Category Archives: Plato’s Republic

Old Gossip, Still Floating Around—I deny it (again) just for the record—and discuss some Patriot Myths….

Gossip about me and Orly Taitz remains on the web, which just shows how completely uninformed and stupid information on the web really can be, and how much damage it can do over the long run.  I just discovered a little bit of remnant misinformation tinged with stupid insult that I think needs to be addressed:

“Charles Edward Lincoln III was Orly Taitz’ Law Clerk during her representation of Maj. Stefan F. Cook and Capt. Connie Rhodes. He is thought to have been the author of her Motion for Recusal which wound up costing her $20,000 in sanctions.

Now the simple truth is this: Orly and I had a big fight about that motion and SHE is the one who insisted on going around insulting Judges—I tried as hard as I could to restrain her myself.  As I have stated many times, I grew up in a family with several Federal Judges as friends in Dallas (including Sarah Hughes and Barefoot Sanders).  I lived near and met U.S. Judges around Tulane and Harvard, I studied under some present and (at that time) future Judges at the University of Chicago.  While I was at law school I served a term as an judicial extern to Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (it was one of the greatest intellectual experiences of my life) and after law school I held an ordinary judicial clerkship with Kenneth L. Ryskamp on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  During all of these experiences, I came to know and worked with judges whom I deeply respected.  

Now I have never had much use for the common California practice of holding lawyers in contempt for insulting Judges or the Judicial process, but I did find a funny case history about such a case of undeniably counterproductive (if extremely revealing) contempt just yesterday on the first day of summer, and I highly recommend it as instructive and fairly amusing reading: Hanson v Superior Court.  Either we need more lawyers like this Hanson guy, or we really don’t need any lawyers at all—I wonder which it is?

Anyhow, back to the piece above accusing me of being responsible for Orly’s sanctions: NOT.  Definitely not.  I suspect Orly and Yosi spread this bit of malicious gossip themselves, but it just ain’t so, folks….

I certainly started the motion and provided her with all the citations she ever used (including the Cohens v. Virginia Citation about treason against the Constitution: Cohens v State of Virginia) and with some of the text (I have done motions to recuse before), but I did so fighting with her every step of the way.

Before she attacked Judge Clay D. Land in Columbus I as already fighting with her about the need to respect the Judges before whom we appeared.  I was totally opposed to her attacks on Judge David O. Carter (who I thought was a wonderful judge, and still think is one of the best, certainly in Orange County, possibly anywhere).  Orly claimed that HER SUPPORTERS wanted her to take a strong stand against the Judge in the Connie Rhodes case, and that she had to do what HER SUPPORTERS wanted to.  Many of these were retired military types who (understandably) hated and loathed Obama with a purple passion, and that’s why they were Orly supporters.

I called this “litigation by Patriot pod committee” a very dangerous strategy and technique to proceed, especially since most of these folks were just barely off the “everything in the Courts is admiralty” boat and shouldn’t be trusted as legal or constitutional advisers.

For those neither involved in nor familiar with the Patriot-Constitutionalist Conservative movement, I make reference here to one of the stupidest and most counterproductive of all “Patriot myths” about the Courts and legal system: namely that the Courts are all operating (secretly) under British Admiralty Law, that the “BAR” stands for “British Admiralty Registry”, and that the United States government is secretly still controlled, through the operation of Admiralty law, by the Queen of England.  I originally thought the only possible origin of this myth was in amazing overdoses of cocaine mixed with bourbon, but after Hurricane Katrina I had occasion to settle a number of property loss cases in New Orleans and vicinity and saw admiralty terms in the settlement agreements.  Of course, I asked what was going on, with these very normal and  (as respectable as they can be) insurance lawyers.  It turns out that the “admiralty” and “British Influence on the Courts” myth actually has some historic foundation in the post World War II development of the Southern USA Oil Offshore Oil Industry, more than JUST BP’s involvement in drilling wells, and that it is this kernel of truth which has just provided enough historical grounding in the history of the Southern USA Oil business that the “British Admiralty Registry” myth won’t go away easily or die a natural death, as it certainly should.

Anyhow, I totally disclaim any responsibility for Orly’s unwarranted attacks on Judges.  If she had ever really listened to me, her litigation would have been conducted in a much better researched, more dignified, and more responsible matter, but she was basically out there to become “famous or infamous”, just so long as she got headlines.   As I have written before, I now think that her entire involvement in the Article II eligibility movement was designed to derail Philip J. Berg and to discredit the real constitutional lawyers who were trying to expose Obama’s crimes and lies—before the really got serious, as they have in the past year.  

In my opinion, Obama probably owes his survival as President to Orly Taitz’ completely incompetent litigation show.  I think this was an intentional plan from the very beginning concocted by Orly and her husband Yosi, and that Orly is neither a genuine conservative nor a Constitutionalist in any sense.  I have yet to see firm evidence that Orly is a spy either for Israel or China, but I strongly suspect that she is working for some foreign agent to weaken and destroy America by making a laughing stock out of true conservatives.

Many of us are convinced that those who keep on purveying the “Everything is Admiralty” and “the USA is under British” (or in the alternative, or in addition, Vatican) control are likewise acting as agents for the government.   Some of them are just illiterate.  Anyone who completed the most elementary secondary education in Latin, of course, winces with pain when some of the modern patriots claim that our “inalienable” rights (in-ale-e-en-able) should be read as “unalienable rights” (un-a-leen-able) rights, interpreting that ancient concept of natural birthright to a commercial notion of “rights upon which no lien can be imposed.”  This is the purest poppycock but people persist in believing it.  Just like some people think that Orly is still really working AGAINST Obama.

We have moved back our New Orleans Seminar to the end of July, and we will have a panel discussion on Patriot Myths at that Seminar.  Patriotic Shreveport Louisiana Lawyer Tommy Cryer died a couple of hours after I talked to him the night he agreed to appear at that Seminar, and I intend to dedicate a part of the Seminar to his memory.  Cryer, along with Larry Becraft and Donald W. MacPherson, was among the top anti-IRS Lawyers in the United States, and an inspiration to many people fighting this corrupt system around the Country—but Orly was NEVER on their side, or interested in their work or what they had to say, more’s the pity…..

A Step towards Emancipation from Lies—My Favorite Juneteenth Reading for 2012 is all about 9-11-2001 (from Salon.com)

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/new_nsa_docs_reveal_911_truths/singleton/

Remember, remember, Eleven September—the “Terrorist” Treason and Plot….

TUESDAY, JUN 19, 2012 01:24 PM PDT

New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released,” an expert tells Salon

BY 

New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims(Credit: Reuters)

Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive. The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.

The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaida’s relationship with America’s ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn’t get the institutional support they needed,” says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.

Let’s start there. In 2000 and 2001, the CIA began using Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Afghanistan. “The idea of using UAVs originated in April 2000 as a result of a request from the NSC’s Coordinator for Counterterrorism to the CIA and the Department of Defense to come up with new ideas to go after the terrorists in Afghanistan,” a 2004 document summarizes. The Pentagon approved the plan for surveillance purposes.

And yet, simultaneously, the CIA declared that budget concerns were forcing it to move its Counterterrorism Center/Osama bin Laden Unit from an “offensive” to a “defensive” posture. For the CIA, that meant trying to get Afghan tribal leaders and the Northern Alliance to kill or capture bin Laden, Elias-Sanborn says. “It was forced to be less of a kinetic operation,” she says. “It had to be only for surveillance, which was not what they considered an offensive posture.”

“Budget concerns … CT [counterterrorism] supplemental still at NSC-OMB [National Security Council – Office of Management and Budget] level,” an April 2000 document reads. “Need forward movement on supplemental soonest due to expected early recess due to conventions, campaigning and elections.” In addition, the Air Force told the CIA that if it lost a drone, the CIA would have to pay for it, which made the agency more reluctant to use the technology.

Still, the drone program began in September 2000. One drone swiftly twice observed an individual “most likely to have been Bin Laden.” But since the CIA only had permission to use the drones for intelligence gathering, it had no way to act on its findings. The agency submitted a proposal to the National Security Council staff in December 2000 that would have significantly expanded the program. “It was too late for the departing Clinton Administration to take action on this strategic request,” however. It wasn’t too late for the Bush administration, though. It just never did.

Former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice has taken credit for the drone program that the Bush administration ignored. “Things like working to get an armed Predator that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important, working to get a strategy that would allow us to get better cooperation from Pakistan and from the Central Asians,” she said in 2006. “We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida.” Rice claimed that the Bush administration continued the Clinton administration’s counterterrorism policies, a claim the documents disprove. “If the administration wanted to get it done, I’m sure they could have gotten it done,” says Elias-Sanborn.

Many of the documents publicize for the first time what was first made clear in the 9/11 Commission: The White House received a truly remarkable amount of warnings that al-Qaida was trying to attack the United States. From June to September 2001, a full seven CIA Senior Intelligence Briefs detailed that attacks were imminent, an incredible amount of information from one intelligence agency. One from June called “Bin-Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” writes that “[redacted] expects Usama Bin Laden to launch multiple attacks over the coming days.” The famous August brief called “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike the US” is included. “Al-Qai’da members, including some US citizens, have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure here,” it says. During the entire month of August, President Bush was on vacation at his ranch in Texas — which tied with one of Richard Nixon’s as the longest vacation ever taken by a president. CIA Director George Tenet has said he didn’t speak to Bush once that month, describing the president as being “on leave.” Bush did not hold a Principals’ meeting on terrorism until September 4, 2001, having downgraded the meetings to a deputies’ meeting, which then-counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has repeatedly said slowed down anti-Bin Laden efforts “enormously, by months.”

For all the information the documents reveal, one huge matter is conspicuously absent: torture. There are nearly 50 CIA documents relating to such matters as the interrogation of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the intelligence gleaned from him, and yet “none of them were declassified at all,” notes Elias-Sanborn. “Certainly, the CIA has a stake in revealing what they did,” and they clearly do not want to reveal their complicity in war crimes.

One last thing is worth mentioning from the documents published today:  Anyone with any doubt that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is dangerous to the United States is contradicting U.S. intelligence. “Violence between Israelis and the Palestinians, moreover is making Sunni extremists more willing to participate in attacks against US or Israeli interests,” the CIA wrote in February 2001. It is not the only piece of information revealed by the new documents that will be deeply uncomfortable for the Bush administration and hawks across the country.

Jordan Michael Smith writes about U.S. foreign policy for Salon. He has written for the New York Times, Boston Globe and Washington Post.

Comments

  • Yg Bluig
  • TUESDAY, JUN 19, 2012 01:52 PM PDT

“Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had Bin Laden in its crosshairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. “

But Bush was not in the White House “a full year” before 9/11. He took office in January 2001. On Sept. 11, 2011, he hadn’t yet stolen the election.Yg Bluig

  • TUESDAY, JUN 19, 2012 01:53 PM PDT

I meant ‘on sept. 11, 2000.”

The article doesn’t say that the Bush administration blocked funding for a year, just that the CIA knew OBL’s whereabouts for a year. The implication is that the Bushies did nothing about that information after Bush took office.tanmack

  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 12:57 PM PDT

I recall Condoleeza Rice trying to explain to a Congressional hearing why the Bush Administration had disregarded the memo entitled “Bin Laden to Strike the U.S. with Planes.” I can’t for the life of me remember her response.

A few weeks ago, I rewatched the film Path to 9/11 that covered much of this ground, including CIA frustration that they could not get approval to shoot bin Laden. It also showed Richard Clarke being sidelined after he begged Rice to take bin Laden intel seriously.

I guess this is why the administration approved giving money to the 9/11 victims (rather than face being sued by thousands of families) although the Oklahoma victims received no compensation for their losses.ChillyDogg

  • TUESDAY, JUN 19, 2012 03:21 PM PDT

The CIA spent 70 billion in 2001 yet they couldn’t find a few million to monitor Bin Laden? I have a bridge to sell you.

  • sajwan
  • TUESDAY, JUN 19, 2012 03:23 PM PDT

There’s a lot of people buying.BillyFLA

  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 06:52 AM PDT

Not to mention the $1 Trillion plus that we’ve spent on the GOP’s unnecessary war in Iraq and countless other millions thought needed to beef up homeland security after 9/11. If this was an example of Republicans trying to save a few bucks of Federal money, its also a great example of their being pennywise and pound foolish.Gus1964

  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 08:23 AM PDT

How is it the GOP’s war? How many cowardly Democrats voted for the AUMF?

Just millions to beef up homeland security? I think your calculations are way off. The TSA alone costs billions of dollars a year.

  • sitka0230
  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 07:30 AM PDT

The budgetary process allocates money for specific programs within various agencies. Even if the CIA had $1 trillion in 2001, it doesn’t mean a penny of it was allocated to this mission.

I am curious, though, how you arrived at $70 billion since this budget is classified. There was a slip-up in 2005 or so when it was accidentally disclosed that the CIA budget was $44 billion. I do not know if this includes so-called black ops budget.

  • paulie
  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 08:28 AM PDT

Even more damning is that George’s younger brother Marvin Bush was a principal and prior director of the security company contracted to provide security to the WTC and his and Bush’s cousin Wirt Walker III was the CEO at the time.The company was given a contract the day after GWB’s ignauguration.

These ties were never investigated by the 9/11 ,Commission, of course .

It must just kill the Repugnants and Bush-worshippers that their doofus let bin Laden off the hook so brazenly while that Kenyan Muslim Usurper Ni**er in the White House took him out after less than 2 1/2 years in office.jonvaljon

  • TUESDAY, JUN 19, 2012 02:08 PM PDT

it was all coordinated and neither bush nor obama had any control over when the body that no one ever saw was rolled out, thawed and stamped “done” right on the forehead.

  • mjshep
  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 06:49 AM PDT

I think the tinfoil hat is cutting off the circulation to your brain. Reduced blood flow causes hallucinations.

  • suave
  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 07:17 AM PDT

zzzzzzzz’BillyFLA

  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 06:55 AM PDT

Well it WOULD just kill GOPers and Bushies IF they EVER admitted to making a mistake. But they’d rather line up en masse and insist that they have “no regrets”.sitka0230

  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 07:32 AM PDT

Cognitive dissonance. See, for instance, jonvaljon’s comment. Rather than except reality, invent your own facts to meet your pre-established world view.

  • suave
  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 07:58 AM PDT

.. except your reality relies on faith, instead of irrefutable evidence.

  • jonvaljon
  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 09:06 AM PDT

pics or it didnt happen.

  • WEDNESDAY, JUN 20, 2012 09:27 AM PDT

No, my reality is based on observations and parsimony.

Symbolic Attacks, Disasters, and Massacres as Political Manipulation and Staged Ritual “Historical Metaphors” of “Mythic Realities”

http://www.les-attentats-du-11-septembre-vus-par-une-conspirationniste.com/photo-1984814-10-NYT-1921_jpg.html

(Don’t worry….Almost all of the posts in this link are in English). The French seem far more sophisticated in understanding conspiracies and lies in government than the Americans or British… The Classical Structuralist, father of modern French theoretical anthropology and student of mythology and comparative religion (Claude Lévi-Strauss’ inspiration and predecessor), Georges Dumézil wrote about this phenomenon in myth and legend in the 1920s one book and a separate review article, “Le crime des Lemniennes: rites et légends du monde égéen,” (1924), and “De quelques faux massacres,” Revue turque d’anthropologie (1927).

So is all the world a stage, and is “official” world (political) history nothing but staged ritual “historical metaphors” of “mythic realities?”  Such an interpretation is consistent with the studies not only of Dumézil but of more recent structuralist anthropologists Clifford Geertz and Marshall Sahlins.  It is perhaps because of the French leadership in the structured study of mythology that they understand political realities so much better than the more idealistic British and American populations.   The French population is increasingly turning towards Marine Le Pen and the Front National while the American electorate apparently ignores Ron Paul and 9-11 truthers as “delusional” in Newt Gingrich’s cynical words….

The problem is that in the modern world, we expect “news” to be “true” and our expectation that the Government is honest with us is so great that most people do not consider very deeply the possibility that the government is den of lying thieving criminals who go into government precisely because they know that this is the one business, where the criminal mind is rewarded most extravagantly, with the least possible consequences…  I honestly cannot say I ever believed the 9-11 mythology, but I have never seen such a convincing array of data that the figure of 6,000,000 murdered in the concentration camps was in fact a pre-fabricated mythological number itself.  The significance of this array of newspaper quotes and articles is hard to contradict.  I am totally open to anyone who wants to dispute the possibility that all these predictions of 6,000,000 deaths and the final figure of 6,000,000 after WWII is merely a coincidence.  I have neither the time or the inclination to go into deep historical research about this point myself, but I believe that this is an excellent example of historical revisionist research—in that it suggests, even if it does not prove conclusively, that the “historical” fact was envisioned first as a “mythic reality”, and then enacted, and performed and the incorporated into “constitutional” mythology—which no one ever dares to challenge.  

This is a valid rendition of a structural anthropological theory to explain a modern historical and political pattern…. from the destruction of the Battleship Maine to the Bombing of Pearl Harbor to  the Tonkin Gulf Incident and finally…. all the events of the decade between Ruby Ridge in 1992 and 9-11-2001…

Was Martin Luther King, Jr., really a hero? Was he a tool utilized by the United States Government for certain purposes, discarded when he became too influential? Who was he, really? Who made his career what it was? Robert Kennedy? George Corley Wallace? Herbert Hoover? Just to what degree has United States History been a series of carefully orchestrated since 1898? 1913? 1919? 1933? What is real and what is fantasy? How much of the fantasy was staged, scripted, and professionally performed? 9/11/2001 almost certainly was. How about Waco 1993 & Oklahoma City 1995? World Trade Center 1993? Dar es Salaam & Nairobi 1998? How many national elections? And since when?

Martin Luther King Pop Quiz (shamelessly plagiarized, ironically enough, from: http://martinlutherking.org/king_trivia.html)

How much do you really know?

Here’s a little MLK quiz to coincide with the upcoming MLK holiday.
Enjoy!

——————————

Many Americans don’t know enough about MLK. After taking this quiz, you will see how little the schools, news media and political establishment have told you about the only American with his own
holiday.

1) Name the judge who has sealed King’s FBI surveillance file until
the year 2027.

Answer: The Honorable John Lewis Smith, Jr.

2) According to whose 1989 biography did King spend his last night on
earth in an adulterous liaison?

Answer: Reverend Ralph Abernathy. “And the Walls Came Tumbling Down”

3) According to whose 1989 biography did King spend his last morning
on earth physically beating a woman?

Answer: Reverend Ralph Abernathy. “And the Walls Came Tumbling Down”

4) Who was the U.S. Attorney General who ordered the FBI to wiretap
King?

Answer: Robert F. Kennedy

5) Who was the Assistant Director of the FBI who wrote a letter to
Sen. John P. East (R-NC) describing King’s conduct of “orgiastic and
adulterous escapades, some of which indicated that King could be
bestial in his sexual abuse of women.”

Answer: Charles D. Brennan

6) Who called King a “hypocrite preacher.”

Answer: President Lyndon B. Johnson

7) What U.S. newspaper reported that King had plagiarized his
doctoral thesis at Boston University.

Answer: The Wall Street Journal

8) Whom did King plagiarize in more than 50 complete sentences in his
doctoral thesis?

Answer: Dr. Jack Boozer

9) Who was the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities
who purposely suppressed knowledge of King’s plagiarism of his
doctoral thesis?

Answer: Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Richard Cheney

10) What was Martin Luther King’s real name?

Answer: Michael King, Jr. In 1935 his father, Michael King, declared
to his congregation that he wound henceforth be known as Martin
Luther King and his son would be known as Martin Luther King, Jr.

11) In his first public sermon at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in 1947
who did King plagiarize?

Answer: Harry Emerson Fosdick

12) Name the man who served as King’s personal secretary from 1955 to
1960, had joined the Young Communists League at New York City College
in 1936, went to prison for draft evasion in 1944, and in 1953 was
sentenced to 60 days in jail in California “lewd vagrancy and
homosexual perversion.”

Answer: Bayard Rustin

13) According to whom had King “privately described himself as a
Marxist.”

Answer: His biographer, David J. Garrow

14) Who edited King’s book Stride Toward Freedom?

Answer: Communist Stanley Levison

15) Who made the following speech?

That’s exactly what we mean– from every mountain side, let freedom
ring.Not only from the Green Mountains and White Mountains of Vermont
and New Hampshire; not only from the Catskills of New York; but from
the Ozarks in Arkansas, from Stone Mountain in Georgia, from the Blue
Ridge Mountains of Virginia –let it ring not only for the minorities
of the United States, but for the disinherited of all the earth–from
every mountainside, LET FREEDOM RING!

Answer: Archibald Carey, 1952

——————————

If you got no questions correct it means that you are exactly the kind of ignorant citizen your government desires.

1-3 questions correct means you could be dangerous.

4-6 questions correct means you must read to much.

7-10 questions correct means you must value historical correctness instead of political correctness. Congratulations!!

11 or more questions correct means you’ve been reading this website and learned the truth. 

Now it’s up to you to tell others the truth.

MLK Pop Quiz Martin Luther King Pop Quiz

On the Tenth Day of Christmas—An Unprecedented Decision Handed Down in Georgia, 01-03-2012

01-03-2012 Georgia Secretary of State Administrative Court Farrar v Obama order denying motion to dismiss

Yes, I used to be closely involved in the controversy over Obama’s birthplace.  Yes, I personally really and truly do believe that Lucas Daniel Smith brought back and offered some valid evidence that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya, even though that kid has caused me some serious trouble.  No, I don’t think that this minor victory (after nearly four years) in a non-constitutional administrative court in Georgia “clears” Orly of suspicion that she acted as a double agent, possibly for a foreign power, or of having acted consistently in support of Obama by making everyone involved in the “right” or “Constitutional” side of the “Birther” controversy look like a raving lunatic (and yes, for a while at least that definitely did include me).  I continue to believe that Obama should not be president, not merely because I believe he was born in Kenya but because he is either a very thinly disguised and deceitful Global Communist-totalitarian or an extremely dishonest International Socialist-totalitarian.  

I also continue to believe, as I wrote in 2009 (09-cv-00082-DOC – Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply 10-01-09) that the First and Ninth Amendments should be construed to guarantee to the American people the uncontested and indisputable right to challenge by judicial action for declaratory judgment and the potential right to obtain injunctive relief relative to the qualifications and actions of all governmental officials, whether elected or unelected.  And it is this last point which I will carry forward with me to the United States Senate if God and the People of California will grant me the right to represent this Golden State and its population in what has been called the world’s greatest deliberative assembly: NO OFFICIAL IMMUNITY EXCEPT FROM SUIT FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM POLITICAL OR GOVERNMENTAL OR LEGAL SPEECH, OPINION, AND DEBATE!  09-cv-00082-DOC – Flast v Cohen Taxpayer + First + Ninth Amendment Standing09-cv-00082-DOC Motion for Leave to File Surreply

Happy 220th Birthday to the Bill of Rights, RIP Bill of Rights: Upon Signing Indefinite Detention, the tragedy, the treason, the deceit and betrayal that defines the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama is now perfected.

Apparently, Barack Hussein Obama will sign the National Defense Authorization Act into law with Indefinite Detention for American citizens without trial.  (I feel my native land is dead—La Patria Mia e morta!–Mein Lieb Heimatland ist Tot!).   Rather than say any more than I have already said about pledging my life to fighting this monstrous new legislation, I will just refer you to two recent articles by one of my favorite writers over at Salon.com, Glenn Greenwald, author of “How would a Patriot Act?”

12-15-2011 Obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law (Glenn Greenwald’s Indictment of the President is searing—probably just not searing enough, but a good start!) Glenn Greenwald on Indefinite Detention authorized by SB 1867 (Congress Endorsing Military Detention, a New Authorization for the Use of Military Force INSIDE the United States and against United States Citizens—Carl Levin and John McCain should be allowed to share a scaffold at their hanging for Treason!)

Like clockwork this lying deceitful monster has insinuated his way into position to complete the work of destruction that no “White” President could have done.  I doubt that Congress would have ever allowed George W. Bush or even William Jefferson Clinton or George H.W. Bush the chance to sign such legislation—but who can possibly say “no” to America’s first “genuine African-American President” (so genuine he was probably born in Africa….)?  If the first black President wants indefinite detention IT MUST BE OK, RIGHT?  It surely isn’t racist or anti-Islamic coming from a President with the middle name “Hussein”!  It just cannot be.  Indefinite detention MUST be all right and good for the Country—and even for Civil Rights, right?  I mean, America’s First Black President couldn’t really be named “Uncle Tom” could he?  Could George W. Bush have picked the ONLY possible successor who could have PERFECTED George W. Bush’s complete sell-out of the American Dream?

George Bernard Shaw once commented that, under a genuine Fabian Socialist regime, any person who did not conform to the State ideals would be given several chances to conform, and “probably given a painless death”—or words very much to that effect.  

For my part, I promise, that if elected by some God-Sent Miracle to the United States Senate, I will constantly filibuster for the repeal of this statute, and for the restoration of the full force and effect of all of the Bill of Rights, even with improvements which might be drawn from the English Bill of Rights of 1689 or Article I of the Texas Constitution (one of the finest and most complete Bills of Rights in all the World, as originally enacted, anyhow, containing an express prohibition that the rights provided for in the bill of rights should maintain “forever” inviolate, untouchable by the Legislature—a provision obviously needed in the U.S. Constitution to prevent such a law as S.B. 1867 from EVER becoming law).  

See Texas Constitution, Article I, §§28-29: 

Sec. 28.  SUSPENSION OF LAWS. No power of suspending laws in this State shall be exercised except by the Legislature.

 Sec. 29.  PROVISIONS OF BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED FROM POWERS OF GOVERNMENT; TO FOREVER REMAIN INVIOLATE. To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this “Bill of Rights” is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.

Is it a coincidence that the infamous 26 March 2009 Domestic Extremism Lexicon has just now been updated and posted by the Department of Homeland Security, the most evil and insidious branch of government to be established since the Stalinist NKVD?  www.fas.org/irp/eprint/lexicon.pdf?

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes in S.B. 1867 to hide and disguise its truly oppressive nature (and to claim she had “done the best she could”, perhaps?)—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information. 

Treason against the Constitution in the Senate, Treason by the Executive Branch, “Treason against the Constitution” as defined by the Courts: Our Government Hates Freedom and Subverts the Constitution Daily

Treason in the Senate, summarized in a newscast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv1O6goo7qE&feature=share

Senator Mark Kirk (Republican from Illinois) speaks in favor of the too weak and only belatedly offer “Feinstein Amendment”, which failed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBsaePlbLJk&feature=related

But Senators Feinstein and 92 others voted in FAVOR of the Unamended, Unlimited “indefinite detention” version of Senate 1867—Senator Kirk correctly says this bill is blatantly unconstitutional, that the bill unconstitutionally transfers the power to “indict” on charges of terrorism from the grand juries mandated by the Sixth Amendment to the President, and thereby gives dictatorial powers to the President.  Senator Kirk also correctly identifies this Bill as one of the greatest assaults on freedom ever to have taken place.  But the Senate, 93-7, bulled forward and apparently decided to “leave it to the Courts”, and the Courts have no will to overturn a statute approved by 93 Senators.  Scalia in particular seems to believe that every Constitutional provision is effectively subject to legislative limitation and abrogation.  Anthony Kennedy is the last even remotely “libertarian” justice on the Court.

If the prisons are overcrowded now, how many more prisons will be needed once all the Antiabortion Protesters, Tea Party Members, Occupy Wall Street and related movements, and Antiwar Protestors are gathered up and detained indefinitely?  THIS IS THE END OF AMERICA FOLKS: MAKE NO DECISION—DIANNE FEINSTEIN and BARBARA BOXER BOTH VOTED FOR IT!

Good time in the midst of this debate for us to remember what is the historical context of and evidence for terrorism in this country since 9/11:

http://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/

and what has been done to people who question the facts of 9/11 just this year, PRIOR to the enactment of Senate Bill 1867 and the “National Defense Reauthorization Act.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIU9j_qwzOE&feature=player_embedded#!

and what former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil said was the truth about the planning of the war against Iraq, how it was planned from George W. Bush’s inauguration in January 2001 forward, with Iraqi oil and the removal of Saddam Hussein as the main purposes—despite Bush’s campaign promises to the contrary in 2000:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMCxheXPjtc&feature=related&mid=546

The Concept of “Treason against the Constitution” traces back to this March 5, 1821 Opinion rendered in the case of Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 5 L.Ed. 257.  Treason against the Constitution can, as a matter of fact, ONLY be committed inside the United States of America, not elsewhere, and the only people with real power to commit treason against the constitution are those who subvert it by infringing and violating its protections for the people.  A very interesting historical read, and if anyone asks you where the idea of “Treason against the Constitution” ever came from, well, this is it:

Cohens_v_Virginia_19_US_264_Judicial_Treason

That Cohens case has been cited quite recently, both in Justice Ginsburg’s opinion and Justice Stevens’ concurrence in Vicki Lynn Marshall v. E. Pierce Marshall,  547 U.S. 293; 126 S. Ct. 1735; 164 L. Ed. 2d 480 (2006), in trying to dispose of the Constitutionally Treasonous “Rooker-Feldman” Doctrine of Federal abstention from hearing collateral constitutional challenges to certain state court decisions (which Doctrine Justice Stevens pronounced “dead” at the end of his concurrence, although an “undead” Vampiric Rooker-Feldman perniciously continues to haunt the Federal Courts ever since then in spite  of his dictum—if elected to the U.S. Senate, I will submit legislation to outlaw and overturn the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and restore the balance of powers by review to State-Federal relations).

But seriously, the attached (sent to me by Montana State Senator Jerry O’Neil) is JUST an example of the people who will now be called and considered TERRORISTS (almost for sure) under Senate Bill 1867 if (once) Obama signs it into law.  You see, it appears some people are getting fed up with the fed, and these people are ALL going to be indefinitely detained as terrorists, you mark my word.  Yes, Gentle Reader, your Friends and Neighbors will Start Disappearing and they will soon be arrested without warrant or indictment and carted off with their heads in black bags to indefinite detention on President Obama’s (or President Newt Gingrich’s) orders, HAVE NO DOUBT!  Remember that Newt Gingrich was the chief sponsor of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act which preceded the Patriot Act by Five Years, and the Patriot Act mainly served to enact into law those provisions which Congress was not yet ready to pass over the Constitution to promulgate prior to 9-11 (which just shows you why 9-11 was so completely necessary for the government, right?)

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/armed-and-ready-new-mexico-residents-defy-government

As of 3:23 AM on Monday, December 5, 2011, Charles Edward Lincoln, III is the ONLY announced candidate for U.S. Senator from California (including Dianne Feinstein and Orly Taitz) to have announced his opposition to Senate Bill 1867.  Orly Taitz continues to live in her dreamworld that it is sufficiently “Patriotic” to question Obama’s eligibility for President and ignore all other grave issues facing this Country.  Dianne Feinstein continues to believe that she is sufficiently well-esconced in the Bankers-Financial Club and Military-Industrial Complex Establishment that she cannot possibly lose her seat in the senate—if she chooses to run again—EVEN IF she voted for a bill to which she proposed an amendment which failed, and thus she failed to protect the people of the United States or California.  It amazes me that not even Rand Paul offered to filibuster this bill.

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes in S.B. 1867 to hide and disguise its truly oppressive nature (and to claim she had “done the best she could”, perhaps?)—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information.  

Who is this Anders Behring Breivik and what the hell is going on in Norway with this bizarre psycho-criminal process? (I wonder whether the CCHR has looked into Psychiatry in Norway? Could it be just as bad and corrupt as portrayed in Sweden in the highly realistic if substantively fictional “Millennium Trilogy”?

What is going on in Norway as they investigate the Anders Breivik case?  Thanks go to my Facebook friend, Lara Zhivago, originally from  Irkutsk by Lake Baykal in Siberia but now lives in the city of George, West Cape Province, South Africa, for this translation of the latest, published at: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10024406 (Lara lists her religious and political views as “Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense”—most of us really can’t be bothered with such disturbing thought processes, but input like this comes in handy I think…

Lara writes, “Breivik says every single page of report contains factual errors, and accuses Psychiatrists of being incapable of understanding political ideologies that are different to their own.”

TRANSLATION:(AP) Wearing handcuffs noted Anders Behring Breivik avid defenders then read out parts of rettspsykiaternes report to him. Almost on every page says Breivik errors.Breivik can not even see the report, but must sit behind a glass window while the defenders Odd Ivar Green and Isolated Ground reads aloud from the report. Friday, he read up about half of the part that is made available to him. The oral review would take six hours.

- How do you react Brevik on the content?

- We are waiting with his final conclusion until he has submitted the report and have the whole picture. We have gone through much of the report concerning conversations he had with psychiatrists. He reacts to what he believes are the facts wrong, lying, that his statements are taken out of context and that much is wrong made, says Green.

- Slightly stated

The report is written by the right-appointed experts, psychiatrists Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim. It is based on 13 conversations they had with the mass killing the man. They have also undergone over 130 hours of police questioning. The report is about 240 pages, but some parts are still restricted.

- What is it that rebel Breivik most?

- It’s only about the fact that many of his statements are taken out of context in the report, says Green.

- How did he react physically?

- He is normally very calm and polite. He shows signs that he is somewhat abandoned, but beyond that there is no physical reaction. He is very interested in what it says in the report.

The report concludes that Anders Behring Brevik was insane when he killed 77 people.

- He does not agree with that conclusion. He is concerned that the
experts do not have the necessary experience with political ideologies. He can say things that they perceive as bizarre, but that is not bizarre in his opinion. He has not reconciled itself with that they think he is insane, but we will wait to conclude until he has seen the entire report.

Going carefully through

Green says that Breivik stops on almost every page to point out errors.

- He is thorough and note diligently all the way, says Green.

Breivik think that this is a very cumbersome way to go through the report.

- Now we will continue working for him to get access to as much as possible in the report. He wants to have it physically in hand, so that he can read it and work on it yourself.

Green says that the defense hopes that Breivik will be presented to the rest of the report during the next week.

Senate Bill 1867 has passed, 93-7, so the Constitution has been betrayed and undermined by its most solemnly sworn trustees: the only seven U.S. Senators who even deserve a chance of reelection, EVER, are: Tom Coburn (R-OK); Tom Harkin (D-IA); Mike Lee (R-UT); Merkley (D-OR); Rand Paul (R-KY); Bernard Sanders (I-VT); Ron Wyden (D-OR); 3 Republicans, 3 Democrats, 1 Independent; and Kudos to Oregon for having the only PAIR of Senators who voted for Freedom and against the Military-Industrial Complex

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

The extremely, tragically, humiliatingly short short role of honor of those who voted against Senate Bill 1867 includes: Tom Coburn (R-OK); Tom Harkin (D-IA); Mike Lee (R-UT); Jeff Merkley (D-OR); Rand Paul (R-KY); Bernard Sanders (I-VT); Ron Wyden (D-OR); 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans, 1 Independent; and three cheers for Oregon: you are the only state with TWO Senators who stood up against the monstrosity of indefinite detention of any accused person, regardless of citizenship or national origins, in violation of the Constitution.

Senate Bill 1867 represents nothing but Stalinist Communist Dictatorship at its worst.  This is Oriental Despotism installed and housed in America under the Flag of Our Fathers.  Did we fight the Kaiser, Hitler, and the Cold War only to institute such things as this at home?  Did we take in thousands of refugees from Vietnam after 1974-75 because we offered them a worse life than they would have had along the Mekong Delta?  I think not.  I defy and deny the right of any Senator who voted for this bill to call himself an American, much less a Patriot.

All 93 Senators who voted for S.B. 1867 should be removed from office (by special recall election if necessary: Barbara Boxer, for instance) and sent to Singapore to be prosecuted and punished as major Drug using narcotics-offenders for whatever kind of crack they’re smoking that makes them think this is all right, because it is not.   Dianne Feinstein tried to make a few meaningless amendments at the last minute (which passed) but she deserves condemnation not praise for trying to “fake” a little amelioration in this bill where there was none.  What happened that even Mark Udall of Colorado voted for the bill after his amendments failed?  To HELL with Florida’s Marco Rubio, Louisiana’s David Vitter, Texas’ John Cornyn, and every other cowardly craven Senator who voted in favor of this bill, including every other Senator who ever pretended to be in favor of freedom or the Constitution.   These are the times that try men’s souls, and the trial of 93 Senators for Treason is way overdue to begin right now.  If I am elected to the United States Senate from California I swear on the graves of my grandparents, my father’s soul and my mother’s heart that I will fight to erase the past twenty years of freedom-suppressing legislation from the United States Statutes at Large and U.S. Code until no trace of them is left, either in those statutes or in the Code of Federal Regulations nor in any guidelines to law-enforcement officials having any force or effect on the construction or interpretation of the law.  To HELL with Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, John McCain and Carl Levin and all the lot of other fakes and phonies.  To HELL with both of California’s Com-Symp Senators who would turn America into one vast prison camp in the name of “Security.”

As Jon Stewart wryly commented on the December 7, 2011, Daily Show, even on a politically sacred cow–a “must pass” bill like the National Defense Reauthorization Bill, you would have expected at least nine or maybe “a baker’s dozen” of senators to have opposed this bill, but there were only 7 (in a vote that took place less than one week before Pearl Harbor Day).  See http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-7-2011/arrested-development  (Looking as always on the bright side of life, Stewart also predicts that Obama will veto the bill because it does not give him absolutely unlimited power and requires him to allow annual reviews of all persons indefinitely detained without trial or, in the alternative, execute a waiver: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-7-2011/arrested-development—one-way-train-to-gitmo. In other words, Obama, the rank hypocrite whose Presidential Campaign Promises meant Less than Nothing, will not sign this bill because it places minor restraint on his power.)

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress – 1st Session as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Question: On Passage of the Bill (S. 1867 As Amended )
Vote Number: 218 Vote Date: December 1, 2011, 08:02 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: S. 1867 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 )
Measure Title: An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 93
NAYs 7
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Ayotte (R-NH), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Boozman (R-AR), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brown (R-MA), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Heller (R-NV), Yea
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Lee (R-UT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Moran (R-KS), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Paul (R-KY), Nay
Portman (R-OH), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs —93
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Rubio (R-FL)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
NAYs —7
Coburn (R-OK)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)
Sanders (I-VT)
Wyden (D-OR)
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Grouped by Home State

Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Begich (D-AK), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Boozman (R-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado: Bennet (D-CO), Yea Udall (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Carper (D-DE), Yea Coons (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Nelson (D-FL), Yea Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho: Crapo (R-ID), Yea Risch (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea Kirk (R-IL), Yea
Indiana: Coats (R-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Moran (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: McConnell (R-KY), Yea Paul (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts: Brown (R-MA), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota: Franken (D-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Missouri: Blunt (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Johanns (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Heller (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Ayotte (R-NH), Yea Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Udall (D-NM), Yea
New York: Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Hagan (D-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Yea Portman (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Merkley (D-OR), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Yea Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Yea Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Hatch (R-UT), Yea Lee (R-UT), Nay
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (D-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Manchin (D-WV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Johnson (R-WI), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea

“The BIG FIX”—Maybe the Most Important Documentary Ever (way better than Fahrenheit 911 or anything else I can remember)