Today, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the constitutionality of the restrictions that have been placed on corporate money in politics. The ruling may be one of the Court’s most critical decisions in an age which has seen one Presidential campaign accumulate almost a billion dollars in contributions. When the constitutionality of any far reaching federal law is opposed, it is a matter of national relevance, however, when a law affecting the foundation of the Democracy is challenged, such event should be arousing everyone’s notice and should be at the forefront of all news media outlets.
The case in front of the Supreme Court, Citizens v. Federal Election Commission, revolves around a documentary called “Hillary: The Movie,” produced by Citizens United. Based on Hillary Clinton, the film was banned for violating the McCain-Feingold bill which requires disclosure on funding sources, and stipulates that neither corporate or union treasuries can finance any “ad” pro or con just before a primary.
The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also known as the McCain-Feingold bill, was the last major piece of legislation passed to control the source of financing for Federal political campaigns. The bill eliminated soft money donations to the national party committees, and restricted the funding of political pronouncements, ads, etc., by corporations, or organizations such as unions and non-profit organizations.
The arguments and presentations beginning today in front of the Supreme Court, will address a question all voters should take a stand on. Are your rights to free speech the same as the rights of corporations or organizations? Corporations and organizations are not individuals, they do not have the inherent rights of the people, nor do they have the same privileges. They are vehicles created and used by society for diverse purposes. Voters should seek to minimize their further influence on the political process and on the political landscape.
You will hear and read arguments whining that the government is treating organizations big and small, unfairly by prohibiting election advocacy, and is in effect imposing censorship. Some suggest that such treatment of organizations provides them less protection in the eyes of the law than is provided to individuals. The suggestion that organizations should be equal to individuals under the law twists the interpretation of the Constitution beyond common sense, and ignores the fact that current laws provide organizations with rights and privileges not available to individuals. Let’s not let anyone convince us that organizations are “persons.” Read the rest of this entry »
It would be hard to imagine President Obama ever standing only a few feet from the North Korean border and warning its leaders that if they ever used nuclear weapons, “it would be the end of their country.”
Mr. Obama is not the threatening kind. He prefers “soft” power to win over his adversaries. In fact, after North Korea’s May 25 test of a bomb close in size to the one dropped on Hiroshima, he said the US would merely “work with our friends and allies to stand up to this behavior.”
What a contrast to the last Democratic president.
It was President Clinton who actually spoke those threatening “hard power” words – within earshot of North Korean soldiers – in 1993.
At the time, Pyongyang was revving up its nuclear-bomb program.
Mr. Clinton knew something back then that Obama is learning on the job: Tough talk against an enemy is sometimes needed simply to reassure America’s allies that the US will live up to its defense promises. Those commitments include its unique role to provide nuclear deterrence, or promised retaliation, if an ally is attacked.
By his actions and his words, Obama is sending worrisome signals to Japan and South Korea that they might be left alone in a confrontation with North Korea or even perhaps China.
While Skye, Scott and Word are doing a great job on blogging about the Spector CYA move I figured I would move onto a story not widely reported due to all the other news. That story would be Hillary Clinton comparing Margaret Sanger to Thomas Jefferson. No, not a apple to apple type comparison, but more of a I respect Sanger the same as I respect Jefferson….they both had flaws.
First…some background.
On March 27th of this year Hillary Clinton accepted a Planned Parenthood award called the Margaret Sanger Award. So named because Sanger is the founder of the group, originally called the American Birth Control League. She had this to say about it’s founder:
Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision … And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.
Now….for those who know Sanger’s history, the statement above should shock you. As it did to Nebraska congressman Jeff Fortenberry who said the following during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on April 22nd: Read the rest of this entry »
What with all the FA foo-fer-rah over the DVDs, Churchill bust, and other sundry battles raging over the past 24 hours, I caught something today that really make me laugh at the irony of it all. Me thinks that those advising the POTUS and his admin on what to “give” should maybe restrict themselves to something safe…
Latest case? Hillary’s Russian faux pas with the symbolic “reset” button… OMG…
It is time — to paraphrase President Obama — it’s time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working together with Russia.
As Mata wrote about here, Bill Richardson was jettisoned from the Obama camp because of another “pay to play” scheme. But there is another one coming down the pike and this one involves the Clintons. I know…big shocker!
Apparently in October of 2004 Hillary pushed through some bond legislation that allowed a developer named Robert Congel to use tax-exempt bonds to help construct an expansion of the Carousel Center in Syracuse called the Destiny USA entertainment and shopping complex.
The 21st Century Democratic Party is NOT at all the same party as that of FDR, JFK, or even Bill Clinton. No, it’s something else, and burdened with almost complete, unchecked political power, finally laden with responsibility and accountability, ripped away from its preferred victimized position of opposition for opposition’s sake…the party is starting to rip itself apart. The last time this kind of infighting happened (not without coincidence) was the last time the Democratic Party was run by the far left, controlled Congress, and the Presidency.
Democratic unity starts to show cracks
Democrats head into 2009 with sky-high expectations but points of intra-party friction are already starting to show a month before President-elect Obama’s inauguration, forecasting bigger fights next year. Veteran Democrats say the party has become more split along parochial interests since Democrats last controlled majorities as large as they will in the 111th Congress. They say the growth of their majorities in Congress, which has ushered in a new cadre of lawmakers from conservative-leaning states and those with new views on old policy problems, has only made the Democratic caucuses less governable. “Because the Democratic caucus is itself diverse, reflecting many different points of view, it will be a challenge for the leadership to keep that coalition of interests together on the priorities established,” said former Democratic Sen. Richard Bryan (Nev.). “That will be a big challenge.”
Ok, get your scorecards ready, and try to determine WHERE the Democratic Party, America’s Congressional leaders, America’s incoming President, and his administration stand on this issue.
Pres-elect Obama (long labeled as indecisive by his detractors) has not commented on Israel’s counterattacks against Hamas in Gaza. Before being elected he was both an advocate of peace and a supporter of Israel’s right to defend itself. The rocket attacks that preceded Israel’s counterattack have been going on since 2002, and talks have never prevented them.
Senator Clinton (D) (Obama’s pick for Secretary of State) backs Israel’s counterattacks and dismissed diplomatic talks with Hamas.
“negotiating with Hamas is unacceptable for the United States.”
Four and a half years prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom a major air strike was launched against Iraq.
President Bill Clinton on December 16, 1998:
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we’re acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
The air strikes lasted more than three days. While the Pentagon did not say how many cruise missiles were used, they did admit that more cruise missiles were used in the first two days of this campaign than the 290 that were fired at Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War. Read the rest of this entry »
In Obama news today comes his pick for the UN, which he now will make into a cabinet position because we all know just how important the United Nations is right?
President-elect Barack Obama has chosen his foreign policy adviser, Susan E. Rice, to be ambassador to the United Nations, picking an advocate of “dramatic action” against genocide as he rounds out his national security team, Democrats close to the transition said Sunday.
Mr. Obama intends to announce Ms. Rice’s selection at a news conference here Monday along with his previously reported decisions to nominate Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for secretary of state, keep Robert M. Gates as defense secretary and appoint Gen. James L. Jones, a retired Marine commandant, his national security adviser, the Democrats said. Read the rest of this entry »
Whether Hillary or some other yahoo is SecState matters not to me (seeing as how we are gonna get a terrible SecState either way) but the fact that Obama, a former lecturer on Constitutional Law, seems willing to ignore the Constitution is troubling, but not surprising in the least.
The section he will ignore wholesale in the appointment of Hillary is the Constitutional prohibition in the Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 6, clause 2):
No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.
In a nutshell this means Congress cannot take an appointment for which the pay has gone up during the time that person held office in Congress. The pay for the Secretary of State has gone up in the last year that which would prevent Hillary from getting appointed. Read the rest of this entry »
While on vacation… not only physically, but mentally, from politics in general… I have to admit this latest news of Hillary rumoured to accept a SOS position has me baffled. The expression, “oh to be a fly on the wall”, comes to mind. The burning question is why? What’s in it for Hillary and her future?
Why is it a smart cookie like Hillary would elect to “serve at the pleasure” of her former opponent, becoming an employee and envoy mouthpiece instead of a leader? The devil in the details must lie in the back room negotiations, of which only some we are privvy to via the media reports.
What we do know is that Hillary has played hardball in those negotiations, demanding ultimate authority in the choice of her State department underlings. This effectively results in a “purge”, dividing the Obama National Security administration appointees with the State Department along the Obama/Clinton party lines.
Man, it’s GOT to be disheartening to be an Obama supporter who believed CHANGE was more than a marketing theme. His foreign policies are the same as the Bush/Cheney policies. He and the Democrats’ Congress won’t have any money for their domestic program campaign promises. He can’t tax the top 5% of Americans and raise money by tripling the capital gains tax because of the investment crisis. Even the anti-war Democrats are upset. Now…progressive Democrats.
Obama Throws No Bones to Progressive Base
…
Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel Prize-winner in economics and a critic of corporate globalization. He should be Treasury Secretary. Senator Russ Feingold is a champion of civil liberties. He should be Attorney General. Robert Greenstein is head of Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He would make a much better OMB director. Arlene Holt Baker, executive vice president of the AFL-CIO, would be a tremendous Secretary of Labor. And if Obama really wanted change, if he really wanted to honor progressives who backed him early on and then did the grunt work against McCain, he’d nominate Dennis Kucinich as Secretary of State.
That sure would indicate a welcome departure from empire as usual.
But at this point, progressives are getting absolutely nothing from Obama.
The source also contradicted a report in Tuesday’s Washington Times that Steele and Gingrich were competing for the RNC post.
“There is no fight,” the source said. “This tension between Michael Steele and Newt Gingrich is totally fabricated and, in fact, Gingrich and Steele are working together to create a new strategy for the direction of the GOP.”
In a statement issued by the former House speaker, Gingrich said he was not interested in seeking the post of Republican party chairman.
“A number of people have asked me to consider running for Republican National Committee chair. They have been very flattering, and I am very honored by their support,” he said.
It’s time to bring in new blood. Republicans need a fresh makeover even as we speak of returning back to conservative traditionalism. As much as we decry that “race doesn’t matter”, the face of the Republican Party as seen by the American public is that of the stereotypical “white man’s club”. We need the Palins, the Jindals, to bring style with the substance. What the Democratic Party had in 2008 was a charismatic rock star; what we need is not only a “return” to conservative ideology, but also one wrapped in an attractive delivery system. Someone like Alfonso Rachel in the public eye could also do much to reshape the image of the Republican Party. He is someone who the MTV crowd can relate to on style and delivery.
I prefer Michael Steele as RNC Chair on the most superficial of reasons, as well as on the most substantial: He’s black.
The color of his skin shouldn’t matter. But because the country as a whole is still fixated on race….it matters. Let someone like Michael Steele deliver the post-racial conservative message that it’s the Republican Party that’s been living the message of MLK: That the color of one’s skin doesn’t matter; it’s the content of the character.
Michael Steele has character; and to those to whom it matters, he also has the “right” skin color to deliver the message.
October 31, 1998 – On This Day In History Bill Clinton Released The Following Statement
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.” This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:
The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.
The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
