The US, leading the world in their disregard for their own poor. Gotta make baggers proud.

The U.N. Human Rights Committee in Geneva on Thursday condemned the United States for criminalizing homelessness, calling it "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" that violates international human rights treaty obligations. It also called upon the U.S. government to take corrective action, following a two-day review of U.S. government compliance with a human rights treaty ratified in 1992.

"I'm just simply baffled by the idea that people can be without shelter in a country, and then be treated as criminals for being without shelter," said Sir Nigel Rodley, chairman of the committee in closing statements on the U.S. review. "The idea of criminalizing people who don't have shelter is something that I think many of my colleagues might find as difficult as I do to even begin to comprehend."


http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2014/03/un-human-rights-council-report-on-us.html
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/un-human-rights-committee-united-states-cruel-inhuman-and-degrading-poor

Hey Fox News!! This Graph Says It All

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg: “This must be an April Fool’s joke."

This morning the Supreme Court heard arguments in “Perkins vs. Federal Trade Commission,” a case brought by billionaire venture capitalist Thomas Perkins, who claims that under First Amendment’s due process clause the number of votes a person is entitled to cast in an election for congress or the presidency should be proportional to how much that person pays in federal taxes. Several members of the Court seemed receptive. “Sounds sensible,” said Justice Antonin Scalia. “If you pay a million dollars in taxes, you should get a million votes, just like an investor in a corporation. That was the original intent of the Founding Fathers.” Justice Samuel Alito also was impressed. “Obviously, if a corporation has First Amendment free speech rights, a corporation that pays taxes should have voting rights and in proportion to how much it pays in taxes.” Clarence Thomas, who rarely speaks, was jubilant. “No taxation without representation!” he nearly shouted. On the other hand, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg expressed doubts. “This must be an April Fool’s joke."

Bernie Sanders: “Freedom of speech, in my view, does not mean the freedom to buy the US government"

Supreme Court Voids Campaign Spending Limits
Wednesday, April 2, 2014

WASHINGTON, April 2 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today blasted a Supreme Court ruling that voided legal limits on contributions by individual donors to political campaigns.

“Freedom of speech, in my view, does not mean the freedom to buy the United States government,” Sanders said.

The ruling gives wealthy donors like the billionaires Charles and David Koch more power to influence elections. An earlier ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC resulted in a record $7 billion being spent in the 2012 election cycle, including at least $400 million by the Koch brothers alone.

“What world are the five conservative Supreme Court justices living in?” Sanders asked. “To equate the ability of billionaires to buy elections with ‘freedom of speech’ is totally absurd. The Supreme Court is paving the way toward an oligarchic form of society in which a handful of billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson will control our political process.”

...........................

MORE:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/supreme-court-voids-campaign-spending-limits

A sickening passage from Roberts’ opinion:

How is this different from a “quid pro quo” arrangement, which Roberts claims is still forbidden?

In a series of cases over the past 40 years, we have spelled out how to draw the constitutional line between the permissible goal of avoiding corruption in the political process and the impermissible desire simply to limit political speech. We have said that government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford. They embody a central feature of democracy—that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be responsive to those concerns.

Any regulation must instead target what we have called “quid pro quo” corruption or its appearance.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/04/02/highlights-from-the-supreme-courts-campaign-finance-ruling/
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2014/04/02/slouching-toward-plutocracy/#comments

Ryan's budget reminds me of how conservatives really view the "other"

Ryan's budget reminds me of how conservatives really view the "other" people, those of us without the millions.

Remember when GWB was going to do his good deed and join Bill Clinton in Haiti after the disaster. He was walking around the common folk with Clinton. They were shaking hands with the natives when the camera caught Bush wiping his hand on the back of Clinton's shirt. Yeah just a germaphobe right?

Koch Joke For All

The Supreme Court’s Ideology: More Money, Less Voting

Former McDonald’s Store Managers Say They Withheld Wages To Keep Costs Down

Managers at these types of retail franchises really only have control over labor costs. They don't handle marketing or choose suppliers or anything else. The metric they can really be judged on is labor costs. So of course:

Traitor Rand Paul Congratulates Caterpillar For Illegally Avoiding Billions Of $$$ In Income Tax