Tag Archives: Politics

Judiciary, Politics, Supreme Court, Venezuela

State Of The Campaign Speech

1 Comment

An analysis of the road show in Washington, or as Obama has made it, a campaign stop along the way to the remaking of America. Some people referred to it as the State of the Union Address. Your mileage may vary, and your comments are, of course, welcome.

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day.

Couldn’t agree more. It should stop. How about you go first? And when you get back from your town hall rally in Tampa, how about visiting the Oval Office for awhile? Sit at that nice big desk and maybe do stuff. I know. Ask Speaker Pelosi to show you H.R.3400.

I’m also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. You have trimmed some of this spending and embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. Tonight, I’m calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single website before there’s a vote so that the American people can see how their money is being spent.

A year has gone by where you signed bill after bill with thousands of earmarks in each of the major ones. Did you forget that you campaigned on exactly what you said last night, or are you that arrogant that you think the American people are too stupid to remember?

And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business . . .Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership.

Saying no to socialized medicine, economic fascism, and committing inter-generational theft is a good thing. Does your interpretation of bi-partisanship include locking Republicans out of negotiations of important legislation then expecting them to approve it with their vote? And don’t blame Republicans for your failure. You have a super majority in both houses. Truth is, it is Democrats that are pushing back.  It wasn’t Republicans that were being bribed for votes was it? Community organizers handbook, ‘if you say a lie over and over again, it will eventually become reality.’ See above about the Republican’s proposal to reform health care and are you that arrogant that you think the American people are too stupid to know?

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.

YOU LIE! And NOT TRUE! See above quote from the Community organizers handbook and are you that arrogant that you think the American people are too stupid to know?

Current federal law prevents “a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country” from making, “directly or indirectly,” a donation or expenditure “in connection with a federal, state, or local election,” to a political party committee or “for an electioneering communication.”

We face a deficit of trust – deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years.

Yeah. Like that whole openness thing, how negotiations would be broadcast on C-SPAN. Did you forget that you campaigned on exactly what you said last night, or are you that arrogant that you think the American people are too stupid to remember?

To close that credibility gap we must take action on
both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.
That’s what I came to Washington to do. That’s why – for the first time in history – my Administration posts our White House visitors online. And that’s why we’ve excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.

Right, er I mean Wrong again. Well, I guess if you don’t count all those in your administration that you gave waivers to. That trust deficit you speak of is real, and where you are concerned, I think unrecoverable.

But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.

Cool, OK, here it is, H.R.3400.

And in true campaign style, the arrogance and disrespect that you showed the Supreme Court, really shows the level of respect you have for the Constitution that gives the Judiciary separate but equal status in our government. You obviously feel that you are above all that and it was embarrassing to see you lash out in that forum in that way. Reminds me of Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers.

Related links:

Economy, Energy, Politics, Race Relations, United Nations

aSide Order

A note on man-made, man-ajustable,  climate change.

UN scientist admits unverified data used for politics…
India, China won’t sign Copenhagen Accord…
Calls for UN climate chief to resign…
Scientists using ‘selective temperature data’…

‘Whites only’ basketball league announced

And in the ‘you gotta be kidding’ category, except that it doesn’t look like they are, some idiot thinks its a good idea to have a whites only basketball league.

According to the Chronicle, Lewis said he wants to emphasize “fundamental basketball” instead of “street ball” played by “people of color.”

“There’s nothing hatred about what we’re doing,” Lewis told the paper. “I don’t hate anyone of color.”

Lewis pointed out recent incidents in the NBA, including Gilbert Arenas’ suspension for bringing a gun into the Washington Wizards locker room, and said, “Would you want to go to the game and worry about a player flipping you off or attacking you in the stands or grabbing their crotch?”

The misguided premise here is that whites are better behaved than non-whites. Would cleaning up the NBA’s act kill the NBA, or make it better? Or, would wanting to clean up the NBA’s act be construed as some sort of bigoted or ‘racist’ motivation? Is it about the sport of basketball, or is it about franchises and money?

Excuse me, but where are my fries?

Fairness Doctrine, Media, Politics, Venezuela

Hugo Chavez Takes Cable Channel Off The Air

It is by design that Americans are guided and protected by a Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately for the people of Venezuela, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the hemisphere’s idiot, feels no such responsibility to freedom of speech in his country.

It is just a bit ironic that some in our country feel that freedom of speech is not as important as being  fair. In fact, some in the Executive branch feel that enemy combatants should have constitutional protections while denying constitutional protections of U.S. citizens when it comes to freedom of speech. They are cut from the same mold as Chavez.

Link: Hugo Chavez takes channel off air after it refuses to televise speech – Telegraph.

Florida, Judiciary, Politics, Race Relations, Supreme Court

Black Conservatives Condemn Grayson Remarks

Members of the Project 21 black leadership group are condemning remarks today by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) comparing today’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to the Dred Scott case.

The decision in Citizens United eases certain restrictions on the free speech of businesses, associations, organized labor and certain advocacy groups with regard to their participation in political campaigns.  In response, Grayson said: “This is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case.”

In the 1857 Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled that black Americans who were either slaves or the descendants of slaves could not be, and never had been, U.S. citizens.  The decision, formally known as Scott v. Sandford, also invalidated the 1820 Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in portions of U.S. territories in the west.

Project 21 members said:

Bishop Council Nedd II: “In Dred Scott, the Court equated people with property.  The Court’s decision today was about giving people a voice.  There is no correlation between the two.  Congressman Grayson needs to apologize.  His flippant and unenlightened statement offends me personally, and it disrespects generations of black people who suffered from slavery.” (Council Nedd II is the bishop of the Chesapeake and the Northeast for the Episcopal Missionary Church.)

Horace Cooper: “Where has Representative Alan Grayson been?  He compares today’s landmark decision – in which free speech trumps FEC restrictions – to the awful ruling that black people are nothing more than property.  He’s off base yet again.  It’s more than a little ironic that Democrats praised Dred Scott when it was handed down over a hundred years ago, yet now stand opposed to fundamental freedoms such as free speech today.”  (Horace Cooper is a former visiting assistant professor at the George Mason University School of Law.)

Ellis Washington: “As a black man, I am outraged that Representative Grayson would equate the bondage of slavery with today’s Court ruling extending freedom of speech to businesses and corporations in the political process, and having the courage to bring modern jurisprudence in line with the guarantees of the Constitution.  In other words, the Court held that money equals speech and radio shows, media entities and corporations equal people.  The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech for everyone!”  (Ellis Washington is a former editor of the Michigan Law Review.)

In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: “Our nation’s speech dynamic is changing, and informative voices should not have to circumvent onerous restrictions to exercise their First Amendment rights.  The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach.”

Project 21, established in 1992, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org).

2010 Election, Economy, Politics, Russia, Venezuela

The White House Compass Points To Centralize Control

After one year in The White House, and after the Massachusetts special election, the President applies to his party the only thing he knows to do to the country, centralize control.

Campaign setting, complete with props in the background.

It is becoming more obvious to the American people that there’s more to running a country, and fixing economic problems than campaigning on how bad things are and blaming Bush for it.

As Mr. Obama prepares to deliver his State of the Union address on Wednesday and lay out his initiatives for the second year of his presidency, his decision to take greater control of the party’s politics signals a new approach. The White House is searching for ways to respond to panic among Democrats over the possible demise of his health care bill and a political landscape being reshaped by a wave of populism.

Improving tactical operations addresses only part of his challenge. A more complicated discussion under way, advisers said, is how to sharpen the president’s message and leadership style.   {emphasis added}

It was a wave of populism that carried Obama into The White House. He has lost that advantage now. Now it is working against him and his agenda. No doubt his advisers have an undaunting task. How to make a community organizer appear presidential and as a leader at the same time? According to the New York Times . . .

The White House intends to send Mr. Obama out into the country considerably more in 2010 than during his first year in office, advisers said, to try to rekindle the relationship he developed with voters during his presidential campaign.

His first big chance will come when he delivers his State of the Union address. Rather than unveil a laundry list of new initiatives, advisers said, Mr. Obama will try to reframe his agenda and how he connects it with public concerns.

Instead of the campaign-style pep rally in Ohio last week, wouldn’t you rather have seen the President behind his desk in the oval office, telling Americans what his plan is to fix the economy and create jobs? And to justify why he needs a second stimulus package when, after one year, only 30% of the first package has been used while unemployment continues to rise?

Be aware of the community organizer’s tactic. When Obama speaks of the need for greater accountability, what he really means is greater government control. You don’t have to look very far to see how he has held sections of the private sector ‘accountable.’ It has been by taking them over. Could it be that a strong centralized government like that of Chavez or Putin is not really what Americans want?

What, or who, is missing in this picture?

related links:

Fairness Doctrine, Media, Pensacola, Politics

Progressive Radio Goes Belly-Up, Again

2 Comments
What's next? Making speech 'accountable?' The Fairness Doctrine?

It is with a touch of schadenfreude to deliver this news today. Air America Radio goes bankrupt, again.

Getting yet one more chance to learn the hard way how business economics works, for a lack of advertising support, they’ve just run out of ‘investors’ to keep them afloat.

There’s one thing about Liberals on a mission to compete with radio talkers on the Right. They refuse to learn from their mistakes. Watch for a new Liberal Progressive station, LP Radio for short, on a short wave frequency near you.

“The very difficult economic environment has had a significant impact on Air America’s business. This past year has seen a `perfect storm’ in the media industry generally,” the company said in a statement on its Web site.

The New York-based network said its “painstaking search for new investors” came close to succeeding even this week, “but ultimately fell short.”

Updated 1/24/2010

link: Air America Radio Closing, Filing for Bankruptcy | Pensacola News Journal story

Politics

Letter To President Obama

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.

Fairness Doctrine, Judiciary, Media, Organized Labor, Politics, Supreme Court

Why The Left Hates Freedom Of Speech

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: