basically glufosinate.  So now Bayer is also into biotech crops; its grains are called “liberty link” or “LL”.   Spray Bayer’s GM crops with the chemical “liberty” and they won’t die.

In a short time “problematic weeds” develop that are resistant to the chemicals, of course.  . . .  Sorry, but I cannot understand how these GM crops make any longterm sense to farmers, let alone for consumers.  I suppose the advertising companies make a pile of money convincing the farmers.  Add to that the appalling corporate ownership of farm publications and there’s a huge information deficit in the “free press”.

2010-02-03 “In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts”: Dr. Gabor Maté, Physician at Vancouver Safe-Injection Site, on the Biological and Socio-Economic Roots of Addiction and ADD

 Health  No Responses »
Feb 032010
 

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/3/addiction

Mate-gabor-dn

Dr. Gabor Maté is the staff physician at the Portland Hotel Society, which runs a residence/harm reduction facility and North America’s only supervised safe-injection site in Vancouver, Canada, home to one of the world’s densest areas of drug users. The bestselling author of four books, we speak to Dr. Maté about his latest, In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction, which proposes new approaches to treating addiction through an understanding of its biological and socio-economic roots. Maté also discusses his work on attention deficit disorder and the mind-body connection.

2010-02-03 Bush to The Hague for war-crimes

 George Bush war criminal  No Responses »
Feb 032010
 

Hi Gail, 

I presume you saw this? 

Sandra

= = = = =  = = = = = = = = =

 Bush to The Hague for war-crimes

February 3, 2010

 http://www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=315

 The Canadian Charger 

“YOU can help,” says Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, U.S.A. as he seeks support for a worldwide grassroots campaign to have former president George Bush and several of his top officials sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the war crimes of “extraordinary rendition.”

Prof. Boyle says he wants everyone in the world to contact the I.C.C. prosecutor and demand Bush’s prosecution. 

“Once that is set up we use it to pressure all governments in the world to investigate, extradite and prosecute Bush et al., including our own. The principles of international criminal law that they have violated apply everywhere in the world,” Prof. Boyle says. 

He adds that he and his supporters also need as many endorsements from NGO’s as they can get.

Although Prof. Boyle has just filed his complaint with the ICC a couple of weeks ago, he has already received an acknowledgement of his complaint from The Hague and he has an endorsement from The International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD), a Switzerland-based Human Rights organization.

In his letter to Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the Prosecutor of the ICC, Prof. Boyle says his complaint is against U.S. Citizens George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales (hereinafter referred to as the “Accused”) “for their criminal policy and practice of ‘extraordinary rendition.’

This term is really a euphemism for the enforced disappearances of persons, their torture, severe deprivation of their liberty, their violent sexual abuse, and other inhumane acts perpetrated upon these victims.”

He adds in his complaint that the Accused have inflicted this criminal policy and practice of “extraordinary rendition” upon about 100 people, almost all of whom are Muslims/Arabs/Asians and people of color.

 He explains that because the accused’s policy and practice was widespread and systematic it falls within the meaning of the Rome Statute.

 Although the U.S. Is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, Prof. Boyle argues that the accused ordered, and were responsible for the commission of these I.C.C. Statutory crimes on, in, and over the respective territories of several I.C.C. Member states, including many in  Europe; therefore, the I.C.C. Has jurisdiction over the accused for their alleged I.C.C. Statutory crimes. 

While there was some speculation when President Obama first took office that he may investigate allegations against previous administration officials, he subsequently made it clear through public statements that he is not going to open any criminal investigation of the accused for the aforementioned crimes.

 Because we still have no accounting of the victims, Prof. Boyle says many of them could still be alive today and their lives are at stake right now.

He tells Mr. Moreno-Ocampo that he could save some lives by publicly stating that he is opening an investigation of Prof. Boyle’s complaint. 

Moreover, Prof. Boyle says an I.C.C. Investigation is the only way to obtain some explanation and accounting for the whereabouts and the location of the remains of the victims in order to communicate this crucial information to their next-of-kin and loved-ones.

Although the new Obama administration has publicly stated that is will continue the accused’s policy of “extraordinary rendition,” Prof. Boyle tells Mr. Moreno-Ocampo that “Your opening an investigation of my complaint will undoubtedly deter the Obama administration from engaging in any more “extraordinary renditions” – enforced disappearances of human beings and having them tortured by other states.”

 He says that an investigation could very well save the lives of a large number of additional human beings who otherwise will be subjected by the Obama administration to the Rome Statute Crimes against humanity of enforced disappearances and their consequent torture by other states.

 Prof. Boyle adds in his letter to Mr. Moreno-Ocampo that if he doesn’t open an investigation of his complaint, Prof. Boyle will file a follow-up complaint against the highest level officials of the Obama administration.

 He concludes his letter by requesting a meeting with Mr. Moreno-Ocampo at their earliest mutual convenience to discuss his complaint.

 YOU can help: 

Contact The Hague to urge they proceed in investigation of war-crimes committed by the accused (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Tenet and Gonzales) in the acts called “Extraordinary Rendition” as quickly as possible.

The Honorable Luis Moreno-Ocampo

Office of the Prosecutor

International Criminal Court

Post Office Box 19519

2500 CM, The Hague

The Netherlands

Fax No.: 31-70-515-8555

Email:  OTP.InformationDesk@icc-cpi.int

Send an email to (neimpeach@gmail.com) if you would like your group listed as endorsing Prof. Boyle’s filing.

Send this article to all your groups and lists.

Francis A. Boyle

Professor of International Law

Law Building

504 East Pennsylvania Avenue

Champaign, Illinois  61820

Phone:  217-333-7954

Fax:  217-244-1478

The Honorable Luis Moreno-Ocampo

Office of the Prosecutor

International Criminal Court

Post Office Box 19519

2500 CM, The Hague

The Netherlands

 Fax No.: 31-70-515-8555

 Email:  OTP.InformationDesk@icc-cpi.int

 January 19, 2010

 Dear Sir:

 The Accused’s criminal policy and practice of “extraordinary rendition” are both “widespread” and “systematic” within the meaning of Rome Statute article 7(1).  Therefore the Accused have committed numerous “Crimes against Humanity” in flagrant and repeated and longstanding violation of Rome Statute articles 5(1)(b), 7(1)(a), 7(1)(e), 7(1)(f), 7(1)(g), 7(1)(h), 7(1)(i), and 7(1)(k).  Furthermore, the Accused’s Rome Statute Crimes Against Humanity of enforced disappearances of persons constitutes ongoing criminal activity that continues even as of today.

The United States is not a contracting party to the Rome Statute.

Nevertheless, the Accused ordered and were responsible for the commission of these I..C.C. statutory crimes on, in, and over the respective territories of several I.C.C. member states, including many located in Europe.

Therefore, the I.C.C. has jurisdiction over the Accused for their I.C.C. statutory crimes in accordance with Rome Statute article 12(2)(a), which provides as follows:

Article 12 

Preconditions to the Exercise of Jurisdiction…

 2.  In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3:

 (a)   The State on the territory of which the conduct in question

ccurred  …

 So the fact that United States is not a contracting party to the Rome Statute is no bar to the I.C.C.’s prosecution of the Accused because they have ordered and been responsible for the commission of Rome Statute Crimes against Humanity on, in, and over the respective territories of several I.C.C. member states.

 Consequently, I  hereby respectfully request that the Court exercise its jurisdiction over the Accused for these Crimes against Humanity in accordance with Rome Statute article 13(c), which provides as follows:

 Article 13

 Exercise of Jurisdiction

 The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in accordance with the provisions of this Statute if:

 (c)    The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with article 15. 

Pursuant to Rome Statute article 13(c), I hereby respectfully request that you initiate an investigation proprio motu against the Accused in accordance with Rome Statute article 15(1): “The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.”  My detailed Complaint against the Accused constitutes the sufficient “information” required by article 15(1).

 Furthermore, I respectfully submit that this Complaint by itself constitutes “a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation” under Rome Statute article 15(3).  Hence, I also respectfully request that you formally “submit to the Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation” of the Accused under Rome Statute article 15(3) at this time.  Please inform me at your earliest convenience about the status and disposition of my two requests set forth immediately above.

 Based upon your extensive human rights work in Argentina, you know full well from direct personal experience the terrors and the horrors of enforced disappearances of persons and their consequent torture. According to reputable news media sources here in the United States, about 100 human beings have been subjected to enforced disappearances and subsequent torture by the Accused. We still have no accounting for these Victims. In other words, many of these Victims of enforced disappearances and torture by the Accused could still be alive today. Their very lives are at stake right now as we communicate..  You could very well save some of their lives by publicly stating that you are opening an investigation of my Complaint. 

As for those Victims of enforced disappearances by the Accused who have died, your opening an investigation of my Complaint is the only means by which we might be able to obtain some explanation and accounting for their whereabouts and the location of their remains in order to communicate this critical information to their next-of-kin and loved-ones.  Based upon your extensive experience combating enforced disappearances of persons and their consequent torture in Argentina, you know full well how important that objective is.  The next-of-kin, loved-ones, and friends of “disappeared” human beings can never benefit from psychological “closure” unless and until there is an accounting for the fates, if not the remains, of the Victims.

In part that is precisely why the Accused’s enforced disappearances of about 100 human beings constitutes ongoing criminal activity that continues as of today and will continue until the fates of all their Victims have been officially determined b y you opening an investigation into my Complaint. 

Let us mutually suppose that during the so-called “dirty war” in Argentina the International Criminal Court had been in existence.  I submit that as an Argentinean human rights lawyer you would have moved heaven and earth and done everything in your power to get the I.C.C. and its Prosecutor to assume jurisdiction over the Argentine Junta in order to terminate and prosecute their enforced disappearances and torture of your fellow Argentinean citizens.  I would have done the same.  Unfortunately, the I.C.C. did not exist during those darkest of days for the Argentine Republic when we could have so acted.  But today as the I.C.C. Prosecutor, you have both the opportunity and the legal power to do something to rectify this mass and total human rights annihilation, and to resolve and to terminate and to prosecute the “widespread” and “systematic” policy and practice of enforced disappearances and consequent torture of about 100 human beings by the Accused. 

Unfortunately, the new Obama administration in the United States has made it perfectly clear by means of public statements by President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder that they are not going to open any criminal investigation of any of the Accused for these aforementioned Crimes against Humanity.  Hence an I.C.C. “case” against the Accused is “admissible” under Rome Statute article 1(complementarity) and article 17.  As of right now you and the I.C.C. Judges are the only people in the entire world who can bring some degree of Justice, Closure, and Healing into this dire, tragic, and deplorable situation for the lives and well-being of about one hundred “disappeared” and tortured human beings as well as for their loved-ones and next-of-kin, who are also Victims of the Accused’s Crimes against Humanity.

On behalf of them all, as a fellow human rights lawyer I implore you to open an investigation into my Complaint and to issue a public statement to that effect.

Also, most regretfully, the new Obama administration has publicly stated that it will continue the Accused’s policy and practice of “extraordinary rendition,” which is really their euphemism for enforced disappearances of human beings and consequent torture by other States.  Hence the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration fully intend to commit their own Crimes against Humanity under the I.C.C. Rome Statute – unless you stop them!  Your opening an investigation of my Complaint will undoubtedly deter the Obama administration from engaging in any more “extraordinary  renditions” — enforced disappearances of human beings and having them tortured by other States. Indeed your opening of an investigation into my Complaint might encourage the Obama administration to terminate its criminal “extraordinary rendition” program immediately and thoroughly by means of issuing a public statement to that effect.  In other words, your opening an investigation of my Complaint cou ld very well save the lives of a large number of additional human beings who otherwise will be subjected by the Obama administration to the Rome Statute Crimes against Humanity of enforced disappearances of persons and their consequent torture by other States, inter alia.

The lives and well-being of countless human beings are now at risk, hanging in the balance, waiting for you to act promptly, effectively, and immediately to save them from becoming Victims of Rome Statute Crimes against Humanity perpetrated by the Highest Level Officials of the  Obama administration as successors-in-law to the Accused by opening an investigation of my Complaint.  Otherwise, I shall be forced to file with you and the I.C.C. a follow-up Complaint against the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration.  I certainly hope it will not come to that.

Please make it so.

 Finally, for reasons more fully explained in the Conclusion to my Complaint, I respectfully request that you obtain I.C.C. arrest warrants for the Accused in accordance with Rome Statute articles 58(1)(a), article 58(1)(b)(i), article 58(1)(b)(ii), and article 58(1)(b)(iii).  The sooner, the better for all humankind.

 I respectfully request that you schedule a meeting with me at our earliest mutual convenience in order to discuss this Complaint.  I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

 This transmission letter is an integral part of my Complaint against the Accused and is hereby incorporated by reference into the attached Complaint dated as of today as well.

 Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration. 

Francis A. Boyle 

Professor of International Law

 Francis A. Boyle 

Law Building 

504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.

Champaign, IL 61820 USA

217-333-7954 (voice)

217-244-1478 (fax)

(personal comments only)

 ENDORSEMENTS: 

THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (EAFORD)

 5 Route des Morillons, CP 2100.  1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland

 Telephone: (022) 788.62.33 Fax: (022) 788.62.45  e-mail: info@eaford.org 

www.eaford.org

2010-02-01 EU urged not to approve Bayer’s GM rice. Staple food endangered.

 Food, Genetically Modified  No Responses »
Feb 012010
 

http://www.cbgnetwork.org/3262.html  

Press Release, February 1, 2010
Coalition against Bayer Dangers 

Staple food endangered: EU urged not to approve Bayer´s GM Rice

Caricature for free use / great Greenpeace clip: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsxFZ0rUCoM 

The Coalition against Bayer Dangers urges European authorities to refuse an import approval for Liberty Link Rice (LL62) produced by Bayer CropScience. LL62 has been modified with a gene that makes the plant tolerant to glufosinate, a weed-killer produced by Bayer under the brands Basta and Liberty. An approval of this modified rice strain would pose unknown risks for human health and the environment. 

Glufosinate is to be phased out in Europe due to its hazardous nature. The herbicide is classified as toxic for reproduction and can also cause birth defects. With LL62, usage levels for glufosinate would increase, also increasing the likelihood of herbicide residues on the rice itself. 

A European approval would also allow Bayer to promote GM rice cultivation in developing countries, especially in Asia. This would inevitably lead to genetic contamination of existing rice cultivation, to poisoning of peasants and to the elimination of local rice strains. Europe has a strong moral obligation to take these developments into account when assessing LL62.

Bayer already applied in 2003 to import LL62. The application was rejected several times when voted on in the EU council of ministers, but has so far not been withdrawn. Bayer is also pushing for legal approval in Brazil, South Africa, India and the Philippines. In the USA, LL62 has already been permitted for commercial planting, although farmers in the US are reluctant to plant it because it is not approved for import elsewhere in the world. EU import approvals so far have mainly been granted for genetically manipulated feed crops. Liberty Link rice would be the first GM product intended directly for human food use. 

Philipp Mimkes from the Coalition against Bayer Dangers, an international network that has been monitoring Bayer for more than 30 years: “Allowing the import of Liberty Link Rice would give the green light to multinationals to promote this unsustainable form of farming in developing countries. The world`s most important staple food must not fall into the hands of companies like Bayer.” The Coalition has introduced several countermotions on the issue at Bayer´s annual shareholder meetings in recent years. 

In July 2006, Bayer LL601, a similar rice variety that was not approved for commercial distribution or human consumption anywhere in the world, appeared in supermarkets worldwide. According to a Greenpeace study the damages amounted to 1.2 billion US$. In December 2009 Bayer was sentenced to pay about $2 million for losses sustained by two US farmers. The verdict of the federal court in St. Louis is seen as a test run for up to 3000 cases brought by other rice farmers in the US. “We call for the stringent application of the precautionary principle with regard to GM rice. The incident in the US shows that risks linked with genetically modified crops cannot be controlled in the long term”, Mimkes adds. 

see also:

?        US: BAYER ordered to pay damages http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601127&sid=adGubJZ21Uzo

?        India: Bayer, Hands off our Rice www.cbgnetwork.de/3017.html

?        Take Glufosinate off the Market immediately!

?        Open Letter to the European Food Safety Authority: www.cbgnetwork.de/1592.html

?        Reject Bayer’s application to import genetically modified rice into the EU www.cbgnetwork.de/300.html

Coalition against BAYER Dangers (Germany)
www.CBGnetwork.org
CBGnetwork@aol.com
Fax: (+49) 211-333 940   Tel: (+49) 211-333 911
please send an e-mail for receiving the English newsletter Keycode BAYER free of charge. German/Italian/French/Spanish newsletters also available.

Advisory Board
Prof. Juergen Junginger, designer, Krefeld,
Prof. Dr. Juergen Rochlitz, chemist, former member of the Bundestag, Burgwald
Wolfram Esche, attorney, Cologne
Dr. Sigrid Müller, pharmacologist, Bremen
Prof. Rainer Roth, social scientist, Frankfurt
Eva Bulling-Schroeter, member of the Bundestag, Berlin
Prof. Dr. Anton Schneider, biologist, Neubeuern
Dr. Janis Schmelzer, historian, Berlin
Dr. Erika Abczynski, pediatrician, Dormagen 

Please help us. Our international campaigns are expensive to run. We receive no public support and depend entirely on your donations.

Please send checks to:
CBG, Postfach 15 04 18, 40081 Duesseldorf, Germany

or by bank transfer to bank account number 8016 533 000 at GLS Bank, Germany
sort code: 430 609 67

BIC/SWIFT Code: GENODEM1GLS
(Bank Identifier Code)

IBAN: DE88 4306 0967 8016 5330 00
(International Bank Account Number)

Please note that bank transfers within Europe are usually no more costly than within your own country, if you quote the BIC and IBAN numbers

You may also support us online

2010-01-26 Vice-Pres Bruce Power on radioactive waste disposal “underway”

 Radioactive waste  No Responses »
Jan 262010
 

Has Ignace, Ontario been confirmed as the site for high-level radioactive waste disposal (for North America)?    (scroll down to IGNACE ONTARIO AS SITE FOR HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL? Which includes the Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal article, 11/27/2009)

Or is it someplace else, not at Ignace?

Or, can you believe what the nuclear/uranium/electricity corporations say?

CLICK HERE to watch the Jan 25 discussion about a proposed nuclear power plant in Peace River.

At about the one-third mark of this “debate” on CTV Alberta Prime Time News you hear Murray Elston/Vice-President of Corporate Affairs, Bruce Power; and former President of the Canadian Nuclear Association on the topic of nuclear waste.

His remarks are in rebuttal to  Adele Boucher Rymhs, President, Coalition for a Nuclear Free Alberta.

Murray Elston (Bruce Power) says:  “… We also have a project underway in Canada which will in fact store high level waste which is really coming from the spent fuel rods.  So we can deal with that.  We already have  ..  getting close .. to 50 years experience on how to manage those issues going forward.”

If anyone knows of the location of this project underway in Canada which will in fact store high level waste …   please let me know.

I am aware of the town in Ontario (Ignace), scroll down for more info on it.

The industry famously speaks in half-truths.  They have almost 50 years of experience on how to manage high-level radioactive waste?   Yes, but nothing that is successful.    And Yucca Mountain is shut down as a possible site for all the high-level radioactive waste accumulated in the U.S.. Yucca Mountain is number 8 on the list of places the U.S. has tried (all unsuccessfully) for disposal of their high-level radioactive waste.

High level radioactive waste disposal from other places, in Canada, is in-between the lines of various statements, whether about the “one” jurisdiction that will take the radioactive waste “for the whole group” or whether it’s the idea that storage in northern climates makes more sense.

Until Yucca Mountain got shut down as an option (in the first few months of the Obama Administration), after spending  $10 to $13 billion to develop, it was okay to store the waste in deserts.  Now it suddenly becomes the case that cold northern climates are necessary.

Before 1996, Finland’s Loviisa nuclear power plant shipped its spent nuclear fuel to Russia. Trucks carried the spent nuclear fuel destined for reprocessing from reactors to railcars. Rail casks and transport cars were leased from Russia. The last delivery to Russia took place in 1996. Current Finnish law forbids the export of nuclear waste.   (link no longer valid, ocrwm.doe.gov)

Maybe the decisions in Finland had something to do with ethics?   I don’t know.

Murray Elston (Vice-Pres Bruce Power) speaks of the Finnish experience in the video as an example of the successes of radioactive waste disposal.

He does not tell this part of the story:  the Finnish people thought they were building a deep geological repository to deal with the problem of their own radioactive waste.  They did not understand that they were to become the high-level radioactive waste depository for themselves AND for various European countries.

The third member of the CTV panel, in addition to Murray Elston and Adele  Boucher Rymhs is Harrie Vredenburg, Professor of Strategy, and Suncor Energy Chair in Competitive Strategy & Sustainable Development, Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary; and Member of the Alberta Minister of Energy’s Alberta Nuclear Power Expert Panel.

Regarding the panel :  Way to go Adele!!  Many thanks from all of us.

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

IGNACE ONTARIO AS SITE FOR HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL?

—– Original Message —–

From: Elaine Hughes

Subject: Re: Northern Ontario Town takes interest in nuclear waste storage

If you check the town’s plans, sounds like things are little more progressed than what Mayor Coultier would have us believe…?

See Township of Ignace (ON ) Strategic Plan 2009-2012 – Page 7:  Under Industry Attraction Initiatives to Diversify Economy states:

“Nuclear Waste Management:  Communication Maintained/Invitation issued to Proponents”

http://town.ignace.on.ca/files/%7BCB95F82A-F3F7-43DF-B5B2-450740A5CEFD%7DTownship%20of%20Ignace%20Strategic%20Plan%202009-2012.pdf

—– Original Message —–

From: Gordon Edwards

Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:30 PM

Subject: Northern Ontario Town takes interest in nuclear waste storage

http://www.chroniclejournal.com/stories_local.php?id=227212

Town takes interest in nuclear waste storage

BRYAN MEADOWS, Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal, 11/27/2009

Ignace councillors want to know more about nuclear waste storage in the Canadian Shield.

And before he went on, Mayor Lionel Cloutier stressed during an interview Thursday that council is simply “investigating‘‘ the concept.

A delegation travelled to southern Ontario this month to attend the Nuclear Waste Management Organization‘s (NWMO) Learn More program, which makes information and funding available to help communities, organizations and individuals learn more about adaptive phased management of nuclear waste storage.

“I‘m not totally against it,‘‘ said Cloutier. “I just think it‘s worth investigating.”

The two-day fact-finding trip took councillors to the Kincardine area where spent nuclear fuel is being stored above ground near the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station.

“I want to stay out there as skeptical,” Cloutier said. “I want to ensure everything is proven (before committing to underground storage of nuclear waste). We need to know the safety of it and how they plan to do it.”

He said he realizes that the “whole issue is controversial. The not in my backyard syndrome prevails from attitudes of years gone by.”

He said he felt that way too, “but (his views) have changed somewhat after visiting the Kincardine facility firsthand.”

“Today when I hear nuclear, I think of medicine, cures for cancer, clean sources of energy for Ontario Power Generation plants,” he said, adding that if he could be assured of the safety of deep-underground waste storage, “my new vision is a world-class centre of excellence in proximity to our community, hundreds of new jobs, and billions of dollars (for) the Northwestern Ontario economy.”

But that‘s a long way off.

“First we need to know if we have the right terrain and bedrock,‘‘ said Cloutier. “That involves a lot of specialized work, and even going that far will create a great deal of economic activity for the entire region,” he said, noting town council would have the option of cancelling the investigation at any time.

NWMO spokesman Michael Krizanc said Thursday that Ignace is the first community “anywhere” to make arrangements to visit the Bruce nuclear plant and waste management facility under the Learn More program.

The program is the result of NWMO consultations launched in May with organizations and individuals. Comments and views gleaned from the sessions are being used to refine and confirm an open, transparent, fair and inclusive process for selecting a site for the long-term management of Canada‘s used nuclear fuel.

During their tour, the Ignace delegates visited the NWMO offices in Toronto and the Bruce plant, where they had an opportunity to meet with NWMO staff and learn about adaptive phased management.

Also explored were the deep geological repository project; NWMO‘s proposed process for selecting a site; the need for an open and transparent process and involvement of people in any community interested in the project; involvement of Aboriginal peoples; and the regulatory approval process of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

Krizanc said NWMO is interested in learning from communities the kind of information they might require as they gauge interest in hosting a geological repository once the siting process is launched.

“For us, it‘s a learning experience so we can better understand what kind of questions communities might (have),” Krizanc said.

The NWMO will not be looking for a site until the selection process has been finalized.

As for the next steps in Ignace‘s nuclear waste storage investigation, Cloutier said council plans to apply for funding from NWMO to hire an independent expert/consulting firm.

Consultants would help the community understand the long-term care of used nuclear fuel produced by Canada‘s nuclear reactors, he said, noting area residents would be fully engaged and consulted during development of any long-term vision or strategic planning exercise.

“There has been no commitment,‘‘ said Cloutier. “We‘re just putting it out there – to check it all out.”

Meanwhile, efforts by NWMO continue to refine its draft siting plan for long-term safe containment and isolation of Canada‘s used nuclear fuel.

The $16- to $24-billion project will involve development of a repository and a centre of expertise.

The document, Proposed Process for Selecting a Site, is available on the NWMO website.

The nuclear waste project will be implemented through a long-term partnership between the NWMO and a willing community. The system will be designed so that the waste will be continually monitored and retrievable for an extended period of time, NWMO says.

The centre of expertise will focus on technical, environmental and community studies related to the design and operation of deep geological repositories. It will become a hub for national and international scientific collaboration for many decades, NWMO says.

Construction of the facility will proceed after NWMO demonstrates that all safety, health and environmental protection standards set by regulatory authorities can be met or exceeded, it says.

Based in Toronto, NWMO was established in 2002 by Ontario Power Generation Inc., Hydro-Quebec and New Brunswick Power Corporation in accordance with the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act to assume responsibility for the long-term management of Canada‘s used nuclear fuel, which is created as a result of nuclear power production.

— – – – – –

Also, see http://www.activistmagazine.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1106&Itemid=143

2010-01-26 Scripps Institute of Oceanography, Americans running out of water. Backgrounder Manitoba & Sask Joint Cabinet Meeting, Feb 2

 Climate, Energy, Water  No Responses »
Jan 262010
 

Related to “We the People, NOT, We the Corporations”

Local easy-to-do.

CONTENTS

(1)    YOU KNOW SOMEONE IN MANITOBA?

(2)    LETTER TO EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, MANITOBA

(3)    NEWS RELEASE, MANITOBA AND SASKATCHEWAN JOINT CABINET MEETING, FEB 2 IN YORKTON

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = =

(1)    YOU KNOW SOMEONE IN MANITOBA?

This follows the email sent Jan 24,  “A Gift for global citizens:  U.S. Supreme Court gives corporations free spending on political campaigns”.

On February 2nd there is a joint cabinet meeting between Saskatchewan and Manitoba.   People in Manitoba might want to ensure that their elected officials have the background set out in the email I sent to Jay Branch (see item #2), in preparation for the meeting.

A list of Manitoba MLA’s with contact information is at:  http://www.gov.mb.ca/hansard/members/alphabetical.html

= = = = =  = ==  = = = = =

(2)     LETTER TO EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, MANITOBA

SENT:  Fri 22/01/2010 3:40 PM

TO:  Jay Branch
Executive Council
Manitoba

Jay.Branch AT leg.gov.mb.ca

Dear Jay,

RE:  SASKATCHEWAN AND MANITOBA TO HOLD JOINT CABINET MEETING IN YORKTON on February 2nd.

Please distribute this to members of the Manitoba Cabinet.

Background information may be useful, prior to your meeting with the Saskatchewan Cabinet.  I urge you to be critical in your assessment of Brad Wall’s promotions.

Wall is a “co-spearhead” of the “largest on the planet” “Canada-U.S. Western Energy Corridor”.   (Link no longer valid)   (excerpt below). 

The Americans are fast running out of water which also means hydro-electricity (report of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography at the University of California at SanDiego, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23130256/  excerpt below).

There is a 50/50 chance that the hydro-electric power generation at the Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams will cease as of 2017 because of falling water levels, and that the reservoirs (Lake Mead and Lake Powell, the two largest in the U.S.) will be dry by 2021.

The remedy IS NOT to export the water problem into Canada.   It is not possible for us to meet the American need for water, no matter how much money a few people might make from the attempt.  They are creating disaster for us all, instead of addressing the actual problem; it’s called Denial.

We are talking about electricity and water for 22 million Americans.  It includes Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Diego, etc..  It includes the irrigated fruits and vegetables that are sent from the area not only into the rest of the U.S. but into Canada.  We are talking about the use of electricity to run irrigation pumps versus the need for city-dwellers for air conditioning during hot summer months.  We are talking about if there is no water there is no civilization in these areas.

The public consultation process that took place in Saskatchewan this past summer shows clearly that the Wall Government does not have public support for its energy development project.  Premier Brad Wall’s  “largest on the planet” “Canada – U.S. Western Energy corridor” does not serve the interests of people on the prairies.

There are corporate interests that are running the show.  They want nuclear electricity sources (privately-owned) in Saskatchewan and in Alberta for tar sands expansion AND for electricity-export into the lucrative market in the western U.S.

Saskatchewanians have told the Wall Govt that our electricity needs can be met by a number of means.  We do not want to be used by these corporate interests; we do not want the very expensive electricity that nuclear is.  We do not want to be investing in the obsolete.  Nobody does.

The status quo will destroy us.  It is based on energy sources that are fast depleting.  Investment in Brad Wall’s American plan will mean huge debt and all the investment is in the wrong place.  We MUST transition to other forms of energy production and conservation.   When the resource an economy is built upon (oil and gas, water) is all gone, the economy falls fast and hard.

We live on the prairie.  We are very dependent upon the Saskatchewan Rivers that feed into Lake Manitoba.   The glaciers that provide the summer-time feed of water are past “peak flow”; they are on the downhill side of volume of water released (reference the Canadian National Water Research Institute (NWRI) report by Pietroniro in about 2003).

The South Saskatchewan River at Saskatoon carries less than 20% of the volume of water it carried in 1912.  There is a clearly-established trend-line that ends at “zero”, the same experience as the Colorado River faces more imminently.

The American (Wall’s) energy plans (nuclear) cannot be met in the U.S. because they don’t have enough water.  The American corporate interests do not care about the impact of more water demands on the prairie water supply.

(INSERT:  Development of the Saskatchewan tar sands is part of Wall’s agenda (“non-renewable energy sources”).  Maybe I should have mentioned that northern Saskatchewan is already dying from the acid rain created by just the current tar sands production in Alberta.  Manitobans should take into consideration the impact on their province and water resources as Saskatchewan joins the Alberta corporate “development” plan.  The desecration will sterilize the northern parts of Alberta, Saskatchewan AND Manitoba.  Wind and water are oblivious to political boundaries.  The effects of acid rain are well-known.)

This is the context in which Brad Wall’s promotions need to be assessed.

I hope this will be helpful to some.

Sincerely and best wishes,

Sandra Finley  (contact info)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

(Link no longer valid  http://www.vancouversun.com/Business/Premiers+governors+promote+Canada+energy+corridor/1695862/story.html)

Premiers, governors, promote Canada-U.S. energy corridor

By Jason Fekete, Canwest News Service June 14, 2009

PARK CITY, Utah — Western premiers and U.S. governors on Sunday hailed their push to develop a cross-border Western Energy Corridor that will be the largest on the planet and one that develops both non-renewable (INSERT:  tar sands)  and clean-energy (INSERT:  nuclear) options.

Spearheaded by Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall and Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, the initiative could open new markets to the three Prairie provinces, which are all major energy producers in both renewables and fossil fuels.

–         – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  —

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23130256/

Dry Lake Mead? 50-50 chance by 2021 seen

Study cites warming, water use and growing Colorado River deficit

This view of Lake Mead was taken last July 26, during the seventh straight year of drought that had caused the lake to drop more than 100 feet to its lowest level since the late 1960s.
Ethan Miller / Getty Images file

msnbc.com staff and news service reports

updated 12:57 p.m. CT, Tues., Feb. 12, 2008

What are the chances that Lake Mead, a key source of water for more than 22 million people in the Southwest, would ever go dry? A new study says it’s 50 percent by 2021 if warming continues and water use is not curtailed.

“We were stunned at the magnitude of the problem and how fast it was coming at us,” co-author Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography said in a statement. “Make no mistake, this water problem is not a scientific abstraction, but rather one that will impact each and every one of us that live in the Southwest.”

= = = == = =  ==  = = ==

(3)  SASKATCHEWAN AND MANITOBA TO HOLD JOINT CABINET MEETING IN YORKTON

http://www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=8ebd4c80-8ff6-451c-865c-ceda00946d3a

News Release – January 22, 2010

The City of Yorkton will play host to the first-ever joint cabinet meeting between the governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Premiers Brad Wall and Greg Selinger, along with members of their respective cabinets, will meet on February 2.

“Working more closely with our neighbours and expanding regional co-operation in the west has been among my government’s top intergovernmental priorities,” Wall said. “I’m pleased that Premier Selinger and his team share our interest in discussing practical ways Saskatchewan and Manitoba can collaborate to benefit the people of our two great provinces.”

“Manitoba will be assuming responsibility as Chair of the provincial Premiers’ Council of the Federation from Saskatchewan later this year,” Selinger added. “Our meeting in Yorkton will also give us a good opportunity to discuss ways to co-operate in addressing important national priorities.”

Topics for discussion will include highways and transportation; energy and the environment; and Canada-US relations.

-30-

For more information, contact:

Kathy Young
Executive Council
Regina
Phone: 306-787-0425
Email: kathy.young@gov.sk.ca
Cell: 306-526-8927

Jay Branch
Executive Council
Manitoba
Phone: 204-945-1494
Email: Jay.Branch AT leg.gov.mb.ca

2010-01-22 ANTI-PROROGUE: update

 Voting System (Proportional Representation vs Winner Take All/FPTP)  No Responses »
Jan 222010
 

As of Fri Jan 22:

There are  209,876 members  on the Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament facebook group.   Please see item #3 by David Eaves.

CONTENTS

  1. JOE HUEGLIN, PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY, ANTI-PROROGATION
  2. LISTING OF CROSS-CANADA EVENTS IN PROTEST OF PROROGUE
  3.  DAVID EAVES, GLOBE & MAIL JAN 21    Will be interesting to see how this goes and if political parties can get comfortable with a two-way medium where they can’t control the message. 
  4. FAIR VOTE CANADA ALSO ORGANIZING ACROSS THE COUNTRY
  5. PREVIOUS EMAIL:  FIRST NATIONS ORGANIZING ACROSS THE COUNTRY
  6. SASKATCHEWAN NO PROROGUE EVENTS

Many millions of lives have been lost in the fight for democracy over the time of human history.

It is now time for us to stand up.

If you are unable to attend an anti-prorogation event tomorrow (Sat Jan 23), I hope you will forward this information to others.

Thanks,   Sandra

= = == = = = = = = =

(1)    JOE HUEGLIN, PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY, ANTI-PROROGATION

(NOTE: The Progressive Conservative Party is different from the Conservative Party.)

The more aware of this movement to stand against unilateral action by Harper the better!

PC PARTY<> PC PARTY<> PC PARTY

To: National Media     From: Joe Hueglin  905 356 3901

Subject: Update on anti-prorogation demos

The following report is but a prologue to what will be occurring in Canada but also in several other countries as listed below

Prime Minister Harper confronted by anti-prorogation protest in Toronto

There are as of  now 207 798 members of differing age groups of the Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament Facebook site

= = = = = = = = = ==  = = = ==  == = =  ==

(2)   LISTING OF CROSS-CANADA EVENTS IN PROTEST OF PROROGUE  (Joe’s email continued:)

Local Info & Events

  •                                              Antigonish, NS Info & Events
  •                                              Barrie Info & Events
  •                                              Belleville Info & Events
  •                                              Bolton Info & Events
  •                                              Calgary Info & Events
  •                                              Charlottetown Info & Events
  •                                              Dallas, TX Info & Events
  •                                              Duncan, BC Info & Events
  •                                              Edmonton Info & Events
  •                                              Fredericton Info & Events
  •                                              Grande Prairie, AB Info & Events
  •                                              Guelph Info & Events
  •                                              Halifax, NS Info & Events
  •                                              Hamilton Info & Events
  •                                              Huntsville, ON Info & Events
  •                                              Inverness, NS Info & Events
  •                                              Kamloops, BC Info & Events
  •                                              Kelowna Info & Events
  •                                              Kingston Info & Events
  •                                              Lethbridge, AB Info & Events
  •                                              London, ON Info & Events
  •                                              London, UK Info & Events
  •                                              Maple Ridge, BC Info & Events
  •                                              Mississauga Info & Events
  •                                              Moncton Info & Events
  •                                              Montreal Info & Events
  •                                              Nanaimo, BC Info & Events
  •                                              New York City Info & Events
  •                                              Newmarket Info & Events
  •                                              North Bay, ON Info & Events
  •                                              Oakville Info & Events
  •                                              Orangeville Info & Events
  •                                              Orillia, ON Info & Events
  •                                              Oshawa-Whitby Info & Events
  •                                              Ottawa Info & Events
  •                                              Owen Sound Info & Events
  •                                              Penticton Info & Events
  •                                              Peterborough Info & Events
  •                                              Prince Albert, SK Info & Events
  •                                              Prince Rupert Info & Events
  •                                              Quebec City Info & Events
  •                                              Quinte Info & Events
  •                                              Regina Info & Events
  •                                              Saint John, NB Info & Events
  •                                              San Francisco, CA Info & Events
  •                                              Saskatoon Info & Events
  •                                              Sault Ste. Marie Info & Events
  •                                              St. John’s, NL Info & Events
  •                                              Stratford Info & Events
  •                                              Sudbury Info & Events
  •                                              Sydney, NS Info & Events
  •                                              Thunder Bay Info & Events
  •                                              Toronto Info & Events
  •                                              Vancouver Info & Events
  •                                              Vernon Info & Events
  •                                              Victoria Info & Events
  •                                              Waterloo Region Info & Events
  •                                              Whitehorse Info & Events
  •                                              Windsor Info & Events
  •                                              Winnipeg Info & Events
  •                                              Wolfville, NS Info & Events
  •                                              Yellowknife Info & Events

PC PARTY<> PC PARTY<> PC PARTY<> PC PARTY<> PC PARTY<> PC PARTY<> PC PARTY

= = = = = = ==  = = =

(3)    DAVID EAVES, GLOBE & MAIL JAN 21

http://eaves.ca/

Today I have the following article on the Globe and Mail website. Interestingly, it seems some of the opposition leaders are beginning to take an interest in the Facebook group – Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff announced yesterday that he will be doing an online townhall on proroguing parliament on his facebook page.  

Will be interesting to see how this goes and if political parties can get comfortable with a two-way medium where they can’t control the message.

—– Original Message —–

To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;

Sent: Thursday, 21 January, 2010 12:17

Subject: from today’s Globe and Mail–their demographic fits me perfectly–first time user of facebook

Recipients, consider adding your name to this Facebook initiative–“Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament.”

David Eaves

Special to The Globe and Mail Published on Thursday, Jan. 21, 2010 11:55AM EST Last updated on Thursday, Jan. 21, 2010 12:05PM EST

Over the last few weeks a number of pundits have been unsure how to react to sudden rise of the Facebook group (Link no longer valid) Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament. Conservative politicians attempted to label the over 200,000-person strong group as part of “the chattering classes” and political pundits have questioned whether online protests even have meaning or weight.

What is more likely is that few politicians or pundits have actually spent time on the Facebook group and fewer still have tried to understand who its members are and what they believe. Recently Pierre Killeen, an Ottawa-based online public engagement strategist, conducted a survey of the group’s membership in partnership with the Rideau Institute.

Over 340 members of the anti-prorogation Facebook group shared their views and while not a scientific survey, it does provide a window into the group’s makeup and the motivations of its members. Some of the results will surprise both pundits and politicians:

Older than exepcted

To begin, contrary to the view that Facebook is entirely youth driven, just under half of those who completed the survey were 45 years of age or older. Thirty-four per cent were aged 31 to 44 and 16 per cent answered that they were aged 18 to 30. Not a single person who opted to take the survey was aged 12 to 18.

They vote

Perhaps the most interesting part of the survey was the fact that 96 per cent of the participants said they voted in the last federal election. Survey recipients frequently overstate their voting history (people wish to sound more responsible than they are) and this result should be regarded with some skepticism. However, it nonetheless suggests group members are more likely to vote than the general population. (Sixty per cent of Canadians voted in the last federal election).

New to, but believers in, online activism

Over half of the members surveyed (55 per cent) said this was the first time they had joined a politically oriented Facebook group. Another 33 per cent indicated they had previously joined only two to four Facebook groups with political themes. Interestingly, 75 per cent of respondents believe the group “will make a difference” while 22 per cent were unsure.

Democracy and accountability are the key issues

Lastly, when asked why they joined, just over half (53 per cent) of respondents indicated it was because “proroguing parliament is undemocratic” and another 33 per cent said it was because “Parliament needs to investigate the Afghan detainee matter.”

Again, it is worth noting that this survey is not scientific, but is our best window to date into who has joined Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament.

And what should people take away from all this? The Facebook group matters for reasons beyond those I initially outlined for The Globe. The fact that this is the first time a majority of those surveyed have joined a politically oriented online campaign suggests such groups may serve as an on-ramp to greater activism and awareness.

More importantly, however, if the survey results are even remotely representative, then the members of the Facebook group vote. Any time 200,000 citizens say an issue will affect their vote, politicians should not discount them so hastily.

Finally, given that Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament has signed up twice the number of Facebook members than all the political leaders combined (Conservatives 29,616; Liberals 28,898; NDP 27,713; Bloc 4,020; for a collective total of 90,247 fans) this is a constituency whose impact may be better monitored in the voting booth than on the street.

David Eaves is a public-policy entrepreneur, open government activist and negotiation expert based in Vancouver

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

(4)    FAIR VOTE CANADA (FVC) ALSO ORGANIZING ACROSS THE COUNTRY http://www.fairvote.ca/ 

(Sandra writing:)

A fundamental reason why Stephen Harper can do what he’s doing is that Canada continues with its obsolete electoral system, “first past the post”.  Most western democracies have progressed to some form of proportional representation. 

FVC people across Canada have joined the NO Prorogue rallies.   You might especially enjoy the second web link below,  Electoral Dysfunction with a very droopy spire on the House of Parliament!

From Exec Director FVC, Larry Gordon:

FVC council and chapters:

#1 It may be useful to send these images as links rather than attachments to your emails lists:

http://www.fairvote.ca/sites/fairvote.ca/files/electoral_dysfunction_poster8x11bw.pdf

http://www.fairvote.ca/sites/fairvote.ca/files/electoral_dysfunction_parliament480x348.jpg

–        – – – – – – – – —  — – – – – –

—– Original Message —–

From: Eleanor Alexander

To: FVCchapters   AT  yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 10:08 PM

Subject: [FVCchapters] Youtube clip — Does Your Vote Count?

Hello fellow Fair Vote Supporters-A few of us from the Simcoe County chapter of Fair Vote have produced a Youtube video loosely based on the results in Simcoe North in the 2008 federal election — please check it out & spread the link on. It’s simple (admittedly, you could critique the simplicity of our math) but we had fun making it and I hope you’ll enjoy watching it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D64NntB1VrA“A short video making fun of the absurdity of Canada’s “First Past the Post” electoral system, in which it’s normal for a majority of people to vote for someone other than the winning candidate. We need to implement fair voting in Canada, and join the vast majority of other Western democracies that have already done so”Best,
Eleanor Alexander-        – – – – – – – – – —SASKATOON AREA:   Prior to the start of the Rally at City Hall (1:00 pm tomorrow Jan 23), I’ll be across the street in front of the Library.  I’ll have a box of FVC pamphlets.  Can sure use help in distributing them!  REGINA, PRINCE ALBERT:   Fair Vote Canada people will also be distributing literature at their rallies – – please give a hand where you can.  Thanks.  Sandra

= = = = = == = = = = =

(5)   PREVIOUS EMAIL:  FIRST NATIONS ORGANIZING ACROSS THE COUNTRY 

CHIEF AWASIS CALLING ON FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE ACROSS CANADA TO JOIN THE PROTESTS

(Note:  the Chief is on his way to the United Nations in Geneva.  In his absence, the contact person is Eldon Okanee, work telephone 306-845-4312.)

The Chief read our email about the dangers associated with the Proroging of Parliament and telephoned.  He also believes this is a critical test of democracy.

First Nations people are doing the same as us:

– scrambling to organize people to attend the peaceful, family-friendly, rallies across the country on Saturday, January 23rd (1:00 pm in most locations).

Thousands will protest against the willy-nilly shutting-down of Parliament. A deadly serious matter.

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

(6)      SASKATCHEWAN NO PROROGUE EVENTS

Prince Albert, SK Info & Events

Posted: January 18th, 2010 | Author: Colin Carmichael PA Union Centre 107-8th St. E.

1:30 pm

co-sponsored by the Prince Albert Chapter of The Council of Canadians and the PA and District Labour Council

–   – – – – – – – –

SASKATOON, SK

RALLY

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Time:

1:00pm – 2:30pm

Location:  City Hall Square (South Side of City Hall)    Street:  222 3rd Ave. North

City/Town:   Saskatoon, SK

–   – – – – – – – – –

REGINA, SK   RALLY

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010, 1pm

South End of Scarth St. Mall (By the Buffalo)

2010-01-21 A Gift for global citizens (ha ha!): U.S. Supreme Court gives corporations free spending on political campaigns. Resource list re democracy. Organizations involved.

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category)  No Responses »
Jan 212010
 

Corporations are not persons.

The U.S. Supreme Court has just said that they are.

Bad news for everyone around the world.

Ouch!

= = = = = = = = = = = =

CONTENTS

(1)  THIS IS A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY.  THE LAWS DEFINING CORPORATIONS WILL CHANGE IF WE ALL PITCH IN TO HELP THE AMERICANS CHANGE THEIR CONSTITUTION – CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PERSONS.  RAMP UP THE OPPOSITION TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION OF JAN. 21.

(2)  IT’S EASY TO HELP

(3)  RALPH NADER, SHREDDING DEMOCRACY – THE SUPREMES BOW TO KING CORPORATION

(4)  RODRIGUE TREMBLAY, THE UNITED STATES OF CORPORATE AMERICA:  FROM DEMOCRACY TO PLUTOCRACY

(5)  LIST OF AMERICAN NGO’S THAT ARE RALLYING AGAINST “PERSONHOOD” U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION, CALLING FOR AMENDMENT TO THEIR CONSTITUTION.

=  = = = = = = = = = ==

(1)  THIS IS A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY.  THE LAWS DEFINING CORPORATIONS WILL CHANGE IF WE ALL PITCH IN TO HELP THE AMERICANS CHANGE THEIR CONSTITUTION – CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PERSONS.  RAMP UP THE OPPOSITION TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION (JAN. 21).

The U.S. Supreme Court decision on January 21 gives corporations free spending on American political campaigns.

My initial reaction was “we are in reee-ally deep doo-doo”.

I say “we” because American corporate culture flows around the globe.

Now I am laughing!  The Court decision is a solution served on a silver platter.

For a few years, I have been unable to fathom how on Earth we are ever going to rein in the power of the corporations.  I have said “The corporations exist because they are defined by our laws. We have the power to change our laws.”  Yeah but, how in hell are we going to change the laws that define corporations .. ?!

Joel Bakan’s book and documentary movie, “The Corporation” spell out the problem very nicely.  Joel is a professor of law at the University of British Columbia.

Now here we have this outrageous U.S. Supreme Court decision.  So outrageous that the Americans are mobilizing against it, like Canadians mobilized against the prorogation (suspension) of Parliament.

I want to shout in a voice that could carry on every wind:  please, please we need to help the Americans who are fighting this U.S. Supreme Court decision – – sign onto their petitions no matter where on Earth you live.  The outrage in America MUST win.  If Americans lose this battle, we will all lose ground.

Let’s give them a hand!

/Sandra

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

(2)  IT’S EASY TO HELP

See #5 for websites you can go to.

If you happen to be on facebook, the FACEBOOK GROUP is called:   “We the People” NOT “We the Corporations”

http://www.facebook.com/search/?o=69&init=s%3Agroup&q=we+the+people&search=Search+Groups#/group.php?gid=434489465093&ref=search&sid=563546922.686158345..1

There are 9,531 members AS OF  January 24, 2010.   I believe we should be able to get 3,000,000 people signed up.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

(3)  RALPH NADER, “SHREDDING DEMOCRACY – THE SUPREMES BOW TO KING CORPORATION”

(Link no longer valid http://forums.eog.com/politics-and-government/citizens-united-vs-federal-election-commission-270330.html)

By RALPH NADER   Weekend Edition    January 22 – 24, 2010

WATCH:  Corporate Campaign Ads:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL9wIEw5fZ0

Yesterday’s 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process.  It is outrageous that corporations already attempt to influence or bribe our political candidates through their political action committees (PACs), which solicit employees and shareholders for donations.

With this decision, corporations can now directly pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars.  Without approval from their shareholders, corporations can reward or intimidate people running for office at the local, state, and national levels.

Much of this 183 page opinion requires readers to enter into a fantasy world and accept the twisted logic of Justice Kennedy, who delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.  Imagine the majority saying the “Government may not suppress political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity.”

Perhaps Justice Kennedy didn’t hear that the financial sector invested more than $5 billion in political influence purchasing in Washington over the past decade, with as many as 3,000 lobbyists winning deregulation and other policy decisions that led directly to the current financial collapse, according to a 231-page report titled: “Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America” (See: WallStreetWatch.org).

The Center for Responsive Politics reported that last year the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $144 million to influence Congress and state legislatures.

The Center also reported big lobbying expenditures by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) which spent $26 million in 2009.  Drug companies like Pfizer, Amgen and Eli Lilly also poured tens of millions of dollars into federal lobbying in 2009.  The health insurance industry trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) also spent several million lobbying Congress.  No wonder Single Payer Health insurance – supported by the majority of people, doctors, and nurses – isn’t moving in Congress.

Energy companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron are also big spenders.  No wonder we have a national energy policy that is pro-fossil fuel and that does little to advance renewable energy (See: OpenSecrets.Org).

No wonder we have the best Congress money can buy.

I suppose Justice Kennedy thinks corporations that overwhelm members of Congress with campaign contributions need to have still more influence in the electoral arena.  Spending millions to lobby Congress and making substantial PAC contributions just isn’t enough for a majority of the Supreme Court.  The dictate by the five activist Justices was too much for even Republican Senator John McCain, who commented that he was troubled by their “extreme naivete.”

There is a glimmer of hope and a touch of reality in yesterday’s Supreme Court decision. Unfortunately it is the powerful 90 page dissent in this case by Justice Stevens joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.  Justice Stevens recognizes the power corporations wield in our political economy.   Justice Stevens finds it “absurd to think that the First Amendment prohibits legislatures from taking into account the corporate identity of a sponsor of electoral advocacy.”   He flatly declares that, “The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation.”

He notes that the, Framers of our Constitution “had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.”  Right he is, for the words “corporation” or “company” do not exist in our Constitution.

Justice Stevens concludes his dissent as follows:

“At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”

Indeed, this corporatist, anti-voter majority decision is so extreme that it should galvanize a grassroots effort to enact a simple Constitutional amendment to once and for all end corporate personhood and curtail the corrosive impact of big money on politics.  It is time to prevent corporate campaign contributions from commercializing our elections and drowning out the voices and values of citizens and voters.  It is way overdue to overthrow “King Corporation” and restore the sovereignty of “We the People”!  Remember that corporations, chartered by the state, are our servants, not our masters.

Legislation sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Representative John Larson (D-CT) would encourage unlimited small-dollar donations from individuals and provide candidates with public funding in exchange for refusing corporate contributions or private contributions of more than $100.

It is also time for shareholder resolutions, company by company, directing the corporate boards of directors to pledge not to use company money to directly favor or oppose candidates for public office.

If you want to join the efforts to rollback the corporate concessions the Supreme Court made yesterday, visit Citizen.Org and freespeechforpeople.org.

Ralph Nader is the author of Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!, a novel.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

(4)  RODRIGUE TREMBLAY, THE UNITED STATES OF CORPORATE AMERICA:  FROM DEMOCRACY TO PLUTOCRACY

By Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay

URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17142

Global Research, January 22, 2010

The New American Empire

“The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”  Plato, ancient Greek philosopher

…“The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.”Alex Carey, Australian social scientist

“The most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer decision-making from the public arena to unaccountable institutions: kings and princes, priestly castes, military juntas, party dictatorships, or modern corporations.” Noam Chomsky, M.I.T. Emeritus Professor of Linguistics

On Tuesday, January 19 (2010), the Obama administration got a kick in the pants from the Massachusetts voters when they filled former Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat by electing a conservative Republican candidate. The essence of their message was: stop dithering and start governing; stop trying to satisfy the bankers and please the editors of Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal, and start caring for the ordinary people.

Two days later, President Barack Obama seemed to have understood the people’s message when he announced a “Volcker rule” that will forbid large banks from owning hedge funds that make money by placing large bets against their own clients, using information that these same clients gave them. It was time. Such a policy should have been announced months ago, if not years ago.

On the same day, however, a nonelected body, the U.S. Supreme Court, threw a different challenge to the Obama administration. Indeed, on Thursday January 21 (2010), a Republican-appointed majority on the U.S. Supreme Court  took it upon itself to profoundly change the U.S. Constitution and American democracy. Indeed, in what can be labeled a most reactionary decision, the Roberts U.S. Supreme Court,  ruled that legal entities, such as corporations and labor unions, have the same purely personal rights to free speech as living individuals.

[http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html?src=tptw]

Indeed, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution] says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.

The only problem with such a wide interpretation of the U.S. Bills of Rights  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights]   (N.B.: The first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights)   is that this runs contrary its letter and its spirit, since it clearly states later on that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or States.” The words “people” and “citizenry” clearly refer here to living human beings, not to legal or artificial entities such as business corporations, labor unions, financial organizations or political lobbies.

Such entities, for example, cannot vote in an election. Indeed, laws governing voting rights in the United States clearly establish that only “Adult citizens of the United States who are residents of one of the 50 states have the right to participate fully in the political system of the United States”. No mention is made of corporations or other legal entities.

However, with its January 19 (2010) decision, the majority on the Roberts U.S. Supreme Court is saying in effect that even if artificial entities cannot vote in an election, they can spend as much money as they like to influence the outcome of an election. Money is speech for them, and the more a legal entity has of it, the more it has a right to become powerful politically and control the political agenda.

In fact, what Chief Justice Roberts and his conservative Supreme Court majority have done is to overcome a century-old democratic tradition in the United States in granting a constitutional right to business corporations and to banks, (because they are really the ones with a lot of money), to use their enormous resources to not only participate in debates about public issues, but also, and above all, to de facto dictate the election of candidates of their choice to public office.

That’s plutocracy, not democracy!

Plutocracy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy] is defined as a political system characterized by “the rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth.” Democracy, on the other hand, is defined as a political system where political power belongs to the people. This means “a political government either carried out directly by the people (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy). The terms “the power to the people” are derived from the words “people” and “power” in Greek.

This fundamental idea of democracy was well summarized by President Abraham Lincoln, in his 1863 Gettysburg Address, when he said that it is “a government of the people, by the people and for the people.” This is a definition that is based on the basic democratic principle of equality among human beings.

But now, the Roberts Court’s decision must have made President Lincoln turn in his grave, because that decision, in effect, transfers political power from the living “people” to artificial corporate entities, with tons of money to spend. If Congress does not act quickly to reverse this decision, legal entities will be able to spend freely in the media to support or oppose political candidates for president and Congress, and this, as far as the last moment of a political campaign. This is quite something!

By a stroke of the pen, the Roberts Court has thus abolished the laws governing American electoral financing and removed limits to how much special money interests can spend to have the elected officials they want. The government they want will largely be “a government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.” Truly amazing!

To reflect the new political philosophy of the five-member majority of the Roberts Court, the Preambule of the U.S. Constitution [http://www.answers.com/topic/preamble-to-the-constitution] that says “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union…” should, maybe, more appropriately be changed for “We, the business corporations of America…”

It is that much more ironic that the word “corporation” appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or in the Bill of Rights. It is scarcely conceivable that the drafters of the Constitution had anything resembling corporate entities in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights. But the Roberts Court majority does not seem to agree with Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Mason…etc. Because of their decision, the five conservative members of the U. S. Supreme Court of today have become the new Fathers of the U. S. Constitution.

For nearly a century, it has been assumed that the U.S. Bill of Rights protected persons, not corporations. Even if sometimes the courts have extended the rights of the14th Amendment banning the deprivation of property without due process or equal protection of the law to the property of corporations, it was never thought that the purely personal rights of the first Amendment of the Bill of Rights applied to corporate entities as well as to human beings. This is understandable. Business corporations are created through legislation that gives them potentially perpetual life and limited liability to enhance their efficiency as economic entities. While such characteristics can be beneficial in the economic sphere, they represent special dangers in the political sphere. That is the rationale for not extending constitutional rights to purely legal entities.

But now, the five-member majority of the Roberts Court have said that such legalized artificial entities have the same constitutionally protected rights to engage in political activities as living individuals.

This is clearly revolutionary or, more precisely, counter-revolutionary.

Rodrigue Tremblay [http://www.thenewamericanempire.com/author.htm] is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com.

He is the author of the forthcoming book “The Code for Global Ethics” at: http://www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com/

© Copyright Rodrigue Tremblay , The New American Empire, 2010

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17142

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  ==

(5)  LIST OF AMERICAN NGO’S THAT ARE RALLYING AGAINST “PERSONHOOD” U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION, CALLING FOR AMENDMENT TO THEIR CONSTITUTION.

—– Original Message —–

From: “Janet M Eaton”     Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010

Subject: American NGO’s rally against “Personhood” decision by Supreme Court [re Corporate Power & Election spending] +PPt Ref

[1] http://www.thealliancefordemocracy.org/

Supreme Court throws its weight behind the corporations…

“Today’s Supreme Court opinion in Citizens United v. FEC opens the floodgates on unlimited corporate spending to influence elections and further entrenches corporate rule in our nation.

We demand mandatory public financing of state and federal elections and a constitutional amendment to deny corporations the false claim they’ve made to First Amendment free speech and other personhood rights. ”

[2] Public Citizen Take Action Sign Petition

http://action.citizen.org/t/10315/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=2190

“The court has put our democracy up for sale. Public Citizen is launching a historic campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to restore people to the center of the political process.”

(I submitted:  “This is perhaps the peak of the battle.  If we cannot win this one, the future looks black.   … I say “we”.  I am Canadian.  Around the world we are fighting the same evil, the corporations.  The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court must be overturned by an amendment to your Constitution.  People from around the world need to pitch in and help you spread the word.  In spirit and solidarity.”)

[3] The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund P.O. Box 2016, Chambersburg, PA 17201 www.celdf.org “today´s decision should be understood as just another brick in the wall, another step in a direction that will only continue unless and until a real movement for the rights of people, communities, and nature is built. That is the work we are doing. We hope you will join us. ”

[4] New Coalition Responds to Citizens United Decision with a Call to Amend the U.S. Constitution to Overrule the Supreme Court´s Activist Expansion of Corporate “Rights” www.movetoamend.org.

“After justices on the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of corporate “rights” in the Citizens United case, a new national coalition of diverse public interest, community, and business organizations responded with a bold call to overrule the decision and amend the Constitution to restore the power of people over corporations, beyond election law. A complete list of the “Move to Amend” Steering Committee is attached. A list of other groups and people who have endorsed this new campaign is available at the coalition´s new website: www.movetoamend.org. More groups join daily.”

[5] From: “Liberty Tree” <office@libertytreefdr.org>

p.s.  A Backgrounder on the Personhood Case and Corporate Rigths & Power can be found at:

http://www.sierraclub.org/committees/cac/corporatepower/

Scroll down to  link for Power Point Presentation on Corporations and the Deterioration of Democracy SLIDE 53,54, 59  / 81

1886:  A Turning Point

One of the most important Supreme Court cases you may never have heard of…   Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled that a private corporation was a natural person, entitled to the same rights and protections as human beings under the Bill of Rights.

Since Santa Clara, those rights and privileges have been expanded to exceed those of the natural persons creating them.

By granting “personhood” rights to corporations, courts have allowed them to grow and maximize profits in ways that harm the environment, public health and democracy.

In 1886 alone, federal courts struck down 230 state laws regulating corporations.  Corporations took advantage of laws written for human beings.

The 14th Amendment was passed to protect freed slaves.  Of the 307 14th Amendment cases brought before the Supreme Court between 1890 and 1910:  -19 dealt with African Americans    -288 dealt with corporations

In latter years  many groups in the US like SC, Alliance for Democracy, WILPF, Public Citizen,  POCLAD, have worked to educate citizens about and to lobby against the personhood case and its implications of corporate rights and abuse of power.

Confronting Corporate Power

The Sierra Club has developed great expertise around advocating for environmental laws and regulations, but only recently has begun to examine the ways in which corporations use their power to influence lawmaking and control regulatory agencies. Yet it is in these ways that corporations harm the earth and its inhabitants. All the while, the wealth and power of transnational corporations have grown.

In the U.S., court decisions establishing legal doctrines such as Corporate Personhood have shifted power to corporations over natural persons by giving corporations constitutional protection. Corporations gain further power through international trade and investment rules that treat environmental laws as mere “barriers” to trade.

The consequences of concentrated corporate power are that many corporations despoil our forests, degrade the land, pollute the air and water, and resist public health regulations. Concentrated corporate media ownership limits political debate, the diversity of viewpoints presented, and media access. As a result, corporations wield enormous political and electoral power.

The Confronting Corporate Power Task Force seeks to:

Examine the nature of the corporation from legal, economic, and political perspectives

Explore the history of how corporations acquired such wealth and power

Investigate how corporate power affects Sierra Club concerns

Develop tools that can be used to hold corporations accountable and to redefine the relationship between citizens and corporations

Educate Sierra Club members and citizens about how to use these tools effectively

Corporations and the Deterioration of Democracy  powerpoint presentation for use with a wider audience)

Corporate Power and the Sierra Club  (powerpoint presentation)

Model Legal Brief to Eliminate Corporate Rights  (amicus brief and resolution)

How to Pass an Ordinance/Resolution  (pdf file)

Manual for revoking corporate charters  rft file)

RECOMMENDED READING, CORPORATIONS AND GOVERNMENT:

A People’s History of the United States, by Howard Zinn

When Corporations Rule the World, by David C. Korten

Defying Corporations, Defining Democracy: A Book of History and Democracy, POCLAD, edited by Dean Ritz

The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, by Joel Bakan

The Case Against the Global Economy, by Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith

Who Rules America Now?, by G. William Domhoff

The Power Elite, by C. Wright Mills

Wealth and Democracy, by Kevin Phillips

The Great Transformation, the Political and Economic Origins of our Time, by Karl Polanyi

The Post-Corporate World: Life After Capitalism, by David Korten

American Democracy in Peril, by William Hudson

========================================

[1] http://www.thealliancefordemocracy.org/

Supreme Court throws its weight behind the corporations…

Citizens United: SCOTUS decision says corporations are people, money is speech, and our democracy is up for sale

Today’s Supreme Court opinion in Citizens United v. FEC opens the floodgates on unlimited corporate spending to influence elections and further entrenches corporate rule in our nation.

This 5-4 decision overturns previous Court decisions that banned corporate “independent expenditures,” thereby scrapping campaign finance regulations in 22 states and establishing “fee-for-service” politics as the law of the land.

From our founding, the Alliance for Democracy has stood for public funding for elections and against the legal fiction of corporate personhood. Now we call on the American people to stand up and take back our democracy and its laws from corporate rule. We demand mandatory public financing of state and federal elections and a constitutional amendment to deny corporations the false claim they’ve made to First Amendment free speech and other personhood rights.

Continuing our work against corporate rule, and in anticipation of this decision, Alliance for Democracy has joined the steering committee of the Campaign to Legalize Democracy. We urge you to visit www.MovetoAmend.org for more information about this coalition effort to amend the Constitution to protect our rights as human persons, communities, and voters.

Read our statement on the decision here and see our AfD Corporate Person Home Page for up-to-date:

Information and links on this case and the issue of corporate personhood Analysis and observations from the media Videos on the case and implications for democracy

The Alliance for Democracy

PO Box 540115, Waltham, MA 02454 781-894-1179 * www.thealliancefordemocracy.org

<><><><><><><><>

[2] http://action.citizen.org/t/10315/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=2190

PUbilc Citizen Take Action / Sign Petition

As we told you in an email this morning, the Supreme Court today allowed corporations to use their immense wealth to take over our elections.

The court has put our democracy up for sale.

Public Citizen is launching a historic campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to restore people to the center of the political process. Join our grassroots mobilization to take back our democracy. The more people who join, the more power we have to fight a corporate takeover.

Forward this email to everyone you know who recognizes that letting unlimited corporate cash into our elections will be a catastrophe.

Click here to watch a short video about the ruling and Public Citizen’s response to it. And sign our petition calling for a constitutional amendment to prevent corporate money from overwhelming our democracy.

The shocking decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission struck down 60 years of legal precedent prohibiting corporations from making campaign expenditures to attack or support political candidates. The court ruled that the First Amendment – meant to protect the speech of actual human beings – gives for-profit corporations the right to influence elections.

People or corporations?

Corporations are not human beings. Corporations should not be able to use their vast financial power to drown out the voices of real people.

Forward this email to friends, family, neighbors and coworkers to let them know about our campaign to fight unfettered corporate power.

Then watch the video and sign the petition.

Please help me spread the word and build a massive movement to save our democracy.

Forward this email. Watch the video. Sign the petition.

Thank you.

Robert Weissman, President

Contribute | © 2010 Public Citizen | Take Action

http://action.citizen.org/t/10315/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=2190

Don’t Get Rolled: Take Action

Public Citizen

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations are entitled to spend unlimited funds in our elections, rolling back a century of modest limits. The First Amendment was never intended to protect corporations.

This cannot stand. Join our campaign to protest this decision.

Protect our democracy! Two things that can be done now:

1) Fair Elections Now Act: Give congressional candidates a public financing alternative to elections bankrolled by corporations. Also fix the presidential public financing system.

2) Shareholder Accountability: Give shareholders a say over corporate spending in elections.

But ultimately, we must pass a constitutional amendment to ensure corporate money does not overwhelm our democracy and clarify that the First Amendment is for people — not corporations. Add your name to the petition to Congress today!

FREE SPEECH FOR PEOPLE AMENDMENT PETITION:

WHEREAS the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was designed to protect the free speech rights of people, not corporations;

WHEREAS, for the past three decades, a divided United States Supreme Court has transformed the First Amendment into a powerful tool for corporations seeking to evade and invalidate democratically-enacted reforms;

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court´s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC overturned longstanding precedent prohibiting corporations from spending their general treasury funds in our elections;

WHEREAS, this corporate takeover of the First Amendment has reached its extreme conclusion in the United States Supreme Court´s recent ruling in Citizens United v. FEC;

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court´s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC will now unleash a torrent of corporate money in our political process unmatched by any campaign expenditure totals in United States history;

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court´s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC presents a serious and direct threat to our democracy;

WHEREAS, the people of the United States have previously used the constitutional amendment process to correct those egregiously wrong decisions of the United States Supreme Court that go to the heart of our democracy and self-government;

Now hereby be it resolved that we the undersigned voters of the United States call upon the United States Congress to pass and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.

Learn More   The Problem   The Solutions

Constitutional Amendment FAQ

The Supreme Court’s Decision (.pdf)

What we told the Supreme Court (.pdf)

Statement of Public Citizen’s president  Press statements  Get the latest from CitizenVox blog

Take Action

Sign the Free Speech for People Amendment Petition  Tell Congress to support the solutions  Protest  Spread the word  Stay informed

<><><><><><><><><>

[3] The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund

P.O. Box 2016, Chambersburg, PA 17201

www.celdf.org

CONTACT: Mari Margil

(503) 381 1755

mmargil  AT  celdf.org

January 21, 2010

Legal Defense Fund: Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United Case

“Inevitable”

Continues Long History of Expansion of Corporate Rights over the

Rights of People, Communities,

and Nature

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund is the only public interest law firm in the U.S. that has worked with municipalities to question whether corporate “rights” can coexist with the democratic rights of communities to local self-government.

Those communities have recognized that corporate rights and privileges are routinely wielded to override democratic decision making and undermine efforts to protect the environment and public health, local economies and local agriculture. Through the adoption of local, binding laws, these communities are pioneering a new structure of law which does not recognize the rights and privileges of corporations.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Decision

Today´s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – giving corporations the ability to spend money directly to influence federal elections under the Constitution´s First Amendment – was inevitable. It represents a logical expansion of corporate constitutional “rights” – which include the rights of persons which have been judicially conferred upon corporations.  “Personhood” rights mean that corporations possess First Amendment rights to free speech, along with a litany of other rights that are secured to persons under the federal Bill of Rights.

The expansion of corporate rights and privileges under the law has been deliberate, beginning nearly two hundred years ago with the Dartmouth decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that private corporations have rights that municipal corporations – governments composed of “we the people” – did not.

The expansion of these rights and privileges occurred during the 1800s, throughout the 1900s, until today. For those who think that the way to stem this tide is to find the perfect lawsuit, we say, stop looking. It doesn´t exist, for there is no magic bullet.

Rather, in order to reverse decisions like Citizens United, the whole concept of corporate “rights” must be examined, and how corporations possessing “rights” interferes with the exercise of rights by people, communities, and nature. And, it´s not simply that corporations have “personhood” rights. It goes well beyond that.

Today´s structure of law gives corporations a spectrum of legal and constitutional rights which they routinely wield against people, communities, and nature. Corporations have more rights, for example, than the communities in which they seek to do business. They have rights which they use to lobby Congress, impact elections, to decide for us what we eat, whether mountaintops are blown off or not, whether there are fish in the oceans, and on and on. Coupling their wealth with constitutional and other legal rights guarantees that they write the laws which determine these things, along with defining the debate that leads to the adoption of the new laws.

Thus the context for understanding today´s decision is that we have a minority set of corporate interests, empowered by government, which wield their rights against a majority. It is the history of this nation. Whether with the Abolitionists, the Suffragists, the Civil Rights Movement – all found it necessary to build movements of people to drive rights into law – rights for slaves, rights for women, rights of African Americans – which necessarily meant eliminating rights for a minority such as the slaveholder. In the end, it is our constitutional structure of law that purposefully placed the rights of property and commerce over the rights of people, communities, and nature.

In some ways, the Citizens United ruling is merely part of a predetermined destiny set by a 1700´s constitutional structure which placed greater priority on the rights of property and commerce than on people and nature. Reversing Citizens United means reversing that constitutional legacy.

And today – those who recognize that we do not have democracy when corporations located thousands of miles away are making decisions about our community instead of us, who recognize that we cannot have sustainability so long as corporations are able to decide how clean our air is and our water is, who recognize that we´ll never have true health care reform so long as corporations have greater access to our elected representatives than the people who voted for them – to those people -today´s decision should be understood as just another brick in the wall, another step in a direction that will only continue unless and until a real movement for the rights of people, communities, and nature is built. That is the work we are doing. We hope you will join us.

–   30 –

<><><><><><><><><>

[4] New Coalition Responds to Citizens United Decision with a Call to  Amend the U.S. Constitution to Overrule the Supreme Court´s Activist Expansion of Corporate “Rights” www.movetoamend.org.

For immediate release

Contact: (202) 642  1848 or (707) 362  0333

Washington, DC-After justices on the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of corporate “rights” in the Citizens United case, a new national coalition of diverse public interest, community, and business organizations responded with a bold call to overrule the decision and amend the Constitution to restore the power of people over corporations, beyond election law. A complete list of the “Move to Amend” Steering Committee is attached. A list of other groups and people who have endorsed this new campaign is available at the coalition´s new website: www.movetoamend.org. More groups join daily.

“This decision is Pearl Harbor for our democracy,” said Ben Manski, Executive Director of Liberty Tree and a lawyer helping to lead the coalition. “Decades of judicial activism culminating in today´s decision have eroded the power of `We the People´ to govern ourselves. Our move to amend the Constitution is not limited to the powers of the Federal Election Commission, but focuses on the broader implications of the decision.”

“We are inspired by historic social movements that recognized the necessity of altering fundamental power relationships,” added Riki Ott, the Director of Ultimate Civics and a marine toxicologist whose activism was galvanized by the Exxon Valdez spill. “America has always progressed through ordinary people joining together-from the Revolutionaries to Abolitionists, Suffragists, Trade Unionists, and Civil Rights activists.”

“In this decision, a handful of unelected judges have revealed their agenda to expand the influence of corporations at the expense of the rights of individuals, and it will not stand the test of time,” said Lisa Graves, Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy and former Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and Deputy Assistant Attorney General. “Corporations aren´t people and simply don´t deserve the same rights as people; we have to work together to put people before corporations.”

“The movement we are launching is a long-term effort to make the U.S. Constitution more democratic,” noted David Cobb, of Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County. “We are a diverse coalition with deep roots in communities nationwide. We recognize that amending the Constitution to restore the power of the people over corporations will not be easy, but it must be done.”

### (See page two for the coalition´s Steering Committee and contact information)

New Coalition Responds to Citizens United Decision with a Call to Amend the U.S. Constitution to Overrule the Supreme Court´s Activist Expansion of Corporate “Rights”

Page two

FOR MORE INFORMATION, contact the Move to Amend Steering Committee:

Ben Manski, Liberty Tree (www.libertytree.org), (202) 642  1848, Manski AT LibertyTreeFDR.org

Riki Ott, PhD, Ultimate Civics (www.ultimatecivics.org), (907) 424  3915, otter2  AT ak.net

Lisa Graves, Center for Media and Democracy (www.prwatch.org), (608) 26 9713, lisa AT  prwatch.org

David Cobb, Program on Corporations Law & Democracy (www.poclad.org), (707) 362 0333, david AT  duhc.org

George Friday, National Director of Independent Progressive Politics Network (www.ippn.org) (862) 668  8172, ippn AT  igc.org

Marybeth Gardam, Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom Corporations vs. Democracy Committee Leadership Team (www.wilpf.org),

(515) 210  7928, mbgardam  AT  gmail.com

Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County   (www.duhc.org) (707) 269  0984, kaitlin  AT   duhc.org

Nancy Price, Alliance for Democracy (www.thealliancefordemocracy.org) (781) 894  1179 or (530) 758  0726, nancytprice AT  juno.com David Swanson, After Downing Street, (202) 329  7847, david  AT davidswanson.org

[5]  From: “Liberty Tree” <office AT  libertytreefdr.org>

Subject: OUTRAGE: Court says corporations are people: Join the move to amend! Date sent: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:54:54 -0600

URGENT CALL TO ACTION FROM HOWARD ZINN, THOM HARTMANN, MEDEA BENJAMIN, FRAN & DAVID KORTEN, BILL MCKIBBEN, BILL FLETCHER, JIM HIGHTOWER, TOM HAYDEN, REV. YEARWOOD, & MORE

They’ve gone after our tax dollars. Our services. Our jobs. Our schools. Our military. Our votes. Our future. Our freedoms. And the federal courts have helped them every step of the way. Today, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.

We Move to Amend.

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:

Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.

Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate “preemption” actions by global, national, and state governments.

Adrienne Maree Brown, Ruckus Society Alec Loorz, Kids vs Global Warming Andrew Kimbrell, International Center for Technology Assessment Andy Gussert, Citizens Trade Campaign Anne Feeney, musician Ben Manski, attorney, Exec. Director, Liberty Tree Benno Friedman, photographer Benson Scotch, former Staff Counsel to Sen.

Leahy, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Bill Fletcher, Exec. Editor, BlackCommentator.com Bill McKibben, founder, 350.org Bill Moyer, Backbone Campaign Brad Friedman, Publisher, The BRAD BLOG Brad Thacker, Be The Change USA Brett Kimberlin, Director, Justice Through Music Brian McLaren, Christian activist & author Carl Davidson, Progressive America Rising Carolyn Oppenheim, Shays 2 Charlie Cray, Center for Corporate Policy Dal LaMagna, founder, Tweezerman, Inc.

Dave Wells, formerly Board of Directors, Sierra Club David Cobb, initiator of 2004 Ohio Recount David Gespass, president, National Lawyers Guild David Korten, author of When Corporations Rule the World David Rovics, musician David Swanson, AfterDowningStreet.org David Wells, Jr., Nashville Urban Harvest Dean Myerson, Executive Director, Green Institute Diane Wittner & Margaret Flowers, Chesapeake Citizens Dr. Jill Stein, candidate for Governor of Massachusetts Ed Garvey, attorney at law, editor, FightingBob.com Emily Levy, Velvet Revolution Fran Korten, Editor, YES! Magazine Frank Arundel, activist Gary Zuckett, WV Citizen Action George Friday, National Coordinator, IPPN George Martin, United for Peace & Justice Georgia Kelly, Praxis Peace Institute Glen Ford, Executive Editor, BlackAgendaReport.com Greg Coleridge, NE OH American Friends Service Committee Howard Zinn, historian Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western State Legal Foundation James Gustave Speth, Distinguished Senior Fellow, Demos Jan Edwards, writer Jane Anne Morris, author, Gaveling Down The Rabble Jeff Cohen, founder, FAIR Jeff Milchen, founder, ReclaimDemocracy.org Jeffrey Short, Ph.D., Pacific Science Director, OCEANA Jerome Scott, League of Revolutionaries for a New America Jill Bussiere, Co-Chair, Green Party of the U.S. James M. Cullen, editor of The Progressive Populist

Jim Hightower, author, columnist, and radio commentator Joel Bleifuss, Editor & Publisher, In These Times John E. Peck, Executive Director, Family Farm Defenders John Nichols, Washington Correspondent, The Nation John Rensenbrink, President, Green Horizon Foundation John Stauber, author, Weapons of Mass Deception Jonathan Frieman, social entrepreneur Josh Healey, Youth Speaks Josh Lerner, The New School for Social Research Josh Silver, Executive Director, Free Press Judith Pedersen-Benn, Unitarian Universalists for a Just Economic Community Kai Huschke, Envision Spokane Kaitlin Sopoci- Belknap, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County Ken Reiner, inventor and founder, Kaynar Corp. Kevin Danaher, Executive Co-Producer, Green Festivals Kevin Zeese, Executive Director, TrueVote.US Leah Bolger, CDR, USN (Ret), Bring the Guard Home! It’s the Law. Lewis Pitts, Lawyer, Legal Aid of NC Lisa Graves, Executive Director, Center for Media and Democracy Lori Price, Managing Editor, Citizens for Legitimate Government Makani Themba-Nixon, Executive Director, The Praxis Project Margo Baldwin, Publisher, Chelsea Green Mark Crispin Miller, author, Fooled Again Mary Zepernick, Program on Corporations Law and Democracy Marybeth Gardam, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom Matt Nelson, Just Cause Matt Rothschild, Editor, The Progressive Medea Benjamin, co-founder, Code Pink Michael Albert, Z Communications Michael Bonnano, OpEdNews Michael Marx, Corporate Ethics International Michael Shuman, attorney, economic, author of “The Small-Mart Revolution” Mike Ferner, President, Veterans for Peace Mimi Kennedy, actress, activist Miriam Simos, Starhawk, activist and writer Nancy Price, Alliance for Democracy Nick Pavloff, Jr., Gulf of Alaska Aleut from Kodiak Island Norman Solomon, author, co-chair, Healthcare Not Warfare campaign Patrick Reinsborough, SmartMeme Paul Saginaw, founder, Zingerman’s, Inc. Prof. Peter Gabel,  School of Law, New College of California Prof. Victor Wallis, Managing Editor, Socialism & Democracy Rabbi Arthur Waskow Rep.

Michael Fisher, House of Representatives, Vermont Rev. Edward Pinkney, Black Autonomy Network Community Organization Rev. Lennox Yearwood, President, Hip Hop Caucus Richard Mazess, Prof. Medical Physics, UW-Madison, CEO of Lunar Corp & Bone Care Intl. Riki Ott, Executive Director, Ultimate Civics Robert McChesney, professor, co- author, The Death and Life of American Journalism Ronnie Cummins, founder, Grassroots Netroots Alliance Sally Castleman, Election Defense Alliance Sam Smith, Editor, Progressive Review Sarah Manski, CEO, PosiPair.com Shahid Buttar, Rule of Law Institute Ted Glick, climate change activist Ted Nace, author, Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power Thom Hartmann, nation’s #1 nationally syndicated progressive talk show host Tia Oros & Christopher Peters, Seventh Generation Fund for Indian Development Tiffiniy Cheng, Executive Director, A New Way Forward Tim Carpenter, Executive Director, Progressive Democrats of America Tom Hayden, activist Ward Morehouse,  chair, National Lawyers Guild’s Committee on Corporations * organizations listed for identification purposes only 122 State Street Suite 405 | Madison, WI 53703 US

 Older Entries  Newer Entries