"WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court returns on Wednesday to consider ending long-standing limits on corporate and union spending in political campaigns -- a move critics say could give big money more influence over U.S. elections."
Why in the world would the SCOTUS even entertain the thought of such a plan, much less consider hearing a case proposing the existing law be stricken from the books?
Could it be that in the rarefied air of Washington D.C. elitists, with their personal security being provided by the United States Marshals Service, and their $200,000+ jobs, "The Supremes" have lost contact with John Q. Public. Money and power are attracted to one another, and when they combine into a single entity they frequently create a third entity - a revised, all-consuming, monstrous, political behemoth which devours any who dare stand in its way.
At what point does that which is best for "We the People" get taken into consideration? Do we desire, or deserve, "the best government that money can buy", or do we demand that government consider the rights and needs of the people first, and those of corporations and unions after the fact?
Personally, I believe that corporations, unions, or any entity with more than 10 people involved should be limited by law to contributions totaling no more than $5,000 for any single campaign at any level of government (city, county, state - and, at the Federal level, the House and Senate. Relatively insignificant sums would not place our elected officials in the hip pocket of corporate America, the unions, or other big money entities. It would tend to keep them in the service of "We the People" - which is exactly where our Constitution says they must be.
I suppose there's a slight chance I could be wrong about how I see this. With the sinister left-wing direction our current government is taking, it appears that we don't care if the desires of the moneyed few take precedence over the needs and desires of "We the People".
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
RESTORING THE REPUBLIC - CAN WE RECOVER OUR COUNTRY? "TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION..."
I find the direction in which our country is being surreptitiously guided, while generally ignored by our citizens, to be absolutely incomprehensible! There is no acceptable explanation for subverting the Constitution, yet - on the whole - Americans are sitting on their hands as the United States of America is being converted into the Socialist States of America.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans have sacrificed their life all over the world so that others may be free. Yet when our own freedoms are threatened, we sit idly by. The word you're probably looking for right now is either "incredulity" or "apathy". For many of us, the thought of the USA possibly becoming anything other than a Democratic Republic is absolutely "incredulous" - totally outside the realm of believability. Since we don't believe it could happen, we adopt an attitude of "apathy" toward the possibility even when an exercise in "connect the dots" tells us it IS happening - right here, right now.
What are these "dots" that we should be connecting?
Dot #1. A few short years ago Anthony (Van) Jones was a Bay Area radical agitator - a committed Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, waging war on the police and capitalist system. Van Jones' meteoric rise was assisted by many different liberal-left foundations, including the Open Society Institute of George Soros, which helped finance his "Green for All" organization. Today Van Jones holds a key position in the US government and has the ear of President Barack Obama as the Green Jobs Czar. (A non-elected, non-vetted political appointment.)
Dot #2. Mark Lloyd, a left-wing radical who supports stifling our rights of free speech one small step at a time, has been appointed as the Communications "Diversity" Czar. Besides just wanting to "backdoor" a newer, more strict version of the "Fairness Doctrine" (which was abandoned by the FCC about 25 years ago as "unconstitutional), Lloyd thinks we should "model our governance after Hugo Chavez" president/dictator of Venezuela. Chavez has forced the closure of all media opposed to his administration, effectively nationalizing Venezuelan television, radio and the press! How would Lloyd accomplish this destruction of the First Amendment? By taxing privately owned broadcast media stations at the rate of 100% of their annual operating costs, and then institute a fine, if the station is not meeting his definition of "diversity"! And how are the revenues from those fines used? They are given to PBS to support their radical left-wing agenda! Lloyd also espouses a "revolution in America". Apparently he has never heard that one should, "be careful of what you wish for - you may get it." And he may discover that the revolution he gets is not the revolution he desired.
Dot #3. Cass Sunstein, a radical left-wing Harvard Law professor, appointed to the position of head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is the next nail in the coffin of the First Amendment. Below are a collection of quotes attributed to Cass Sunstein. It is believed that these quotes are accurate:
On The First Amendment -
“Consider the view that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns. The view is respectable, but it may be wrong, and prominent specialists reject it on various grounds. The National Association of Broadcasters and others with similar economic interests typically use the First Amendment in precisely the same way the National Rifle Association uses the Second Amendment. We should think of the two camps as jurisprudential twins.” (The most recent "prominent specialists" to support the Second Amendment was the 9th Circuit Court and the Supreme Court of The United States.)
“In what sense in the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?… Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …” (The singular answer to all the questions asked is a resounding "YES!")
This idiot's list, which looks like something taken directly from Mao-Tse Tung's "Little Red Book", goes on and on. Sunstein stands firmly against anything remotely resembling our Constitution and the Democratic Republic to which it gave birth! He emphasizes the "democratic" part, but fails to even recognize the republic aspect of our system of government, and that is what differentiates it from a strictly democratic form of government.
Dot #4. Obama has called for "a civilian army, equal in number and strength to that of our military". Excuse me?? Why do we need a "civilian army" when we have a standing military, and against whom are these civilians supposed to "defend" us? Or, are they not supposed to defend the citizens of our nation... just the administration? Perhaps Obama feels the need for this "civilian army" because all our military personnel have taken an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...". It is the principles set forth in that document - above all else - that they have sworn to defend. Nowhere in the Constitution is the protection or defense of the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of the government mentioned. The Constitution IS the establishment of the rules of governance of the free people of the United States.
This is just a sampling of the undermining of our nation by our own government. More than 90% of the so-called "Czars" (interesting choice of labels for somebody working within our government), are far-left radicals appointed by Obama to assist him in his elimination of the United States of America. In the immortal words of Pogo Possum, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
The Democratic Republic of the United States of America can be rightfully restored. The accepted means would be by way of Congressional impeachment proceedings against Barack Obama. If Obama is replaced, then all his Czars would have to go, along with any other appointments he may have made. Our country is not safe so long as avowed Communist/Marxist/Socialist left-wing radicals are in unelected power positions within our own government!
"How could they impeach Obama?", you may be wondering. If intentional violation of the Constitution, mismanagement of national resources, and gross fiscal irresponsibility don't qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors", then I have no idea what might. Realistically however, with a lopsided Congress being controlled by the Democrats, the chances of impeachment proceedings being initiated are probably somewhere on the negative side of ZERO... unless there is an uproar from the public sector that Congress simply cannot ignore! You can be heard, but only if you speak loud and clear, in unison with a chorus of hundreds or thousands of voices. The question is... "Who will organize and lead that 'chorus'?" Will it be you... or will you wait for "George" to do it... and George doesn't?
May God save us from our own apathetic ignorance.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans have sacrificed their life all over the world so that others may be free. Yet when our own freedoms are threatened, we sit idly by. The word you're probably looking for right now is either "incredulity" or "apathy". For many of us, the thought of the USA possibly becoming anything other than a Democratic Republic is absolutely "incredulous" - totally outside the realm of believability. Since we don't believe it could happen, we adopt an attitude of "apathy" toward the possibility even when an exercise in "connect the dots" tells us it IS happening - right here, right now.
What are these "dots" that we should be connecting?
Dot #1. A few short years ago Anthony (Van) Jones was a Bay Area radical agitator - a committed Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, waging war on the police and capitalist system. Van Jones' meteoric rise was assisted by many different liberal-left foundations, including the Open Society Institute of George Soros, which helped finance his "Green for All" organization. Today Van Jones holds a key position in the US government and has the ear of President Barack Obama as the Green Jobs Czar. (A non-elected, non-vetted political appointment.)
Dot #2. Mark Lloyd, a left-wing radical who supports stifling our rights of free speech one small step at a time, has been appointed as the Communications "Diversity" Czar. Besides just wanting to "backdoor" a newer, more strict version of the "Fairness Doctrine" (which was abandoned by the FCC about 25 years ago as "unconstitutional), Lloyd thinks we should "model our governance after Hugo Chavez" president/dictator of Venezuela. Chavez has forced the closure of all media opposed to his administration, effectively nationalizing Venezuelan television, radio and the press! How would Lloyd accomplish this destruction of the First Amendment? By taxing privately owned broadcast media stations at the rate of 100% of their annual operating costs, and then institute a fine, if the station is not meeting his definition of "diversity"! And how are the revenues from those fines used? They are given to PBS to support their radical left-wing agenda! Lloyd also espouses a "revolution in America". Apparently he has never heard that one should, "be careful of what you wish for - you may get it." And he may discover that the revolution he gets is not the revolution he desired.
Dot #3. Cass Sunstein, a radical left-wing Harvard Law professor, appointed to the position of head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is the next nail in the coffin of the First Amendment. Below are a collection of quotes attributed to Cass Sunstein. It is believed that these quotes are accurate:
On The First Amendment -
“Consider the view that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns. The view is respectable, but it may be wrong, and prominent specialists reject it on various grounds. The National Association of Broadcasters and others with similar economic interests typically use the First Amendment in precisely the same way the National Rifle Association uses the Second Amendment. We should think of the two camps as jurisprudential twins.” (The most recent "prominent specialists" to support the Second Amendment was the 9th Circuit Court and the Supreme Court of The United States.)
Hunting & Animal Rights
“We ought to ban hunting. [Humans’] willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen … as a form of unconscionable barbarity… morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings.”
Free Speech - “A legislative effort to regulate broadcasting in the interest of democratic principles should not be seen as an abridgment of the free speech guarantee.”
“I have argued in favor of a reformulation of First Amendment law. The overriding goal of the reformulation is to reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.”
“Consider the “fairness doctrine,” now largely abandoned but once requiring radio and television broadcasters:
…[I]n light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals. It is past time for a large-scale reassessment of the appropriate role of the First Amendment in the democratic process.”
“In what sense in the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?… Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …” (The singular answer to all the questions asked is a resounding "YES!")
This idiot's list, which looks like something taken directly from Mao-Tse Tung's "Little Red Book", goes on and on. Sunstein stands firmly against anything remotely resembling our Constitution and the Democratic Republic to which it gave birth! He emphasizes the "democratic" part, but fails to even recognize the republic aspect of our system of government, and that is what differentiates it from a strictly democratic form of government.
Dot #4. Obama has called for "a civilian army, equal in number and strength to that of our military". Excuse me?? Why do we need a "civilian army" when we have a standing military, and against whom are these civilians supposed to "defend" us? Or, are they not supposed to defend the citizens of our nation... just the administration? Perhaps Obama feels the need for this "civilian army" because all our military personnel have taken an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...". It is the principles set forth in that document - above all else - that they have sworn to defend. Nowhere in the Constitution is the protection or defense of the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of the government mentioned. The Constitution IS the establishment of the rules of governance of the free people of the United States.
This is just a sampling of the undermining of our nation by our own government. More than 90% of the so-called "Czars" (interesting choice of labels for somebody working within our government), are far-left radicals appointed by Obama to assist him in his elimination of the United States of America. In the immortal words of Pogo Possum, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
The Democratic Republic of the United States of America can be rightfully restored. The accepted means would be by way of Congressional impeachment proceedings against Barack Obama. If Obama is replaced, then all his Czars would have to go, along with any other appointments he may have made. Our country is not safe so long as avowed Communist/Marxist/Socialist left-wing radicals are in unelected power positions within our own government!
"How could they impeach Obama?", you may be wondering. If intentional violation of the Constitution, mismanagement of national resources, and gross fiscal irresponsibility don't qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors", then I have no idea what might. Realistically however, with a lopsided Congress being controlled by the Democrats, the chances of impeachment proceedings being initiated are probably somewhere on the negative side of ZERO... unless there is an uproar from the public sector that Congress simply cannot ignore! You can be heard, but only if you speak loud and clear, in unison with a chorus of hundreds or thousands of voices. The question is... "Who will organize and lead that 'chorus'?" Will it be you... or will you wait for "George" to do it... and George doesn't?
May God save us from our own apathetic ignorance.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Why Does Obama Continue to Dodge The Issue of The "Natural Born Citizen" Clause?
Here's one of the multitude of things I don't seem to understand... why is there such a fuss over the possibility that Barack Hussein Obama may not even have been qualified to run for the office of President, much less occupy that office?
The question has been asked many times: "Where is the official, legally acceptable record of live birth for Barack Obama?" The courts have been petitioned by at least a dozen different entities seeking an answer to that question, and each request has been stonewalled. If Obama is, in fact, a natural born citizen of the United States of America, all that he would have to do is provide that document - a document which we, as private citizens, must produce in order to just get a passport (and in some states even to get a drivers license) -and that would end the discussions. Yet, he has not done so, which reinforces the doubt of the legitimacy of his claim to the Office of President. Just break out the papers, Barack! Or would that be detrimental to your success?
Those doubts naturally bring up more questions, such as:
1. Does his administration have the best interests of our country at heart?
2. Was his campaign backed by some shadowy foreign - or not so foreign (a la George Soros) - entity?
3. Inasmuch as he was raised by a single mother, and a financially struggling grandmother, yet graduated from some very prestigious institutes of higher learning, is it possible that he was being finacially supported and groomed for this usurpation of power by his Islamic roommate bretheren?
4. Is he intentionally undermining our Constitution to benefit a foreign power? Is he ignorant of the impact of his actions upon the rights of the citizenry, or does he just simply not care?
Those are the main issues surrounding his Presidential legitimacy, as I see them.
The question has been asked many times: "Where is the official, legally acceptable record of live birth for Barack Obama?" The courts have been petitioned by at least a dozen different entities seeking an answer to that question, and each request has been stonewalled. If Obama is, in fact, a natural born citizen of the United States of America, all that he would have to do is provide that document - a document which we, as private citizens, must produce in order to just get a passport (and in some states even to get a drivers license) -and that would end the discussions. Yet, he has not done so, which reinforces the doubt of the legitimacy of his claim to the Office of President. Just break out the papers, Barack! Or would that be detrimental to your success?
Those doubts naturally bring up more questions, such as:
1. Does his administration have the best interests of our country at heart?
2. Was his campaign backed by some shadowy foreign - or not so foreign (a la George Soros) - entity?
3. Inasmuch as he was raised by a single mother, and a financially struggling grandmother, yet graduated from some very prestigious institutes of higher learning, is it possible that he was being finacially supported and groomed for this usurpation of power by his Islamic roommate bretheren?
4. Is he intentionally undermining our Constitution to benefit a foreign power? Is he ignorant of the impact of his actions upon the rights of the citizenry, or does he just simply not care?
Those are the main issues surrounding his Presidential legitimacy, as I see them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)