Friday, April 06, 2007
US has tried to topple Mugabe regime
Not surprising, considering Mugabe was once one of Pan-Africanism's brightest lights. I think he should begin paving the way for the future of PanAFricanism by not embracing authoritarianism.
Given the West's (THe US and Western Europe) history of plundering African wealth and and literally killing leaders who could have established a UNITED STATES OF AFRICA for AFRICANS, Mugabe is not entirely as crazy as the western media portrays him.
Given the West's (THe US and Western Europe) history of plundering African wealth and and literally killing leaders who could have established a UNITED STATES OF AFRICA for AFRICANS, Mugabe is not entirely as crazy as the western media portrays him.
Bush, Cheney Redeux? see also:
I pray that this is some kind of joke -- a very sad, sick and misplaced attempt at humor as twisted as the sneer on Darth Cheney's face.
From the always shady NYTImes, April 1:
Cheney/Bush May Challenge 22nd Amendment for THIRD Term
by Phillip Mckrack
April 1, 2007
NY TIMES
http://www.newyourketimes.com/content/article76649.html#secondParagraph
Mr. Cheney again cited the war in Iraq as a key component in the effort
to combat terrorism, saying "The war in Iraq is such a crucial part of
the greater war on terror that we currently have our legal advisors
looking into the possibility that the 22nd Amendment may not apply in 2008."
Because the speech was not publicized and was held on a secure military
base, very few journalists were present, and none were able to ask
questions about what the Vice President's comments might mean. Repeated
efforts to contact the Vice President's Office to clarify the comment
were unsuccessful.
The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution prohibits U.S. Presidents from
running for a third term, stating "No person shall be elected to the
office of the President more than twice...". The 22nd Amendment was
passed in 1951 after President Franklin Roosevelt broke a tradition that
dated back to George Washington, in which Presidents voluntarily refused
to run for a third term.
Political pundits and Constitutional experts are split on what the Vice
President's comments could mean. Some see the comments as an effort to
extend the Administration's "war powers" due to the fact that the
country is at war. They argue that there is a tenuous case to be made
that the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply during war time since the Congress
waited until after WW II to introduce such an Amendment. Others say that
the mere fact that the country had just ended the war in 1951, when the
Amendment was passed, suggests that the Congress would have put such an
exception into the language of the Amendment if they had intended it not
apply during times of war.
Others say that the Bush Administration will argue that the 2000 race
was not actually decided by an election and that the Bush administration
has technically only been "elected" once since the Supreme Court's
Decision in Bush v. Gore effectively nullified the popular vote.
Anonymous sources inside the White House have corraborated that this may
indeed be the Administration's plan.
Arguing that it was not actually elected would be a very interesting
approach for the administration to say the least, but most experts agree
that it is certainly possible given the Bush administration's history of
creative interpretation of the law with regard to such cases as:
# the assertion that The Geneva Conventions do not apply to U.S.
detainees captured on the battlefield,
# suggestions that the legal definition of "torture" only includes
activities that cause death or organ failure,
# the argument that U.S. Citizens do not have a right to "due process"
if declared "enemy combatants", which was recently rejected by the
Supreme Court,
# Attorney General Albert Gonzales's testimony before Congress that the
Constitution doesn't guarantee U.S. Citizens a right to Habeas Corpus,
# The Administration's claim that the FISA law does not apply to their
warrantless wire taps of Americans.
Critics of the Administration argue that these cases are all the proof
needed to believe that The Bush Administration would try to argue that
its own victory in 2000 demonstrates that it could run for a third term
in 2008.
From the always shady NYTImes, April 1:
Cheney/Bush May Challenge 22nd Amendment for THIRD Term
by Phillip Mckrack
April 1, 2007
NY TIMES
http://www.newyourketimes.com/content/article76649.html#secondParagraph
Mr. Cheney again cited the war in Iraq as a key component in the effort
to combat terrorism, saying "The war in Iraq is such a crucial part of
the greater war on terror that we currently have our legal advisors
looking into the possibility that the 22nd Amendment may not apply in 2008."
Because the speech was not publicized and was held on a secure military
base, very few journalists were present, and none were able to ask
questions about what the Vice President's comments might mean. Repeated
efforts to contact the Vice President's Office to clarify the comment
were unsuccessful.
The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution prohibits U.S. Presidents from
running for a third term, stating "No person shall be elected to the
office of the President more than twice...". The 22nd Amendment was
passed in 1951 after President Franklin Roosevelt broke a tradition that
dated back to George Washington, in which Presidents voluntarily refused
to run for a third term.
Political pundits and Constitutional experts are split on what the Vice
President's comments could mean. Some see the comments as an effort to
extend the Administration's "war powers" due to the fact that the
country is at war. They argue that there is a tenuous case to be made
that the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply during war time since the Congress
waited until after WW II to introduce such an Amendment. Others say that
the mere fact that the country had just ended the war in 1951, when the
Amendment was passed, suggests that the Congress would have put such an
exception into the language of the Amendment if they had intended it not
apply during times of war.
Others say that the Bush Administration will argue that the 2000 race
was not actually decided by an election and that the Bush administration
has technically only been "elected" once since the Supreme Court's
Decision in Bush v. Gore effectively nullified the popular vote.
Anonymous sources inside the White House have corraborated that this may
indeed be the Administration's plan.
Arguing that it was not actually elected would be a very interesting
approach for the administration to say the least, but most experts agree
that it is certainly possible given the Bush administration's history of
creative interpretation of the law with regard to such cases as:
# the assertion that The Geneva Conventions do not apply to U.S.
detainees captured on the battlefield,
# suggestions that the legal definition of "torture" only includes
activities that cause death or organ failure,
# the argument that U.S. Citizens do not have a right to "due process"
if declared "enemy combatants", which was recently rejected by the
Supreme Court,
# Attorney General Albert Gonzales's testimony before Congress that the
Constitution doesn't guarantee U.S. Citizens a right to Habeas Corpus,
# The Administration's claim that the FISA law does not apply to their
warrantless wire taps of Americans.
Critics of the Administration argue that these cases are all the proof
needed to believe that The Bush Administration would try to argue that
its own victory in 2000 demonstrates that it could run for a third term
in 2008.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Reframing the immigration debate and uniting communities of color
The Minneapolis Urban League, The Council On Crime And Justice, The NAACP, African American Family Services, Jewish Community Action, Council on Black Minnesotans, African American Men’s Project, Micah-OPACC, American Immigration Lawyers Association, Chicano Latino Affairs Council, Communities United Against Police Brutality, Community Justice Partners, Sabathani Community Center, Women Planting Seeds, Organizing Apprenticeship Project and the Barbara Schneider Foundation present:
* Outline new strategies to combat racial profiling!
* Discuss current immigration policies & plans for change!
* Promote shared interests in racial justice!
April 5, 2007
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (really tasty supper @ 5:30 PM)
Minneapolis Urban League
2100 Plymouth Avenue North, Minneapolis
612-302-3100
This will be an incredible Minnesota Pipeline Experience! Please plan to attend. Bring everyone you know who wants to work on uniting our communities.
RACIAL PROFILING & IMMIGRATION IN MINNESOTA:
Reframing the Immigration Debate & Uniting Communities of Color!
Join community activists & neighbors from across the state as they:Reframing the Immigration Debate & Uniting Communities of Color!
* Outline new strategies to combat racial profiling!
* Discuss current immigration policies & plans for change!
* Promote shared interests in racial justice!
April 5, 2007
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (really tasty supper @ 5:30 PM)
Minneapolis Urban League
2100 Plymouth Avenue North, Minneapolis
612-302-3100
This will be an incredible Minnesota Pipeline Experience! Please plan to attend. Bring everyone you know who wants to work on uniting our communities.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Mumia Update
Oral arguments for Mumia Abu-Jamal begin May 17.
Like JM says, the mainstream continues to portray Mumia as a cold-blooded killler by omitting any evidence that may debunk that theory. Only the independents and guerrillas have had the cajones to do the real research.
Like JM says, the mainstream continues to portray Mumia as a cold-blooded killler by omitting any evidence that may debunk that theory. Only the independents and guerrillas have had the cajones to do the real research.
I, Plaintiff: Blatantly unconstitutional 'false reporting' law passed MN legislature
by Rashard Zanders
It's true. Since 2005 MN statute 609.505 has been amended to criminalize "false" complaints of police brutality and misconduct.
What is the motivation behind this statute? Essentially, it is to intimidate people and the press from reporting police misconduct and brutality statewide. Communities United Against Police Brutality (CUAPB), the Pulse's Lydia Howell, and myself have been joined by others as plaintiffs against this latest round of idiocy. Stay tuned for more.
The Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota describes 609.505 as follows:
Subdivision 1. False reporting. Whoever informs a law enforcement officer that a crime has
been committed or otherwise provides information to an on-duty peace officer, knowing that the
person is a peace officer, regarding the conduct of others, knowing that it is false and intending
that the officer shall act in reliance upon it, is guilty of a misdemeanor. A person who is convicted
a second or subsequent time under this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
Subd. 2. Reporting police misconduct. (a) Whoever informs, or causes information to
be communicated to, a peace officer, whose responsibilities include investigating or reporting
police misconduct, that a peace officer, as defined in section 626.84, subdivision 1, paragraph
(c), has committed an act of police misconduct, knowing that the information is false, is guilty
of a crime and may be sentenced as follows:
(1) up to the maximum provided for a misdemeanor if the false information does not allege a
criminal act; or
(2) up to the maximum provided for a gross misdemeanor if the false information alleges
a criminal act.
(b) The court shall order any person convicted of a violation of this subdivision to make
full restitution of all reasonable expenses incurred in the investigation of the false allegation
unless the court makes a specific written finding that restitution would be inappropriate under
the circumstances. A restitution award may not exceed $3,000.
History: 1963 c 753 art 1 s 609.505; 1971 c 23 s 52; 1993 c 326 art 4 s 26; 2005 c 136
art 17 s 30
Follow the link below if you would like to sign the petition for overturning MN statute 609.505.
http://www.petitiononline.com/cuapb02/petition.html.
See also:
http://www.law.uconn.edu/journals/cpilj/contents/archives/vol4/gee.pdf.
Apologies for several tech flubs. I tried to make the web address directly above a link, but blogger is screwy this morning and linked the later to the former....go figure.
Thanks Blogger.
I am open to suggestions if anyone can refer me to a new blogging site where I can write, then instantly post to my blog.
Hit me up at:
rashard.zanders@gmail.com
It's true. Since 2005 MN statute 609.505 has been amended to criminalize "false" complaints of police brutality and misconduct.
What is the motivation behind this statute? Essentially, it is to intimidate people and the press from reporting police misconduct and brutality statewide. Communities United Against Police Brutality (CUAPB), the Pulse's Lydia Howell, and myself have been joined by others as plaintiffs against this latest round of idiocy. Stay tuned for more.
The Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota describes 609.505 as follows:
609.505 FALSELY REPORTING CRIME.
Subdivision 1. False reporting. Whoever informs a law enforcement officer that a crime has
been committed or otherwise provides information to an on-duty peace officer, knowing that the
person is a peace officer, regarding the conduct of others, knowing that it is false and intending
that the officer shall act in reliance upon it, is guilty of a misdemeanor. A person who is convicted
a second or subsequent time under this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
Subd. 2. Reporting police misconduct. (a) Whoever informs, or causes information to
be communicated to, a peace officer, whose responsibilities include investigating or reporting
police misconduct, that a peace officer, as defined in section 626.84, subdivision 1, paragraph
(c), has committed an act of police misconduct, knowing that the information is false, is guilty
of a crime and may be sentenced as follows:
(1) up to the maximum provided for a misdemeanor if the false information does not allege a
criminal act; or
(2) up to the maximum provided for a gross misdemeanor if the false information alleges
a criminal act.
(b) The court shall order any person convicted of a violation of this subdivision to make
full restitution of all reasonable expenses incurred in the investigation of the false allegation
unless the court makes a specific written finding that restitution would be inappropriate under
the circumstances. A restitution award may not exceed $3,000.
History: 1963 c 753 art 1 s 609.505; 1971 c 23 s 52; 1993 c 326 art 4 s 26; 2005 c 136
art 17 s 30
Follow the link below if you would like to sign the petition for overturning MN statute 609.505.
http://www.petitiononline.com/cuapb02/petition.html.
See also:
http://www.law.uconn.edu/journals/cpilj/contents/archives/vol4/gee.pdf.
Apologies for several tech flubs. I tried to make the web address directly above a link, but blogger is screwy this morning and linked the later to the former....go figure.
Thanks Blogger.
I am open to suggestions if anyone can refer me to a new blogging site where I can write, then instantly post to my blog.
Hit me up at:
rashard.zanders@gmail.com
Monday, April 02, 2007
Sunday, April 01, 2007
MPR: Minn. Senate votes to raise income taxes on highest-paid
Silly senate! Don't they know taxes are for sports stadiums for billionaires.
How about a statewide tax for education similar to the one Hennepin County has to pay (3 cents on every $20 spent) for Carl Pohlad's baseball team. Surely education is as worthy a cause as baseball...
Isn't it?
Hello? Hello?
How about a statewide tax for education similar to the one Hennepin County has to pay (3 cents on every $20 spent) for Carl Pohlad's baseball team. Surely education is as worthy a cause as baseball...
Isn't it?
Hello? Hello?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
