|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
Index for this page...(Be aware some links below may have expired.)
Posted November 1, 2003 Congress Begins Revolt Against Police-State "Anti-Terrorist" Bill On September 24, 2003, libertarian Republican Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) joined with liberal Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to introduce the "Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act" (H.R. 3171). The bill is designed to repeal unconstitutional sections of the police-state USA PATRIOT Act, ramrodded through Congress immediately after the September 11 terrorist attacks. It also shores up fundamental Constitutional liberties. The bipartisan Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act is co-sponsored by 21 other representatives. The name of the bill is in part a reference to the famous remark attributed to Franklin, quoted in the text of the bill: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act repeals 15 sections of the original USA PATRIOT Act, including those that permit:
The Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act also protects attorney-client privilege; demands that the FBI not spy on protesters or in religious institutions unless investigating criminal activity; adds some transparency and accountability to Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security activities; and supports liberty in other important ways. The bill has already earned the support of prominent civil liberties organizations, and many more endorsements are expected. It's great to see some members of Congress finally taking action to roll back the worst parts of the anti-liberty USA PATRIOT Act. We can only hope that many others wake up and join them. Sources: Article and text of bill at http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/waronterror/a/unpatriotact.htm; Op-ed at http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2003/10/13/build/opinion/guest.inc Major Victory for Medical Marijuana -- and Free Speech On October 14 medical marijuana advocates won a tremendous victory in the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court -- in a direct slap at current federal policy on medical marijuana -- let stand a lower court's decision that upholds a doctor's right to recommend the drug to patients. This means that the federal government is still prohibited from threatening, investigating, or punishing physicians who recommend, or even discuss, medical marijuana use with their patients. "By deciding not to hear this case, the Supreme Court has eliminated any doubt that states have the right to protect medical marijuana patients under state law, and that physicians have the right to give patients honest advice and recommendations, whether the federal government approves or not," said Robert Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. Incredibly, both President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush have attempted to halt medical marijuana efforts by threatening to remove the license of any doctor who even mentions medical marijuana to a patient. The first attempt came from the Clinton administration in 1996, after California voters passed a measure permitting medical marijuana. However, pro-medical-freedom forces won court cases on this at both the district court and appellate levels, winning a unanimous ruling in the 9thU.S.Circuit Court of Appeals. This year, Bush Attorney General John Ashcroft -- in yet another Ashcroftian assault on liberty and essential Bill of Rights freedoms -- asked the U.S.Supreme Court to review that 9thCircuit ruling, in hopes that the Court would overturn the decision and give him this devastating tool to attack medical marijuana efforts. But Ashcroft has lost -- and his defeat is a major victory for liberty, doctors, and many thousands of people suffering from serious illnesses. Source: Marijuana Policy Project at http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr101403.html (Thanks to James W. Harris of the Advocates for Self-Government and The Liberator Online for the above information. If you would like a free subscription to the Liberator Online, visit: http://www.self-gov.org/liberator/maintain.html.)
Posted November 1, 2003 Will Wright is a 38-year-old accountant who won $48,000 on "Wheel of Fortune." In a congratulatory gesture, the host of the show, Pat Sajak, gave the guy a hug. Afterward Wright claimed that it wasn't long before he began to feel pain in his back. An MRI later revealed some ruptured discs. Now Wright has decided to try his hand at the litigation lottery game. He's filed a $2 million lawsuit against "Wheel of Fortune." The lawsuit states that Sajak "hurled himself into [the] plaintiff's chest and wrapped his legs around the plaintiff's body," thereby causing the injuries. Source: The Left Coast Report, compiled by James L. Hirsen and the staff of NewsMax. (If you are not an e-mail subscriber, get The Left Coast Report and other breaking news alerts by Clicking Here.)
Posted November 1, 2003 P.C. Term for Partial-Birth Abortion? Another case of biased media coverage: partial-birth abortion. USA Today, the New York Times, the wire services and the other usual suspects routinely take pains to say "so-called partial-birth abortion" or "what critics call partial-birth abortion." The phony implication is that it is a biased term or even that there isn't any such thing. But this time, unfortunately for them, there is no euphemism. Of course, they never refer, for example, to racial quotas or racial set-asides as "what critics call affirmative action." They merely call it affirmative action, because the elitists don't want to describe quotas as reverse discrimination against white people -- as long as they safely have jobs and it's someone else being discriminated against. They never describe people who favor choice on schools, Social Security, economic matters, etc. as "pro-choice," yet they always describe people who support abortion as "pro-choice." If supporters of partial-birth abortion don't like the term, what would they like to call the gruesome procedure? They've come up with zilch. There isn't any way to sugarcoat this one. As the Associated Press noted, "a fetus is partly delivered before a doctor punctures the skull." Puncturing the skull. And that's a human skull, by the way. It's certainly not the skull of a raccoon or a rattlesnake or a yellow-bellied sapsucker. There just isn't much room for spin here, is there? No doubt Teddy Kennedy or newly ousted YWCA boss Patricia Ireland will let us all know when they dream up a euphemism such as "extraneous tissue cleanup" or "cut those losses." P.S. NewsMax has a fair approach to such labels. When we refer to groups against abortion, we call them "pro-life." When we refer to groups for abortion rights, we call them "pro-choice." This is the only fair and balanced way to do it. Source: Insider Report from NewsMax.com (If you are not an e-mail subscriber, get Insider Report and other breaking news alerts by Clicking Here.)
Posted November 1, 2003 Some interesting & provocative articles on other websites Where There's Smoke, There's Ire, by Paul Hein: Hollywood is being asked to clean up its act. Well, that's nothing new, of course, but the emphasis now is upon the film industry's effect upon impressionable youth. There is agreement, it seems, that youngsters are very easily influenced by what they see in films, and apt to imitate their favorite stars. It's got some people very worried. Criminal?, by Rebecca Hagelin: The story of Edward Hanousek -- who was employed as a roadmaster by the White Pass and Yukon Railroad -- is the story of a modern-day "criminal." According to Hanousek's contract with the railroad company, he was responsible for "the safe and efficient maintenance and construction of track, structures and marine facilities of the entire railroad." Little did he know that an accident on the track after hours could, and would, send him to jail. Americans' Financial Liberty Placed at Risk by Patriot Act, by James Bovard: The Justice Department recently revealed that the Patriot Act is being routinely used to prosecute a wide array of non-terrorist offenses. While many Americans assumed that the Patriot Act only concerned terrorists, the reality is that the act poses a grave threat to Americans' financial privacy and property rights. Drug Rush - Limbaugh to listeners - I belong in jail!, by Jacob Sullum: Rush Limbaugh may not be arrested, let alone spend time behind bars, for illegally buying narcotic painkillers. "We're not sure whether he will be charged," a law enforcement source told CNN earlier this month. "We're going after the big fish, both the suppliers and the sellers." Vietnam killing spree revelations shock US, by Paul Harris: At the height of the Vietnam War, civilians were butchered by an army unit and the carnage was covered up. But this was not My Lai. This bloody massacre has only come to light in the past week -- and not one of America's elite corps of reporters can claim the credit. The Myth of Media Watchdogs, by William Anderson: The revelation that journalists working for ABC News successfully smuggled in 15 pounds of depleted uranium from Indonesia (to highlight gaps in U.S. government security procedures) caused a huge stir both in government and in journalism itself. Red wine 'could beat lung disease': Red wine could be used to treat a lung disease that is caused by smoking, researchers at Imperial College London said in a paper published in a British medical journal.
|
|
|
Newsletter Front Page |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.