MEDIA ROOTS — Duplicitous White House policy continues to metastasize under Obama, as it has with Reagan, the Bushes, and Clinton.  For the past 30 years, the government has consistently enacted policies that give more power to Washington D.C. in the name of bettering the lives of regular Americans.  The current regime pulls our attention away from this practice with the Obamacare drama in the Supreme Court, the rhythmic and feverish beating of Iranian war drums, and a Republican presidential campaign that resembles reality TV more than effective politics that can actually help Americans.

Washington D.C. has once again created a euphemism to paper over a pernicious policy: the “Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities” (SC2), which was established by the White House in March, is the latest example of regressive trickery.  By name, it involves “help” for municipalities that are struggling financially.  This “help” is necessary because, even as the mainstream media touts economic recovery, the risk of multiple municipal collapses festers below the surface.  In short, hundreds of municipalities across the country face bankruptcy if they can’t get their finances in order.  And some won’t.  If one of those towns happens to be yours, thanks to the new executive order, the Fed will come to your town and assist in its bankruptcy proceedings.

According to the rules of the SC2 Initiative, each bankrupt city will be placed into receivership and a federal trustee will be in charge of the hobbled city’s sovereignty.  This trustee will have complete and absolute power to determine how to eliminate the city’s debt.  Even worse, all city contracts will be null and void—this includes those for policemen, firemen, and teachers.  It will be like pushing the reset button.  

However, instead of a compassionate, helpful friend, these unfortunate cities are receiving an unfeeling auctioneer, who will make sure they are on the raw end of a deal gone bad.  Assets will be auctioned off to the highest bidder: parking lots, bridges, utilities, expressways, toll booths, parking meters, whatever the city owns, will be hacked up to bits and thrown to packs of opportunistic wolves.  This pattern is already underway in Greece, as the country is getting carved up and auctioned off in exchange for bailouts.

This should be a premonition of things to come in the United States, where the 1% is hungry to fill their vaults and portfolios.  In fact, private and corporate interests are already buying up (former) publicly-owned assets in the United States.  And they certainly don’t give a damn if it comes at the expense of regular citizens.  So, something is definitely awry when the Fed is making contingency plans with so much foresight.  It seems they don’t want to waste the opportunity to profit in a good, home-cooked crisis.

Adam Miezio

Edited by Alex Starace

***

THE INTEL HUB — On March 15th, the day before he signed the National Defense Resources Preparedness executive order, President Obama signed the executive order, “Establishing a White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities.”

This order essentially paved the way for a take over of municipalities that are drowning in debt.

Joe Joseph, Popeye, and Tim Watts discussed this executive order in the latest Intel Hub News Brief Podcast which can be heard below [Tuesday, March 20, 2012]:

Obama’s Executive Decree: Strong Cities & Communities

***

INFOWARS — Asawin Suebsaeng, who is an editorial fellow at Mother Jones, seems to have a problem understanding the Constitution and the national security state. He takes the political “right” to task for warning about the National Defense Resources Preparedness executive order signed by Obama earlier this month. This particular EO is no big deal and if you really want to place blame, place it on Harry Truman, Suebsaeng writes.

He’s right about Truman. The National Security Act of 1947 was passed by Congress and signed into law by president Truman. It has allowed the Pentagon and the CIA to encroach on our civil liberties ever since. It created a national security establishment that has issued a number of unconstitutional executive orders. Mr. Suebsaeng mentions these in passing. It enabled the military-industrial complex president Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address in 1961.

If Mr. Suebsaeng were a fair and impartial observer instead of a Democrat apologist for maximum state power over the individual, he would mention that presidents regardless of party affiliation have repeatedly violated the Constitution – from Abraham Lincoln to Woodrow Wilson to Bush and Obama.

The NDAA gives the government the power to arrest without warrant (as stipulated under the Fourth Amendment) any U.S. citizen and hold him or her indefinitely, a concept abhorrent to the founders and more likely to be the practice of a military dictatorship.

Both the so-called liberal and conservative sides of the establishment ignored the NDAA – not because they are unaware of the legislation and its purpose (which has nothing to do with al-Qaeda), but because the establishment does not want the NDAA discussed.

Read more about Concern Over National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order.

***

MEDIA ROOTS — In a tragic reflection of the Global Recession and crushing economic hardship across the USA, an eviction on Thursday, April 12, 2012 in Modesto, CA ended in tragedy and death after neighbours reported some twelve gunshots, leaving a locksmith and a cop dead during the eviction attempt and leading to a day-long standoff involving over a hundred cops from at least 15 agencies, as well as the FBI, ultimately ending with the entire north Modesto building being burned down, apparently by police gas and flash-bang munitions. 

Although the state has claimed it was too dangerous to adequately battle the blaze in the alleged suspect’s townhouse, neighbouring homes were protected.  According to the Modesto Bee, Battalion Chief Hugo Patino said on his Twitter account:  “Fire on Chrysler continues to burn. Structural collapse occurring. Fire crews doing a good job of protecting the exposures.”  Apparently, efforts were made to protect “exposures,” presumably neighbours’ townhouses.  But the townhouse of the alleged suspect was, apparently, allowed to burn to the ground with the alleged suspect still inside. 

The Modesto Bee would go on to report police were unable to determine the identity or the gender of the body found in the smouldering remains.

This story presents a terrible reminder, or sign of the times, in which an eviction, resulting from “a $15,000 home equity loan…owed to Bank of America,” can provoke the most extreme circumstances of desperation and violence.

Local TV coverage was on the scene all day and drove a mantra insisting the object of the situation was to isolate the alleged suspect.  There was no indication the entire day authorities attempted to contact the allegedly barricaded suspect.  News reports indicated police cut electricity to the suspect’s two-story home early on in the day.

Stanislaus County Sherrif Adam Christianson stated early in the afternoon, “At this point we believe the suspect is barricaded inside of the apartment complex.  We don’t know anything about him.”  Of course, neighbours were aired on TV all day describing the man as a well-known neighbour.  According to Modesto Anarcho, which was live on the scene speaking with members of the community, the alleged gunman is 45-year-old James Ferrario.  Apparently, Ferrario refused to give up the home his family had lived in for decades, which “was sold at an auction for just $12,988 to a shady firm, R&T Financial, that doesn’t even have a listed contact number.”

Helicopters, fire trucks, ambulances, Modesto Police Department, Merced Sheriff Department, and Merced Sheriff SWAT, Merced Sheriff armoured vehicles, and many troops in camouflaged fatigues on the scene were reported live on TV by KOVR 13 and KCRA 3.  Some residents were standing outside on Prescott Drive trying to witness the scene, reported Derek Shore (KOVR 13) from near the Modesto intersection of Prescott & Chrysler.  Reportedly, all nearby residents had been evacuated and community members were prevented from entering Chrysler where the barricaded suspect’s home was located about a block or so away.

KOVR 13 reported over a hundred officers from at least 15 agencies were outside the barricaded home.  Other KOVR headlines read:  “Suspect may be blogging from inside apartment.” “FBI called in to investigate.” “Witnesses report hearing about 12 gunshots.” “Suspect barricaded; extent of injuries unknown.” “Bomb squad called in.” “Lots of movement on the scene right now.” “Eviction notice served around 11:00am” “Gunman inside opened fire; killing two.”

Witnesses reported gun shots around 11:00 am, when a deputy sheriff and locksmith were serving an eviction notice on Chrysler around 11:00 am.  According to other eyewitness accounts, not reported on the live TV reports, the gunman fired upon the locksmith and cop from his window, as the locksmith was drilling into the doorlocks.  The unidentified eyewitness stated the gunman aimed at him as well, but didn’t fire at him and allowed him to get away.  That particular witness reported hearing less gunfire than other reports, so it is still unclear precisely what transpired. 

KOVR reporter Mike Dello Stritto seemed to stay on a drumbeat smear campaign against the suspect reading from a blog the reporter suggested may be from the suspect.  However, as noted, the suspect’s electricity had been disabled.  Fellow KOVR news anchors went on about how long batteries last and how powerful, and by implication, dangerous, smartphones can be if they fall into the wrong hands.  The greatest fear arising from this terrible situation, according to hours of live local TV news coverage, was that the suspect may be “blogging from inside.”

Although there was no indication of police attempting to contact the barricaded suspect, screen captures and quotations from an anonymous blog were flashed on the screen and read repeatedly throughout the day on the TV reports: 

“I just shot me some cops, ask me anything. Hurry though, SWAT is about to bust in.” 

“They think that my Tahoe is rigged with explosives. That would be too obvious. I bet they’re wondering where my other four cars are. They’ll find out.” 

“It’s back now. I’ve got a new plan. This may be my last post.”

It has not been confirmed the anonymous blog quotes were made by the suspect and appear to have been a cruel hoax or worse.  It’s interesting KOVR TV decided to smear the suspect in this way, as this sort of insinuation seemed to function as a smear campaign against the suspect, trying him in the court of public opinion and generating antipathy toward the suspect in the public sphere.  It was reported, by neighbours who knew the man being evicted, that he had a military background.  Thus, it’s possible the man may have been a military veteran and may have possibly suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.  But local news coverage didn’t consider such realities, instead focusing on smearing and casting the suspect as a crazy or wacko.

After police arrived on the scene to respond to reports of gunshots, they fired bean bag rounds and tear gas into the two-story building on Chrysler.  But this didn’t succeed in driving the suspect out.  At this point, the suspect may have been incapacitated or bleeding to death inside his home.

Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson said:

“Ladies and gentleman, this is another dark day for law enforcement and public safety here in California and, especially, Stanislaus County.  My civil team was out serving civil process eviction notices.  And in the process of doing that, we’ve had two people shot and killed: a deputy sheriff is dead as well as a civilian. 

At this point we believe the suspect is barricaded inside of the apartment complex.  We don’t know anything about him.  We don’t know what the motive is behind this shooting.  All we know is that we have two people dead and a deputy sheriff, one of my valued members of my team, is dead.  At this point what we’re doing is we believe we have the suspect contained.  We don’t know that for sure.  We don’t believe that there is any additional threat to public safety or the community.  We have a perimeter around the apartment complex with multiple SWAT teams from multiple agencies.  At this point the situation is under control.  We’re simply trying to determine where the suspect is at or if he’s even still in the apartment.

At this point, it’s a slow process.  It’s a slow, cautious process, as we proceed, so that hopefully nobody else is injured or killed, as a result of what’s happened today.  As you know, despite the harsh reality of our economic climate and the drastic budget cuts and staffing cuts I’ve taken, there’s no excuse for this.  Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the deputy sheriff and the civilian that were killed today.  I am overwhelmingly frustrated with the fact that we don’t have sufficient resources to protect the community. Thank you.”

So, there was no indication of any attempts to communicate or even identify the suspect.  And for the rest of the day there were no further reports of gunshots. 

Also, Christianson’s press statement presented conflicting statements:

“At this point we believe the suspect is barricaded inside of the apartment complex. We don’t know anything about him.”

Of course, neighbours were aired all day describing the man as a well-known neighbour, 45-year-old James Ferrario.

Christianson stated:

“At this point, what we’re doing is we believe we have the suspect contained.  We don’t know that for sure. We don’t believe that there is any additional threat to public safety or the community.’

Throughout the day, despite ongoing live TV coverage, there was no indication police made any effort to communicate with the suspect.  KOVR emphasised the state protocol to isolate the suspect, that his elecricity had been cut off, that his windows had been broken in by police tear gas canisters and bean bag rounds.

Ultimately, The Modesto Bee reported the building had been set on fire and was beginning to collapse after the raging fire was allowed to burn with the suspect inside.

The Modesto Bee reported:  “The suspect was believed to be on the first floor.  It was not clear how the fire began, but Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson acknowledged that a combination of flash-bang devices and tear gas could have been responsible.”

Initially, Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson stated it was possible the gas and flash-bang munitions they fired into the building late in the evening could have started the blaze.  However, later Christianson started changing his line.

Christianson stated, “We exhausted every option to try to get the suspect to surrender.”  Apparently, the options exhausted involving shouting “Jimmy” at the building.  And when he didn’t come running out, even though he may have been bleeding, or already bled, to death inside, police began firing further munitions into the building.

Earlier in the day, local TV news coverage and officials issued concerns there may be explosives inside the building.  If so, why would they risk starting a fire in the building by firing further munitions into the building, especially when they hadn’t succeeded in driving the suspect out earlier in the day?

This conclusion is reminiscent of the tragic 1993 siege by the state in Waco, Texas, which ended where the FBI and other authorities, under Clinton and Janet Reno, torched the compound with their assaults and, which included gas and flash-bang grenades.  Of course, the state has argued the occupants themselves set the fires.  But surviving occupants have blamed the state.  In the Waco, Texas case, authorities completely bulldozed the remains, making further forensic investigation impossible.

Then, we recall the 1985 state bombing of the MOVE house in Philadelphia.  There are enough such examples to find patterns associated with state aggression against suspects, which seem to be targeted for lethal force and are doomed to never see their day in court.  It seems questionable, to say the least, rather than attempt to communicate with the Modesto individual or to identify him, to contact any family or friends in attempts to deescalate the situation, the state, as reported by KOVR Thursday, focused on ‘isolating’ the suspect.  Yet, isolation would seem to increase the alleged suspect’s level of desperation and, therefore, increase the likelihood of further violence.  Certainly, the state doesn’t hesitate to identify alleged suspects in other instances where the media is given vague descriptions and artist sketches and so forth to broadcast.  However, there are some indications the alleged suspect may have been a military veteran.  If so, this may have garnered a sympathetic response from the public, given the sad state of so many vets suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, economic hardship, and facing unprecedented rates of suicide. 

If neighbours had reported the alleged suspect as possibly having a military background, and if bean-bag rounds and tear-gas canisters fired through windows by police didn’t succeed in driving the alleged suspect out in the morning, why would the state believe it would be effective at night when the public and the media were less able to witness the actions undertaken by the state?  It would seem, the alleged suspect likely had counter measures, such as a gas mask.  It seems redundant and/or pointless for the state to have launched another round of tear-gas and flash-bang grenades.  And, yet, it seems this police assault may have caused the fires, even by Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson’s own admission.

So far, we know little about this tragic situation other than about a dozen shots were fired in the morning, leaving at least two dead.  And now police projectiles seem to have caused a blaze and burned the building to the ground with the alleged suspect inside, as the state looked on and let it burn, as if in vindictive retaliation.

It’s possible the alleged suspect fired in self-defence.  He may have fired a warning shot as the locksmith drilled through the locks, which provoked the Deputy to inciting further gun battle.  With the building in smouldering ashes, it’s unlikely we’ll know what really happened here in Modesto.  Often, the public’s attention span moves on quickly and loses interest in follow-through investigations.  And the push seems to be to rush to judgement.  Various commentators on the Modesto Bee web page were of the opinion the alleged suspect must be guilty because the state says so and, therefore, does not deserve the rule of law or a trial before a jury of his peers.  The state knows very well, such evictions, foreclosures, and repossessions provoke intense emotions, as the nation suffers the worst economic austerity since the Great Depression.

We must be able to recognise the precedents and implications this type of state response to socioeconomic desperation portends for all of us.  If police decide to raid any home they wish, perhaps activists or others, they can shoot and lay siege to one’s home, and insure the matter will never go to trial.  They can burn a house down or bomb it completely, as done in 1985 with the MOVE house.  They can operate with impunity.  And many say, that was just some ‘wacko‘ who deserved it.  But, first, they come for the so-called ‘wackos.’  Then they come for dissidents.  Then they come for you.  Fascism is the logical conclusion of unchecked state power.

Pending a thorough investigation of this case, we’ll have to wait and see what actually transpired in this tragic tale of socioeconomic misery, eviction, and desperation.  As the press is the only Constitutionally-protected profession, perhaps a thorough investigation may be undertaken to learn how our communities may deescalate and heal such tragic episodes in our communities.  However, local TV news coverage seemed more interested in parroting myopic state propaganda in this matter (focusing on a day-long smear campaign against the alleged suspect and downplaying the relevant economic crisis resulting in evictions and dramatic sagas, such as these), rather than honest reporting.  We are not likely to learn the truths about our own communities by relying on commercial news coverage, which the state sanctions fit for publication, but by what grassroots citizen journalists will publish.

Written by Felipe Messina for Media Roots

***

MODESTO BEE — UPDATE – 11:32 p.m. A Modesto fire department official says the home on Chrysler Drive is starting to collapse as the fire continues to burn.

Battalion Chief Hugo Patino said on his Twitter account: “Fire on Chrysler continues to burn. Structural collapse occurring. Fire crews doing a good job of protecting the exposures.”

There was no word on whether the fire had spread to any other structures.

UPDATE – 11:25 p.m. A sheriff’s spokesman says investigators still don’t know if a gunman holed up in a Modesto home is alive or dead. A huge fire was raging late tonight at the home on Chrysler Drive where earlier in the day a sheriff’s deputy and another man were gunned down and killed.

In an interview with KCRA TV, Sgt. Anthony Bejaran said officers were not sure what the status was on the gunman.

Read more about Fire rages at Modesto house surrounded after deputy killed.

© 2012 The Modesto Bee

***

MODESTO BEE — UPDATE – 5:07 p.m. Authorities anticipate most evacuated residents will be allowed back in their homes some time this evening when investigators finish processing the exterior crime scene on Chrysler Drive.

The residents who live on either side of the suspect’s unit destroyed by fire, however, may not be let back into their homes until Sunday night or Monday morning, according to Officer Chris Adams.

ATF Investigations working inside the charred home have a large amount of debris to sift through and need the space from the neighboring units to process the evidence, Adams said.

Read more about Body found in wreckage of burned out Modesto home.

© 2012 The Modesto Bee

***

CONSORTIUM NEWS — This past Thursday, a Modesto, California, man whose house was in foreclosure shot and killed the Sheriff’s deputy and the locksmith who came to evict him from his condominium unit. Modesto authorities responded by sending 100 police and SWAT snipers to counter-attack, and it ended Waco-style, with the fourplex structure burning to the ground with the shooter inside.

It’s not surprising that this should happen in Modesto: Last year the Central California city’s foreclosure rate was the third worst in the country, with one in every 19 properties filing for foreclosure.  The entire region is ravaged by unemployment, budget cuts, and blight — the only handouts that Modesto is seeing are the surplus military equipment stocks being dumped into the Modesto police department’s growing arsenal.

The shooter who died was 45 years old and he appears to have lost his condominium over a $15,000 home equity loan he took out almost a decade ago, owed to Bank of America. The condo was sold at an auction for just $12,988 to a shady firm, R&T Financial, that doesn’t even have a listed contact number. Too much for the former security guard, who barricaded himself in the condo which had been in the family for decades. He refused to walk out alive.

These “death by foreclosure” killings have been going on, quietly, around the country ever since the housing swindle first unraveled. Like the story of the 64-year-old Phoenix man whose daughter and grandson were preparing to move in with him after losing their home to foreclosure — only to get a knock on his door surprising him with an eviction notice on the house he’d owned for over 30 years. Bank of America foreclosed on him despite his attempts to work out a fair plan.

We now know that the same banks that had been bailed out over their subprime fraud disaster were, by the time this happened, headlong into another criminal scheme, this time foreclosure fraud. The fraud was effected both illegally and in bad faith on a scale so vast it’s hard not to think that it was carried out by some marauding foreign army.

Read more about Class Warfare On Two Fronts: From Afghanistan To Middle America, The Untold Story of Sgt. Bales.

***

MODESTO ANARCHO — In the early hours of Thursday, April 12th, a Stanislaus County Sheriff, Robert Paris, a Tracy native, as well as Glendon Engert, a Modesto locksmith who was trying to bounce back after a lay-off, came to Chrysler Drive in North-West Modesto to evict someone from their home. Chrysler Drive is located off of Prescott Ave. in Modesto, nestled just to the north of Briggsmore. The housing units that the tenant, James “Jimmy” Ferrario lived in used to be part of ‘Prescott Estates,’ a notorious poverty stricken neighborhood known for crime, drugs, and gangs. Jimmy’s father had owned the house prior to his death in 2008 but the home had slipped into foreclosure, which eviction proceedings starting on January 24th.

On April 12th however, the sheriff and locksmith were not there to serve papers or ask Jimmy to leave, they were there to evict him from the property. When the drilling started however, Ferrario fired several shots, killing both Paris and Engert, the latter who was in the midst of drilling out Ferrario’s door. The early morning shooting set in motion an almost 20 hour stand off, in which dozens of residents were removed from their homes by police. Law enforcement from across Stanislaus, San Joaquin, and Merced counties as well as FBI, ATF, and US Marshalls occupied the area in droves, with a large section of Prescott being shut down and access to Chrysler Drive completely blocked. As night fell, police began firing flash bang grenades and tear gas into the home and a fire soon erupted. As Fox 40 reported:

“The Sheriff believes [the fire] was started by tear gas that officers had used to try to get the man out. Law enforcement had been monitoring the man’s movement. There had been no opportunity for the man to leave, so officers believe that he is dead.”

At this time, sheriffs and police claim that the area surrounding the home was evacuated (many people were forced to seek refuge in a nearby church and even spend several nights there). However, a correspondent with Modesto Anarcho who was able to gain access to the scene at Chrysler Aveune and talked with several small groups of people who were only two homes away and between rings of law enforcement that were blocking access to Ferrario’s home. Not everyone had been evacuated, either by their own desire or from law enforcement incompetence or inaction. Other families were told to stay in their homes by police and were not allowed to leave. As the fire raged, even with fire department trucks looking on, it became clear that the police were letting the home burn. The morning after the shooting a charred body was found, pressumed to be Ferrario’s, although an autopsy report could take weeks.

Read more about Flames Up, Officer Down: Gentrification, Eviction, and the Death of James Ferrario.

***

Photos by Felipe Messina

MEDIA ROOTS — Proving the power of social networking, online writing, and blogging, the U.S. military is pushing to dismiss U.S. Marine Sergeant Gary Stein with ‘other-than-honourable‘ discharge as well as banning the Marine from all U.S. military bases, in violation of his First Amendment rights, for dissing Obama on Facebook.  Until the dismissal is finalised, Stein has been removed from his San Diego post as a recruiter and reassigned to a desk job without computer access.

Messina

***

RT — US marine Sgt. Gary Stein should be dismissed for criticizing President Barack Obama on his Facebook page: that is the verdict passed by a military board looking into Stein’s case.

Following a special hearing at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, the corps board recommended that the marine is given the other-then-honorable discharge stripping him of benefits. If the ruling passes, Stein will also be banned from any US military base.

Stain’s lawyers insist that their client, who superimposed images of Obama’s face on a poster for the movie called “Jackass”, did nothing more than exercise his right to free speech.

“We are truly surprised and disappointed but it was an honor to fight for a hero like Sgt. Stein and every other marine’s right to speak freely,” Stein’s defense lawyer marine Captain James Baehr said, as quoted by the Associated Press news agency.

Baehr stressed that Stein had, in fact, not broken any existing law.  

Both the American Civil Liberties Union and United States Justice Foundation, two groups of which Stein’s lawyers are members, claim that his First Amendment rights are being violated.

However, prosecutor Captain John Torresala told the panel that the nine-year marine had repeatedly violated Pentagon policies which limit the free speech rights of service members. He said that Stein should be dismissed after ignoring a warning from his superiors about his Facebook activities.

Read more about Unlike: Marine ‘to be dismissed’ in shame for criticizing Obama on Facebook.

***

MEDIA ROOTS — On Monday, KPFA Radio’s The Morning Mix spoke with representatives from California’s third-parties about their legal challenge to Proposition 14, Rubin v. Bowen, which created the new statewide ‘Top Two’ electoral system.  Under this system, the rigged de facto two-party system has now been virtually codified in California.  Given the obscene amounts of corporate funding expended by the pro-1% Democrat and Republican parties, third-party voters are now, essentially, disenfranchised under this clearly unconstitutional legislation.

“After two months of delays,” wrote RestoreVoterChoice.org prior to the hearing, “a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s new ‘Top Two’ election scheme will be heard in Alameda County Superior Court on Tuesday, 10 April [2012].

“The plaintiffs encourage supporters in the [S.F.] Bay Area to attend this important court hearing.

“The hearing is scheduled for 9:00am on April 10 in Department 16 of the court, located at 1221 Oak Street in Oakland, before Judge Lawrence John Appel. If there are last minute changes in the schedule, they will be posted here.”

Messina

***

THE MORNING MIX — “Today, we are talking to California’s third-parties about their challenge to Proposition 14.  This is the proposition that created the new statewide ‘Top Two’ electoral system.  People as different on the political spectrum as Ralph Nader and Meg Whitman oppose this system.  And we’ll be telling you why. 

“We’re also going to tackle something most of us don’t think about until we, literally, have no choice—end of life issues.  Long-time hospice nurse Elaine McGee will be in and taking your calls. 

“And, last week, the Center for Biological Diversity challenged the Obama Administration to save the oceans before it’s too late.  We’ll talk to wildlife biologist and attorney Emily Jeffers about why the Center believes this crisis demands immediate attention and the international strategy that could lead us back from the brink. 

“But we begin with the third-party challenge to California’s ‘Top Two’ law.

Adrienne Lauby (c. 9:07):  “Now, our [2012 California] Primary Election will be held on June 5^th, less than two months from now.  And this year’s election will be very different than in the previous years.  Owing to Proposition 14, a ballot measure that was passed two years ago, California is scheduled to deploy a new system where all candidates for a given office will appear on one ballot.  However, representatives from several third-parties are going to court to challenge the law.”

Anthony Fest:  “Under the new system, instead of a separate primary ballot for each party, all candidates for state and congressional office will be listed on the same ballot and every voter can choose from among all those candidates.  The top two finishers in the June election, regardless of their party affiliation will then appear on the November General Election ballot, essentially, making November a run-off election.  This is due to Prop 14, the measure that passed in June of 2010.  It’s informally called the ‘Top Two’ law.

“The Green, Peace and Freedom, and Libertarian parties say the measure is unconstitutional.  Last November, they filed a suit to block it and there will be a hearing on the case tomorrow morning in Alameda County Superior Court, 1221 Oak Street in Oakland.  Joining us this morning to discuss the ‘Top Two’ law and the challenges to it are representatives of the three parties that filed suit. 

“Marsha Feinland is with the Peace and Freedom Party.  She’s run for the U.S. Senate, representing Peace and Freedom and plans to do so again.  Welcome, Marsha.”

Marsha Feinland (c. 10:32):  “Good morning.”

Anthony Fest:  “Mike Rubin is with the Green Party.  And, along with Marsha, he’s also an individual plaintiff in the lawsuit.  Thanks for joining us, Mike.”

Michael Rubin:  “Thank you for having me.”

Anthony Fest:  “And with us on the phone is Richard Winger.  Richard is with the Libertarian Party.  He’s also the editor of the website Ballot Access News.  Good to have you with us, Richard.”

Richard Winger:  “Thank you very much.”

Anthony Fest:  “Now, let’s begin with Marsha.  Tell us, in nutshell, why you’re challenging this measure and what legal grounds.”

Marsha Feinland (c. 10:56):  “Well, this measure is very anti-democratic.  And we feel it doesn’t give voters a real choice.  Now, the open primary ‘Top Two’ initiative was put forward as being something that gives voters more choices.  But, actually, in November when most people vote, they’ll have very little choice because only the top-two vote getters in the primary will be able to make the ballot.  And those top two vote-getters might not be even from two different parties; they might be very, very similar.

“It’s also possible that neither of the top two vote-getters get anywhere close to a majority.  So, it’s not even both of them put together.  For instance, in the coming [California] Senate race there are 24 candidates.  So, it’s very possible for each of the top two to get a very low percentage, although that’s very doubtful, since Dianne Feinstein is one of them.  But if we’re going to have a challenge to the powers that be, we’ve got to be able to make real choices.  And we can’t do that with this election.”

Anthony Fest (c. 12:08):  “So, whether or not it’s good policy, on what grounds do you say it’s unconstitutional?”

Marsha Feinland:  “It’s unconstitutional because the parties do not get to pick their candidates.  And it’s not just the parties; it’s the voters in the parties that don’t get to pick their candidates.  In fact, we’re forced into a position in which the parties pick their candidates.  The parties are able to make endorsements in the primary instead of leaving it up to the voters.  There are supposed to be primaries in which the voters in the parties pick their candidates; those candidates go to the election.  That’s not what’s happening.”

Anthony Fest:  “Okay, let’s turn now to Mike Rubin with the Green Party.  Now, Prop 14 passed two years ago with just under 54% statewide, not an overwhelming mandate, but a majority.  And it also won a majority in all but three of the state’s 58 counties.  So, why contest the decision of the voters?  And do you think the court might be reluctant to set aside something, which the voters passed?”

Michael Rubin (c. 13:07):  “Well, it’s possible that the courts might be reluctant.  But I will tell you that the people, Proposition 14 passed because people are disgusted with the legislature, particularly the [California] State legislature.  And, unfortunately, the remedy that was proposed by Proposition 14 for the problems of the state legislature are not responsive to the actual problems in the [two-party monopolised] state legislature, which is that the state legislature is responsive to the 1% and not the 99%.

“So, Proposition 14 was presented as a false solution to the two-partisan gridlock and all that kind of stuff.  But the reality is that it’s going to do nothing about the problems in the legislature.”

Anthony Fest:  “Let’s turn now to Richard Winger.  As a Libertarian, Richard, do you concur with Marsha’s and Mike’s points or is your reasoning somewhat different?”

Richard Winger (c. 14:00):  “It’s the same.  And you asked about constitutionality.  The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1986 in a case called Munro vs. Socialist Workers Party, that was from Washington State, that there is no Constitutional distinction between a petition method to show a modicum of support worthy of getting a candidate on the November ballot versus a prior vote test.  Now, the U.S. Supreme Court had already said that petition requirements for a candidate to get on the General Election ballot cannot exceed 5%.  Applying the logic of that decision, this system is unconstitutional because it requires a candidate who wants to get on the [California] Election Ballot itself, which is November, a showing of approximately 30%.  Typically, if you look back at primaries in California and many states where all the voters could choose from all the candidates, the second-place person typically gets 30%.  That’s what you need to be in the top two, on the average.  So, that’s the basis for the claim. 

“It’s about voting rights.  The Supreme Court has said every voter has a right to vote for the candidate he or she desires.”

Anthony Fest (c. 15:32):  “So, you’ll be citing that case when you make your arguments before the Superior Court down the road.”

Richard Winger:  “Yes.  And I gotta say when this topic was introduced just now the introducer mentioned the [California] November Election as a run-off.  That is not accurate.  It sounds pedantic, but it’s important.  Since the 19^th century, Congress has told the states to have their Congressional and Presidential elections in November.  And, if they want to insure that the winner got 50%, they have to hold a run-off after that.  There’s two states that do that:  Georgia and Louisiana, they have it in December.

“So, by federal law, whatever California does in June is not the election because that would be illegal.”

Anthony Fest (c. 16:22):  “Now, as well as being active in the Libertarian Party you’re also Editor of Ballot Access News.  So, tell us, as someone who follows voting laws around the U.S., are their counterparts to Prop 14 in effect elsewhere in the U.S.?  And what’s the outcome then from those?”

Richard Winger:  “That’s a very good question.  Louisiana has used the system for 35 years.  And Washington State has used it for four years.

“There was just a study that came out in the California Journal of Politics and Policy called ‘The Top Two Primary: What Can California Learn From Washington?’  And the author was the witness for the State of Washington, in fact, in court in a Washington state case.  He was on the state side.  But he was a political scientist.  He wrote a fair report.  The abstract says:  ‘The partisan structure of Washington’s legislature appears unaltered by the new primary system.’ 

“In other words, the whole reason this thing was sold to us is that, supposedly, it would make the [California] legislature behave better.  And this study says after four years it hasn’t worked.  It says:  ‘The aggregate of all this did not add up to a legislature that looked different or functioned differently from the legislature elected under a partisan primary.’  He’s not the only political scientist that said that.  Boris Shor and Seth Masket looked at partisanship and polarisation in state legislatures and they agreed California had the most polarised legislature, but—and the study goes back 15 years—they said Washington State had the second-most polarised legislature.  And, during most of those 15 years, Washington had, either, a ‘Top Two’ primary, or a blanket primary.”

Adrienne Lauby (c. 18:22):  “So, Marsha—this is Adrienne Lauby—when I’m up in the North Bay, which is pretty Democrat[-dominated], what I’ve seen over and over again is in the general election we’ve got a Democrat who’s gonna win and a Republican who doesn’t have a chance.  So, to me, this sounded pretty good.  You’re gonna have two Democrats who have different points of view; one may be more to the Left than the other.  And I’ll get a chance to maybe put my guy or my gal in.  What’s wrong with this thinking?”

Marsha Feinland:  “Well, you’re making the assumption that the two Democrats might have two different points of view.  In fact, if you’d looked at the primary results in the last Presidential Election, if we had had the ‘Top Two’ primary, we would’ve had Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  And we are now finding out that they don’t have two different points of view.  So, therefore, the voters have no choice at all.  I think it’s really important to open the debate and open the process to people who can really pose an alternative. 

“And when Richard said that this Proposition was sold to us I wanna emphasise sold.  The elections are pretty much sold.  They’re not really chosen.  There’s so much advertising; and there’s so much money in the elections.  And what happens with Proposition 14 and this type of primary is that there is even more money required because people need to raise the money, both, for the primary and for the general election. 

“So, the appearance might be sold to you that you have two different candidates.  But, actually, you may end up with two very-the-same candidates.”

Anthony Fest (c. 19:54):  “It’s 8:20am on The KPFA Morning Mix.  We’re talking about Proposition 14, the ‘Top Two’ primary law and the upcoming court challenge to it.  I’m Anthony Fest with Adrienne Lauby.

“Let’s turn to Mike Rubin now, as we begin to wrap up this segment.  By the way, Prop 14 applies to [California] statewide office and the U.S. House and Senate seats.  It does not apply to the presidential race.  But, Mike Rubin from the Green Party, let’s go back and take a look at the history of Prop 14.  It was placed on the ballot, not by the voter petition process, but by a vote of the legislature.  The bill, that placed it on the ballot, was written by Republican [State] Senator Abel Maldonado.  It passed both houses by a better than two-to-one margin and also had the support of [then-]Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. 

“For a measure that was promoted as taking power away from the party apparatus, it had wide support from Democrat and Republican politicians.  But what’s the motivation, do you think?  If it was all about excluding third-parties, third-parties haven’t really made much of a dent in state politics anyway, as far as winning office.  So, what’s going on behind this?”

Michael Rubin (c. 21:01):  “Well, I think there’s a couple of things to say.  One is that the fact that the [California] Legislature passed this was a pay-off to Abel Maldonado for his vote on the budget.  It was his price to pass the budget.  They needed a few Republican votes for the budget and his price was Proposition 14.  That’s the first thing to say.

“The second thing is that the purpose of Proposition 14 was not really to harm third-parties.  I don’t know that.  That’s not the primary thing.  The primary thing was, it was sold as a way of getting more quote ‘more moderate’ candidates.  That was the so-called selling point.  And it goes back to this thing about partisanship and gridlock and all that stuff.  And I think that the problem that we have in California is that we have too many ‘moderate’ candidates, not enough ‘moderate’ candidates.”

Anthony Fest (c. 22:01):  “And that should be the decision of the voters not the politicians already in office.”

Michael Rubin:  “Absolutely.”

Anthony Fest:  “Okay,  Marsha Feinland, with the Peace and Freedom Party;  Mike Rubin, with the Green Party; Richard Winger, with the Libertarian Party, thanks for joining us.

“And, Marsha, you have an announcement?” 

Marsha Feinland:  “Yeah.  I think it’s really important for people to go to the court tomorrow morning at 9am at 1221 Oak Street.  But, also, the case has been continued twice.  So, it’s very important to go to the website to make sure that it’s still on schedule.  The website is RestoreVoterChoice.org.”

Anthony Fest:  “Thanks for joining us this morning.”

Michael Rubin:  “Thank you for having us.”

Richard Winger:  “Thank you.”

Marsha Feinland:  “Okay.”

AUDIO OF THE SIMPSONS VIDEO CLIP

Homer Simpson:  “America, take a good look at your beloved candidates.  They are nothing but hideous space reptiles!”

Crowd:  “[Gasps] Ahh!!  [Shrieks]”

Two-Party Candidate A:  “It’s true.  We are aliens!  But what are you going to do about it?  It’s a two-party system.  You have to vote for one of us!”

Passive Voters:  “He’s right.  It’s a two-party system.”

Assertive Voter:  “Well, I believe I’ll vote for a third-party candidate.”

Two-Party Candidate B:  “Go ahead.  Throw your vote away!”

Two-Party Candidates A and B:  “Ha-ha-ha, ha-ha!!”

Transcript by Felipe Messina for Media Roots

Image by Flickr user ryenski (above) and Flickr user bkrealtist (feature)

***

***

MEDIA ROOTS — From warrantless wiretapping to SMART meter invasion of privacy, it seems everywhere we turn we are allowing erosion of our rights to privacy.  Meanwhile, the state wants it both ways, as it’s pushed to stifle police transparency by outlawing videotaping of on-duty cops in some states.  Legal scholar and professor Jonathan Turley, has noted the absurdity of that move:  “The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law—requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and and can say that this is utter nonsense.”

As the U.S.A. undergoes unprecedented erosion of human rights, ACLU affiliates filed hundreds of public records requests last summer with law enforcement agencies regarding their policies for tracking cell phones.  And now the results have been made public.  “While virtually all of the over 200 police departments […] said they track cell phones,” according to the newly released documents, almost none demonstrate probable cause nor obtain warrants.”

Messina

***

ACLU — In January, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in U.S. v. Jones, ruling unanimously that when the D.C. police and the FBI attached a GPS device to Antoine Jones’s car and tracked him for 28 days, they violated the Fourth Amendment. But now the government — instead of fixing the way it conducts this kind of invasive surveillance — has simply set its sights on another way to obtain people’s location information: their cell phones.

Late last week, during preliminary proceedings before Jones’s retrial, his attorney revealed that prosecutors have also obtained records showing the location and movement of Jones’s cell phone over the course of five months. Since the GPS data from Jones’s car was thrown out by the Supreme Court, it seems the prosecution intends to use Jones’s cell phone data to get another bite at the apple. Like the GPS device on the car, the government was able to obtain the cell phone information without a probable cause warrant. Instead, it only had to claim that the data was “relevant and material” to an ongoing investigation.

Unfortunately, this story is all too common. As a recent nationwide ACLU public records request revealed, hundreds of law enforcement agencies engage in cell phone tracking on a regular basis. Many of these agencies obtain cell phone location data without getting a warrant and demonstrating probable cause.

The government is clearly trying to avoid the main point of the Jones decision. If using a GPS device to track a car’s movements over time requires a warrant based on probable cause, then surely law enforcement must be held to the same standard when obtaining the same type of information about an individual’s cell phone. If anything, that data is even more sensitive, since most people take their cell phones with them wherever they go. Moreover, many popular smartphones now include GPS, which means that in some cases we’re talking about exactly the same technology.

Requiring the government to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before engaging in any kind of electronic location tracking is necessary to protect Americans’ privacy, and it’s also what the Constitution requires. A few of the law enforcement agencies that responded to our public records request told us that they do hold themselves to a standard requiring a warrant and probable cause. This strikes the right balance between privacy and public safety. Rather than dancing around the issue, it’s time for the government to fully accept the Court’s Jones decision, and respect that ordinary Americans shouldn’t have to worry about the government tracking their every move.

State and federal lawmakers should pass laws requiring a warrant for police to engage in location tracking in non-emergency situations. In Congress, there are two pending bipartisan efforts, entitled the Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance (GPS) Act, which would require law enforcement agents to obtain a warrant in order to access location information.

TAKE ACTION: Tell your representatives in Washington to support these important pieces of legislation.

***