Mr. President,what does it mean to you ‘to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?’
Please explain, as President, why and how you do that?
Thank you in advance for your thoughtful reply.
————
Not holding my breath for a reply, but the above is what I just entered on The White House’s contact form.
Forget about the fact that McCain-Feingold was plainly and clearly contrary to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Especially the ”Congress shall make no law’ part. Here’s what the First Amendment of the Constitution is . . .
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. {emphasis added}
Forgive me, but what part of NO is unclear here?
And forget about the negligence of President Bush for signing that gawd-awful piece of legislation. Can’t stop there though. Both Bush and Obama deserve a refresher course regarding the oath they took when they placed their left hand on the bible and raised their right hand to (ostensibly) God.
Just what does it mean ‘to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?’ To both those Presidents, apparently it means don’t protect it at all. Shirk that responsibility and schluff it off to the Judicial branch.
But the far Left, including President Obama, is outraged that people and groups of people of any kind have the same right to free speech as you or I. Their straw man villain is ‘corporations.’ They’re foaming at the mouth that big corporations will start buying elections. Uh, does anyone believe that McCain-Feingold took big money out of political campaigns? Can you say ‘George Soros’ and the myriad of 527’s?
What’s ironic to me is the fact that, well gee, Big Labor has the same rights as General Motors now. Oh, bad example, that’s owned by The White House. But you get the point here don’t you? No one is disadvantaged, everyone has not only the right, but the opportunity to group resources together to make political statements of support either for or against any candidate. Whether a club, a union, a town, a corporation, or a wacko forum on the Huffington Post.
I think that’s what ‘freedom of speech’ embodies.
But to think that no one is disadvantaged would not quite be true with the current state of the mainstream media and here’s why. That part of McCain-Feingold what was stricken today prevented political speech either for or against a particular candidate within 30 days prior to an election. The only exception to that is the media. That’s making the large and foolish assumption that the media today is as it was a hundred years ago. But unfortunately, it is no longer the same media watchdog that was afforded specific protection in the Constitution. If you listen to the Left nowadays, they’re claiming that the media is controlled by the Right. Ridiculous of course, but it doesn’t matter to make my point.They help make my point.
That the folks cannot exercise free political speech 30 days before an election, tilts the power of persuasion away from the people and gives it all to the media. And we all know that in the last election, the McCain-Palin ticket was not only running against Obama-Biden, but against the media as well. The sum of which could not be overcome. (aside from the fact that McCain ran with one arm tied behind his back, but that’s another matter) That’s a power that neither the Left or the Right should accept.
But, what is Obama and the wacko Left wanting to do about this freedom of political speech? They want either a Constitutional amendment taking it away, or for Congress to make a law, (echo. . .shall make no law) taking it away. Forfeiting the people’s power back to the media. President Obama’s statement:
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington–while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That’s why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.
As we just learned with Obamacare, when the Left and Obama over-reach, they do it on steroids.
related links:
Freedom of political speech wins today in the Supreme Court of the United States. Overturning part of the debacle called McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.
Organizations of any size may pool their resources together and say whatever they wish to say about a candidate, pro or con. Freedom of speech is no longer a slogan. It is enforceable now under the Constitution.
Of course, the fact that it had to go to the Supreme Court to be tested is ridiculous. But it is confirmed now.
CNN is in mourning. Chris Matthews is puzzled why Brown won when he campaigned on being the 41st vote against Obamacare. But it’s real simple. The people of Massachusetts, like the majority of Americans, don’t like Obama’s version of health care reform. It’s not that they don’t want health care reform.
They know how expensive their own state health care system is. They know Obamacare will be worse. Brown didn’t run on no health care reform, he ran on stopping Obama’s version. He ran on stopping the secrecy, the payoffs, and the takeovers.
Obama got a lot of support from Independents in his run for The White House. The people in Massachusetts have had a chance to see how Obama has governed with arrogance, and now realize that that’s not what they voted for. This time, they’re voting for change once again. You could call it buyer’s remorse.
Question now is, will Obama have the audacity and the arrogance to stay on the same path, or will he, like Bill Clinton, do his best to do the people’s business, instead of that of his ideological far-left base?
Now, anyone can answer the question that was asked in January and February. Will Obama and Democrats overreach? The people in Massachusetts answered that with a resounding YES.
It is with just a little satisfaction to see liberals getting some of their own medicine, if I may use that metaphor. One thing is obvious, teleprompters don’t react to hecklers very well.
And while we’re on the subject of Sunday’s plan to rescue Coakley’s senate campaign, it appears that Patrick Kennedy may have spent too much time at the bar. They are still running on blaming Bush. Doesn’t know Coakley’s first name, and are intent on pointing fingers. What?
Check these quotes:
“If you think there’s magic out there and things can be turned around overnight, then you would vote for someone who could promise you that, like Scott Brown,” Kennedy said. “If you don’t, if you know that it takes eight years for George Bush and his cronies to put our country into this hole … then you know we have a lot of digging to do, but some work needs to be done and this president’s in the process of doing it and we need to get Marcia Coakley to help him to do that.”
Right. Just keep on digging.
“One thing the Democrats have done wrong? We haven’t kept the focus on this disaster on the Republicans who brought it upon us. We’ve tried too hard to do that right thing, and that’s to fix it, as opposed to spend more of our time and energy pointing the finger at who got us [here] in the first place.”
(Curiously, Kennedy mentioned Coakley repeatedly during his remarks to reporters, each time referring to her as “Marcia,” not “Martha.”)
Priceless.
h/t Black & Right
Watch out America. In the name of openness and honesty, Democrats in Washington are poised to show how much smarter they are than you, and the founding fathers.
It never was about stimulating the economy. If it was, they never would have done what the did. That’s why it didn’t take but about 3 months for the Obama administration to tie economic recovery to government-controlled health care-turned-health-insurance ‘reform.’ And the dumb masses bought it.
That was then. Now a majority of Americans are rejecting not only that premise but also are rejecting the extent that government will be controlling our lives under Obamacare. Those that believe that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights still mean something would call it restricting personal liberty and freedom through an ever-growing and more powerful central government.
Centralized power is all important. So much so that what you want no longer matters. They are representing The One instead of The People and are prepared to do anything to get there. And if they’re willing to deceive you to get there, then you have to think they’ll do anything to stay there, keeping their majority status for generations and turning America into just another second class European socialistic regime.
There could not be a better example of how, on this issue, Democrats are putting their political agenda ahead of the will of the American people, who they are supposed to be working for.
How could they do that, you ask? What they could do would be to go to reconciliation where only 51 votes are needed instead of 60. And what could they do if Brown (R) should win the senate seat over Coakley (D)?
Massachusetts’s top election official says it could take weeks to certify the results of the upcoming U.S. Senate special election. That delay could let President Barack Obama preserve a key 60th vote for his health care overhaul even if the Republican who has vowed to kill it wins Democrat Edward M. Kennedy’s former seat.
According to Coakley, currently Mass. Atty. General, ‘Until a new senator is sworn in, Sen. Kirk is the senator.’
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) sort of gets it. He said ‘If Scott Brown wins, it’ll kill the health bill.’
I’ve got news for you Barney. If this bill makes it to the President’s desk, it’ll kill America.
Related links:
Labor union leaders from the SEIU, AFL-CIO, and the UAW met in Washington yesterday to (one could only guess) threaten to withhold support for Democrats in the 2010 election if the President went through with his wanting to levy a tax on people who have a good health insurance policy.
President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats stand within days if not hours of striking final deals on historic health care legislation after key labor unions won concessions and pledged their support.
What we could not see is the smoke and mirrors accounting they are applying to mask the cost to appease big labor. Taxing those policies was supposed to be part of paying for this plan. Absent that, there’s more snake-oil on the health insurance menu.
Unfortunately, we could not see this ‘negotiation’ in action like the President said when he was a candidate. We couldn’t see who was representing who, like the President promised he would do, and on this very subject. The negotiations weren’t on either of the two CSPAN channels I get. Did you see it?
After the Brown-Coakley debate last week, Martha Coakley went to Washington to attend fundraisers by fat cat lobbyists from the health care industry. While republican challenger Scott Brown’s campaign received over a million dollars from Americans giving under $80 each.
Forget what that picture looks like, because CNN didn’t bother to mention that Brown seems to have real grassroots support. But lets recall that it was a large number of small contributors that financed the Obama campaign, in addition to big contributions from big labor, big law, and Wall St..
No, the story here is CNN carrying the water for Coakley, Democrats, and Obamacare in the way they present this story.
Massachusetts Republicans wasted little time Wednesday criticizing Democrat Martha Coakley for attending a fundraiser one week before Bay State voters elect a successor to the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.
CNN is incapable of reporting what Coakley is doing. Instead, they report it as something Republicans are accusing her of doing. Somehow, they can’t find a way to criticize her on their own. Something they would have no hesitation or reservation in doing if she were an R instead of a D.
When the media watchdog becomes a mind-numb robot by circling the wagons around hypocrisy, to help a political candidate, it’s safe to say that the media watchdog has died.
Link: CNN:Republicans criticize Coakley for attending DC fundraiser
Putting arrogance in its rightful place, Scott Brown republican state senator in Massachusetts and republican candidate for the senate seat vacated by the late Sen. Kennedy, answered the loaded question from moderator and CNN political analyst David Gergen about Obamacare. Quite effectively.
Here’s the question from David Gergen, that CNN did not put in the article.
We know from the Clinton experience that if this bill fails, it could well be another fifteen years before we see health care reform efforts in Washington. Are you willing under those circumstances say I’m going to be the person, I’m going to sit in Teddy Kennedy’s seat, and I’m going to be the person that’s going to block it for another fifteen years?
And here’s Brown’s response, which they did, almost. They omitted the last sentence.
Well with all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy’s seat, it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat. They have a chance to send somebody down there who’s going to be an independent voter and independent thinker — and going to look out for the best interests of the people of Massachusetts. And the way that this bill is configured, I’d like to send it back to the drawing board.
Gergen raising the possibility that if the bill doesn’t pass now, that it may be another 15 years before health care reform comes up again, painting the republican candidate as some kind of Grinch, while at the same time presuming that health care reform won’t happen unless Democrats do it.
Yeah, I think Brown knocked it and Gergen out of the park.
Khavari to Alex Sink: Here’s All the Help You Need to Oversee the State Board of Administration
Miami, FL Jan. 11 — Noted economist Farid Khavari, a Democratic candidate for Florida governor, has gained national attention for his plan to create a state-owned bank in Florida.
Today he responded to Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink’s recent call for additional oversight of the State Board of Administration (SBA). Sink is also a Democratic candidate for governor.
“The simplest way to eliminate dubious investing by the State Board of Administration is to shine light on every deal. Simply post all documents relating to every transaction on a website. For each deal, show who is selling it, how many other deals they have sold the SBA, what fees the seller is earning, who is buying, who approves it, how many other deals they have done with this seller, and so on, together with a summary of the amount invested and the terms.
“Now who would buy a bunch of derivatives from a company in the Cayman Islands for $650 million, where over half of the money was lost? Who would ignore pages and pages of warnings and buy junk ever again, when people could see what is going on? Thousands of ordinary people with common sense would keep an eye on the SBA for you, all for free,” Khavari said.
“I agree that Alex Sink, Bill McCollum and Charlie Crist, as the three trustees of the SBA, do need plenty of help. On their watch tens of billions of dollars were lost. The people of Florida will have to pay thousands of dollars per person in higher taxes if we can’t get the SBA back on track.” McCollum is Attorney General and a Republican candidate for governor. Crist is governor and a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate.
“In a good year, the SBA’s goal was to earn about 7.5%. Last year their goal was to lose less than 50%. Creating the Bank of the State of Florida could provide the SBA with a guaranteed 10% per year yield,” Khavari said. “This would save hundreds of millions in investment bankers’ fees alone.”
Khavari’s campaign is based on his economic plan involving the creation of one million new private sector jobs in Florida – without subsidies, reducing insurance costs by 30%, and the creation of the Bank of the State of Florida. Using ordinary fractional reserve rules, the bank would pay 6% for savings and provide 2% mortgages as well as low cost financing for state and local governments and Florida businesses, while earning billions per year for the state treasury.
Farid A. Khavari, Ph.D. is an economist and author of nine books, including Environomics. His latest book, Toward a Zero-Cost Economy, is available in stores or for free download at his website, www.khavariforgovernor.com.