Free Speech NOW in Jeopardy “DISCLOSE Act of 2010”


Time to CLEAN OUT BOTH HOUSES

Congress & the Senate Want to Limit Free Speech

Free speech opponents in Congress found a way to squeeze a bill through the House of Representatives that will stifle 1st Amendment rights for the four months prior to an election.

The deceptively-named DISCLOSE Act of 2010 should more accurately be called the Incumbency Protection Act, because protecting their jobs is precisely what the liberals in the House are trying to do.

The bill reverses the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Citizen’s United vs. FEC that upheld the right of corporations to spend on political advertising in candidate elections. The 5-4 decision prompted President Barack Obama to classlessly chide the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address; an event unprecedented in its hubris.

What the DISCLOSE Act, passed late yesterday, will do is force any corporation that runs political advertising to name its top five contributors in the ad and make a complete list available upon request. It will also drown the corporation in red tape in order to comply with the vagaries of the bill.

At first glance one might think banning corporations from political advertising would be a good thing. But think again.

Corporations in this sense mean not large companies—say General Electric or Goldman Sachs—but special interest groups that advocate for their members like the National Rifle Association (NRA), AARP and Chamber of Commerce. And what’s worse, if you and a group of your friends wanted to ban together, pool your money and run adds opposing your local Congressman or State Senator, you would not be able to do that.

Not surprisingly, the bill does not affect the way unions spend. In fact The Hill recently reported that two unions will spend close to $100 million to re-elect the present majority in Congress.

So what Congress wants to do is let unions spend willy-nilly the money from dues that its members are FORCED to pay, and spend it on causes or candidates that members themselves may or may not agree with. But organizations in which people voluntarily make contributions because they support its cause or agenda are unable to advertise on their members’ behalf.

And liberals in Congress think that’s fair.

The 1st Amendment was written not to protect the speech that everyone wants to hear. It’s there to protect the speech that people don’t want to hear. For the fascists in Congress, at election time that’s just intolerable.

Bob Livingston, Freedom Watch

BP, White House, Congress Are All Dirty


Larry Kudlow
Posted 06/21/2010 06:13 PM ET

Amidst all the political jockeying over the BP catastrophe, the main players are missing what is really uppermost on America’s mind: It’s the spill rate, stupid. It’s jobs, stupid. It’s the economy, stupid. And none of it is happening.

All eyes in Washington, Wall Street, and Main Street were turned this week to the congressional show trial featuring beleaguered BP CEO Tony Hayward.

Hayward was a disaster. He played dumb. He stonewalled. And he never got honest about the colossal failure of human judgment at BP that caused this catastrophe.

But folks, seriously, what did you expect? Before this thing is said and done, Hayward and others at BP may very well be criminally indicted by the Justice Department.

Hayward could eventually do hard time for all I know. So, of course, he stonewalled. Thank Eric Holder.

Failed Leadership

What Hayward should at least have done is talk about the progress being made in capping the spill rate, which is gradually going down.

To most Americans, and especially those in the Gulf, it’s the spill rate of capture that matters most.

Hayward also should have talked about the new BP relief well, which could be up and running in less than a month, to end this disaster.

That would be great news for America, and her economy and stock market. Plus, he could have mentioned that BP is hiring thousands of workers to fill new jobs in the cleanup effort.

But Hayward was lawyered to the gills, which doesn’t make anyone happy, including me. And that’s precisely why these congressional show trials leave me bored, tired and depressed.

And oh, by the way, what’s the role of Congress in this catastrophe? What exactly is it doing besides presiding over show trials?

Doesn’t it have oversight authority when it comes to the Minerals Management Service that utterly failed to regulate the safety of BP’s deep-water drilling operations?

Why aren’t more people talking about this? And why in the world hasn’t Congress suspended the Jones Act, thereby allowing foreign-flag tankers into the Gulf area? What is it waiting for?

We’re basically two months into this never-ending disaster. The Gulf cleanup could have been greatly aided by at least 15 foreign countries that were instead spurned after offering their tankers and other equipment.

Why aren’t we accepting these offers of help?

And where, really, is the president in all this? Speaking to the nation from the Oval Office earlier in the week, he failed to declare a Jones Act waiver, and he made no call for a task force of hands-on oilmen from the likes of Exxon Mobil and other big oil sisters who actually know what they are doing.

more at link below
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=537965&p=2

BORN IN THE USA? NOT!


Elections official hits TV to affirm no Hawaii birthTells network affiliate hospital certificate non-existent, cites racism for controversy

In direct contradiction of the White House storyline, the former Honolulu elections official who caused a national stir this month when he told WND Barack Obama was “definitely” not born in Hawaii, and that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate even exists for the president in the Aloha State is now reaffirming those claims to a network television affiliate.

Tim Adams, the former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu was interviewed by Gene Birk of ABC affiliate WBKO-TV in Bowling Green, Ky.

See the video….. You will see that it has been sanitized along with carefuly asked questions & carefull answers

BP Spill Reveals Obama as an Incompetent Executive


Well at least someone has the guts to says it!

By: Dick Morris

Contrary to what the Constitution says, the president does not run the executive branch of the federal government. It runs itself.

Following Newton’s Laws of Motion, it is “a body in motion that tends to remain in motion in the same direction and at the same speed unless acted upon by an outside force.” The bureaucracy keeps doing what it is programmed to do unless someone intervenes.

And that intervention is the proper job of the president. He has to step in, ask the right questions, get inside and outside advice, and decide how to intervene to move the bureaucracy one way or the other.

President Clinton had an excellent sense of how to do this and when to get involved. President Obama does not.

When the spill started, he and his campaign staff — now transplanted to the White House — reacted the way a senator or a candidate would, blaming British Petroleum, framing an issue against the oil company, and holding it accountable. But what he needed to do was to review the plans for coping with the disaster and intervene to move the bureaucracy in untraditional but more appropriate directions.

Instead, he let business as usual and inertia move the process.

The president’s tardy requests for international assistance and his government’s bureaucratic response to their offers demonstrates his lack of command and control.

The Washington Post reports that the Obama administration initially “saw no need to accept offers of state-of-the-art skimmers, miles of boom or technical assistance from nations around the globe with experience fighting oil spills.” Arrogantly, State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told reporters on May 19, “we’ll let BP decide what expertise they do need.”

Two weeks after the spill started, the State Department and the Coast Guard sought to figure out what aid they could use from abroad. On May 5, the department reported that 13 international offers of aid had been tendered and the government would decide which to accept “in the next two days.”

Two weeks later, it said that it did not need any of them.

Now, when it is too late, the U.S. has finally accepted Canada’s offer of 10,000 feet of boom. In late May it took 14,000 feet from Mexico, two skimmers from Mexico, and skimming systems from Norway and the Netherlands. Too little too late.

Why didn’t the administration act sooner?

Bureaucratic obstacles stopped it and the president was not involved or active enough to sweep them aside.

Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Christopher T. O’Neil said that “all qualifying offers of assistance have been accepted.” But this bureaucratic-speak did not mention that the Jones Act — an isolationist law passed in the 1920s that requires vessels working in American waters to be built and crewed by Americans — disqualified many of the offers of assistance. But Obama could have waived the Jones Act whenever he wanted to.

A Norwegian offer of a chemical dispersant was rejected by the EPA — more bureaucracy.

When Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal sought to create sand berms to keep oil away from the coastline, the Washington Post reported that he reached out to “the marine contractor Van Oord and the research institute Deltares . . . BP pledged $360 million for the plan, but U.S. dredging companies, which have less than one-fifth the capacity of Dutch dredging firms, objected to foreign companies’ participation.”

An activist, involved chief executive would have swept aside these impediments and demanded immediate action. He would have ridden roughshod over bureaucratic and political objections and gotten the cleanup underway.

But this president is no executive. He is a legislator — he is now pushing new environmental legislation. He is a lawyer — his attorney general is investigating criminal charges against BP. He is a populist — he is quick to blame BP. He is a big spender — he wants a fund to pay the spill’s victims.

He is all of these things. But he is no chief executive and that, unfortunately, is the job he was elected to do.

© Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Obama Administration Wants Govt Control of Media


by: Dick Morris

Jon Leibowitz, the chairman of Obama’s Federal Trade Commission, is at the epicenter of a quiet movement to subsidize news organizations, a first step toward government control of the media.

In our book, “2010: Take Back America — a Battle Plan,” we reported that he had commissioned a study to examine plans for a federal subsidy for news organizations. Among the measures under consideration are special tax treatment, exemption from antitrust laws and changes in copyright laws.

Now Leibowitz has begun to pounce. A May 24 working paper on “reinventing” the media proposes that the government impose fees on websites such as the Drudge Report that link to news websites or that it tax consumer electronics such as iPads, laptops, and Kindles. Funds raised by these levies would be redistributed to traditional media outlets.

While Leibowitz distanced himself from the proposals for the taxes, calling them “a terrible idea,” his comments appear to be related only to the levies proposed in the working paper. Nobody is commenting on the other part of his proposal — a subsidy for news organizations.

By now, the Obama MO should be clear to all. As he has done with the banks, AIG, and the car companies, he extends his left hand offering subsidies and then proffers his right laden with regulations.

Should the government follow through on Leibowitz’s ideas and enact special subsidies and tax breaks for news organizations, it will induce a degree of journalistic dependence on the whims of government not seen since the days when the early presidents bestowed government advertising on favored periodicals.

Is it too difficult to imagine that the Democrats might pass laws favoring news organizations, only to question — as former White House communications director Anita Dunn did — whether or not Fox News is a news organization or an “arm of the Republican Party?”

We can see a future in which news media are reluctant to be too partisan or opinionated for fear that they would endanger their public subsidy.

Once such a subsidy is extended to news organizations, every company in the business must have it. Otherwise, the competitive advantage for the subsidized companies would prove too steep an obstacle to overcome.

In all the attention that has been given to the idea of an Internet tax on news aggregation sites and on tech equipment — trial balloons that would obviously be shot down — very little attention has been focused on the expenditure side of the proposal — the subsidy of news organizations.

But The Wall Street Journal reported six months ago that Leibowitz had commissioned a study to determine “whether the government should aid struggling news organizations which are suffering from a collapse in advertising revenues as the Internet upends their centuries-old business model.”

Among the steps under consideration are changing “the way the industry is regulated, from making news-gathering companies exempt from antitrust laws to granting them special tax treatment to making changes to copyright laws.”

These are exactly the kind of subsidies that could and would trigger government oversight and control.

Look at how radio stations squirm when their licenses are up for renewal before the FCC. We can imagine news organizations pulling their punches in order not to antagonize the hand that feeds them.

The Leibowitz study, and the subsidy proposals that are likely to emerge from it, represent a chilling threat to the First Amendment and to our civil liberties.

© Dick Morris & Eileen McGann