In case you are scoring at home, we now have two Obama State of the Union addresses and two times the President has been openly called a liar during the speech. Last year by a Congressman regarding whether or not illegal immigrants would be included in health care and this year by Supreme Court Justice Alito, who reportedly mouthed the words "that's not true" and shook his head at this comment by the Prez.
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. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.
Really??? After the last election was bought and paid for (in your favor) by George Soros, we are all of a sudden concerned about foreign entities bankrolling elections? Sounds like closing the barn door after you've scooped up an election.
UPDATE: from Politifact.com
We found Obama was exaggerating the impact of the Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance when he said it would "open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign companies – to spend without limit in our elections." We rated that Barely True.
A lot of flowery rhetoric in the speech and little or no results to show for it. The good news is that least this year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was able to resist the urge to hurl her panties at the President.
And I was glad to not hear much if any about stimulus or jobs saved or created. Just about how much worse it would be if Obama weren't around to provide comedic relief. If we really needed a Comedian in Chief, my guess is Arsenio Hall might have been available. WTF!! We already have Stuart Smalley in the Sentate, which is proof positive that some of us just don't give a flying Wallenda anymore.
Somebody is clearly lying in DC. I just hope the ass-clowns don't bring down this country before we find out who. Interesting that right after the SCOTUS remark the Prez seemed to indicate that earmarks are now OK, as long as Congressman post them on their websites. WTF!!!
I thought part of the CHANGE was anti-earmark, pro campaign reform. Maybe he meant state of perpetual change. Hard to keep up with ALL these finger-pointing, no-results, no-change LIARS.
I heard someone (maybe Rick Santelli) recently propose that some Congressmen should have to testify for their roles in the economic process and possibly face jail terms for their malfeasance. Might be worth a try. Kudos to Rick, whose Tea Party rant I believe was the genesis of the Scott Brown election in Massachusetts. Maybe the times they are a' changing, just not soon enough.
Anyway, back to the issue that got the Supremes inserted into the speech.
Let's review, we pass a bill that is struck down by the Court as unconstitutional, so the solution is to send the same rascals back to the drawing board and try to figure out another way t circumvent the Constitution of the United States. SOUNDS REASONABLE.
At the heart of the issue is the courts recent ruling in Citizens United v. FEC that has ruled certain provisions of the incumbent-shielding McCain-Feingold (so-called) campaign reform law UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Apparently, the court sees this as more of a First Amendment free speech issue than a campaign reform issue and I agree.
These advocacy groups represent citizens--they are by definition an association of citizens--and in many ways they represent our interests better that our elected representatives.
Any day that the Supreme Court takes time to protect and expand the First Amendment free speech rights of Americans is a good day in AMerica.
Remember the judges / umpires analogy? The same play is viewed differently depending on what side of the field you are standing on.
from Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy regarding the ruling:
"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
------
from Newt Gingrich regarding the Supreme Court ruling:
Citizens United v. FEC is one more piece of evidence that the model of bureaucratic campaign finance reform – of government restricting the freedom of Americans to criticize politicians rather than maximizing our freedom to question our leadership – was wrong.---------
The Founders understood the importance of the unfettered right of citizens to complain about their government. They recognized the danger of politicians controlling or censoring the debate about themselves. That's why they wrote in the First Amendment to the Constitution that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."
These words and this right have been stunningly perverted by laws like McCain-Feingold, which was explicitly a case of Congress making a law abridging our freedom of speech – of incumbent politicians attempting to censor the people's discussion of whether they should remain in office.
It is interesting that while all this is swirling around Washington that the NFL, the Super Bowl and Tim Tebow will become a part of the issue.
Tim wants to tell both his and his mother's story.
from sportsillustrated.com
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/01/16/tebow.super.bowl.ap/index.html
Tebow will appear in Super Bowl commercial for Christian group
Tim Tebow will appear in a 30-second commercial during the Super Bowl
The ad is likely to be an anti-abortion message chronicling Tebow's birth
And some want to prevent him from having the right to tell it.
from foxnews.com
College football phenom Tim Tebow is about to become one of the biggest stars of Super Bowl XLIV — and he's not even playing in the game.
Tebow, the Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback for the University of Florida, and his mother Pam will appear in a pro-life commercial that tells the story of his risky birth 22 years ago -- an ad that critics suggest could lead to anti-abortion violence, even though none of them have seen it.
The 30-second spot, paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's turbulent pregnancy in 1987:
It's a happy story with an inspirational ending, but pro-choice critics say Focus on the Family should not be allowed to air the commercial because it advocates on behalf of a divisive issue and threatens to "throw women under the bus."
"This organization is extremely intolerant and divisive and pushing an un-American agenda," said Jehmu Greene, director of the Women's Media Center, which is coordinating a campaign to force CBS to pull the ad before it airs on Feb. 7.
"Abortion is very controversial, and the anti-abortion vitriol has resulted in escalated violence against reproductive health providers and their patients," Greene said. "We've seen that clearly with the murder of Dr. George Tiller," the late-term abortion provider who was gunned down in his Kansas church in May 2009.
Next month may mark the first time NOW has had to tackle a Heisman winner. The group typically tracks Super Bowl ads for signs of sexism, not for religious or political content.
I could see if the ad was in some way advocating violence against pro-choice forces, then maybe advocate to suppress it. But isn't it a bit of a stretch to imply that simply telling this story would lead to any violence?
Bad enough that abortion itself, especially how it is currently practiced, is not construed as a horrific act of violence, but I digress.
I fail to see how recounting this remarkable story of love, faith and courage would lead to violence. I guess I must be missing the linkage.
I come down on the side of free speech every time. Unless someone yells fire in a crowded theater. I just don't see that here.
No comments:
Post a Comment