Democrats Respond: The Supreme Court? Pfft, Forget About Them

As a rule, Democrats tend to ignore the U.S. Constitution when some piddling provison or another is out of synch with their ideology.
The Second Amendment immediately comes to mind.
They would love to see the Supreme Court revoke it.
However, now that the Supreme Court has issued a ruling overturning limits on campaign spending as un-Constitutional, they are having a hissy fit.

Democrats are exploring ways to counter a Supreme Court ruling that threw out a century of limits on corporate political spending, hoping it will hand them a populist issue to stem a Republican tide rising on public anger.

President Barack Obama devoted his weekly address to the decision, calling it a victory for “special interests and their lobbyists.” He cited “one of the great Republican presidents, Teddy Roosevelt,” who “warned of the impact of unbridled, corporate spending” on elections.

Possible legislation includes requiring corporations to obtain shareholder approval before funding political advertisements and blocking companies from deducting election spending as a business expense on their taxes.

Another proposal, borrowed from existing rules for political candidates, is requiring “the CEO of the corporation to make a declaration at the end of an ad saying, ‘I’m the CEO of X Corp. and I approved this ad,’ ” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), who heads the House Democrats’ campaign committee.

On Thursday, justices split 5-4 along their ideological divide to grant corporations and unions the right to make unlimited expenditures promoting or attacking candidates.

Democrats had anticipated the Supreme Court’s decision for months, and quickly rolled out both political rhetoric and legislative proposals.

Friday, White House Special Counsel Norman Eisen met to discuss options with aides to Mr. Van Hollen and Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), as well as Justice Department staff and Fred Wertheimer, a longtime activist on campaign-finance issues, officials said.

Mr. Van Hollen said Democrats also are weighing an effort to bar companies that received federal bailouts and big government contractors from electioneering, similar to rules affecting federal employees.

Read the rest of this entry

Supreme Court Hands Obama Another Defeat

As if the victory of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate special election wasn’t bad enough mews for the Obama administration, now the United States Supreme Court has just handed down some more bad news for the President.
Corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a landmark decision that allows massive sums to be spent to influence future elections.

The 5-4 ruling split the high court along conservative and liberal lines. It was a defeat for the Obama administration and supporters of campaign finance laws who said that ending the limits would unleash a flood of corporate money into the political system.

The ruling will transform the political landscape and the rules on how money can be spent in this year’s congressional election and the 2012 presidential contest.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the limits violated constitutional free-speech rights.

“We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers,” he wrote.

In his sharply worded dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.”

The justices overturned Supreme Court precedents from 2003 and 1990 that upheld federal and state limits on independent expenditures by corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates.

Continue reading

The Separation Of Church and State For Dummies

Once again, it’s that time of year when liberals raise a ruckus over any type of Christmas display in or around a taxpayer-funded building, such as a courthouse or a public school, claiming such a display violates the Constitutional provision regarding the separation of church and state.

It’s ironic how liberals only cite the Constitution when they feel that they can use it to promote their anti-Christian agenda.

And in the spirit of the season of Good Will Towards Men, we feel it is our duty to clear things up for them so that they stop making fools of themselves.

Let’s start at the beginning. The First Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:

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.

Now to most rational people that seems pretty straightforward.

No law respecting any establishment of religion is a reference to the fact that many of the earliest settlers of this continent came here to escape the religious persecution that was commonplace in most of Europe.
This oppression was the result of the Church of England, the Anglican Church, becoming the official government church, and non-conformists were not looked upon kindly.

…or prohibiting the free exercise therof…

How blinded by ideology does someone have to be to try and twist the fact that the First Amendment clearly states that the government will make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religious beliefs?

Or to totally ignore the fact that the phrase “separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the Constitution?

The correct wording, wall of separation between church and state, is taken from a letter President Thomas Jefferson wrote in reply to a message form the Danbury Baptist Association, which at the time was a religious minority in Connecticut.

The leaders of the congregation sent the following to Jefferson:

“Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.”

However, they ended the letter with the fact that they were apprehensive about the principles behind the First Amendment guarantee for “the free exercise of religion.”

“Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.”

Their concern was that, according to the way that they read the wording of the Constitution, the right of religious expression was government given, rather than God given, and that a time might come when the government might someday attempt to limit religious expression.

Sound familar?

Seeking to address those concerns, here was Jefferson’s reply:

“Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.”

Jefferson’s use of the words “natural rights” affirmed his belief that religious rights were inalienable rights.

To sum up, the Constitution clearly states that Congress will not establish a religion, or hinder someone’s religious beliefs.

Why is this so hard for liberals to understand?

A manger scene in the town square is no more a violation of the Constitution, or of the government establishing a religion,  than is a Menorah on a courthouse lawn, or a Kinara placed in the halls of Congress.

And if that were the case, didn’t White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel violate the Constitution and step over the wall of separation between church and state when he lit the National Menorah on Sunday?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Organizing For America Promotes Fascism

Members of Organizing for America, or as we call them, Obama’s Army, are dedicated to spreading the President’s message.

But only if it’s the President’s message.

If you don’t agree with that message, they don’t want to hear from you.

And they are willing to violate your Constitutional rights if that is what it takes to keep you quiet:

“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.”

What are the members of Obama’s Army so afraid of?

Are they worried about people discovering that they don’t have the slightest idea of the details of the President’s health care reform bill?

We have pointed that out in previous articles.

Are they afraid that someone may ask them specifics as to how the President is going to pay for this?

Perhaps that is why, at an Organizing For America rally supporting health care, they pulled off the following underhanded maneuver:

I would like one of you members of the Kool-Aid Brigade to explain to me how you can justify banning American citizens from a public park?

Not a private, closed door meeting, but a taxpayer-supported public area that, by law, should be accessible to any law-abiding individual.

Of course, some of the Organizing For America zealots interviewed in the video provided their own answers to that question.

And the truly frightening thing is that one of these members of OFA spelled it out, but was either too stupid or was too blinded by ideology to realize it.

As is the case with select members of Congress, who would no doubt support your efforts.

The ones who label Tea Party protestors as Nazis, racists, and whatever other vile term they can come up with

So for all of you members of Obama’s Army who are completely clueless, (99.9% of you), as well as such legislators as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, etc., allow us to spell it out for you.

There is a word for when you try to control the media.

A word that applies when you try to restrict the free-flow of speech, and public access to public areas.

A word for when the only message you want people to hear is your message.

That word is Fascism.

Mark Lloyd, Racism, Localism And The Fairness Doctrine

Yesterday we did a report on the apparently racist remarks of President Obama’s latest Czar appointment, FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd.

Among the chilling remarks made by Mr. Lloyd (along with those showing his respect and admiration for Hugo Chavez) is the following:

“We’re in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so that someone else can have power.”

Lloyd is referring to the fact that in his (and probably Obama’s) opinion, the administration is in a position to dictate more minority ownership/control over media outlets.

Which of course is un-Constitutional.

And before all of you members of the Kool-Aid Brigade scream that it is within Lloyd and Obama’s power to do this, because the FCC is a government agency, let me explain something to you.

The FCC grants a license to a media outlet, be it a television or radio station, based upon certain criteria and legalities.

As long as the brodcaster stays within those guidlines, the federal government cannot even impose a fine upon the station, let alone remove it’s ownership.

Liberals as a whole froth at the mouth like a pack of rabid dogs whenever it is pointed out that talk radio is dominated by conservative points of view.

Being socialists, they have no respect for the fact that a free-market economy is the reason behind the popularity of shows hosted by such conservative icons as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.

The cannot face the simple fact that there are not as many liberal points of view on the airwaves is because, when it comes to liberal talk radio, no one listens!

The multiple bankruptcy filings of Air America are proof of that, despite backing by George Soros and MoveOn.

And liberal Democrat’s hopes of re-instating the so-called Fairness Doctrine have met with such opposition that they haven’t mentioned it in quite some time.

Although there is no vetting process for Obama’s Czars, you can bet that there would be a vetting process for any minority who would be given an FCC license.
And having a politically left-leaning point of view would be the top priority.

Taking yet another page straight out of the Saul Alinsky handbook, the one that tells his followers to “strike hard from an unexpected direction”, the Obama administration will use this ploy to begin it’s war against conservative talk radio.

There is no doubt in my mind that the administration will use the precepts of “Localism” as an excuse to force radio station owners to step down, and to replace them with people more sympathetic to liberal viewpoints.

By this method, the FCC can decide what you need to hear, based on your interests in your town on your local talk radio station.

Therfore, if a radio station in a market with an overwhelming number of registered Democrats (liberals) is airing a conservative talk show, the FCC can revoke or fail to renew that station’s license.
Naturally they then grant that license to new ownership.

Out with Rush Limbaugh.
In with Randi Rhodes.

This free speech stifling government scheme would not totally silence conservative talk radio.

However, it would greatly reduce their listenership, which is what Mark Lloyd and his fellow liberal socialists really want.

As usual. the FCC, Barack Obama, Mark Lloyd and liberals in general are trying not to be troubled by such concepts as free speech, the First Amendment, or other bothersome concepts.
Not to mention the blatant racism they will use as a tactic to try and pull off  their scheme.

They have also closed their minds to one other factor.
The basic tenets of a free-market economy.

Radio talk shows like Limbaugh’s are popular because millions of people listen.
Consequently, dozens of advertisers spend millions of dollars to promote their products on these shows.

Liberal talk radio however, doesn’t attract much of an audience, even in markets where there is no conservative alternative.
Liberal talk radio doesn’t generate advertising revenue because not many people tune in.
No listeners, no advertisers.
No advertisers, no money to pay the staff.

If you doubt this scenario, study the history of Air America, as I mentioned earlier.

It’s almost tragic that Lloyd, Obama, and all of their liberal friends can’t face the reality of one simple fact.

You and the FCC can force broadcasters to air liberal talk radio.

But you can’t force the citizens of America to listen.

Is Obama’s Diversity Czar A Racist?

Today we will showcase someone who adds a new chapter to all of the stories of racism in America.
Bear with us as we do a slight introduction.

Members of Congress, the mainstream media, and even former Presidents have been making the (unfounded) claim that people attending Tea Party protests, town hall meetings, etc., are nothing more than racists.

The fact is that this claim is made towards anyone who oposses the President’s policies, even though any rational person can see that it has no basis whatsoever in reality.

Anyone, of any skin color or ethnic background who doesn’t agree with the policies of President Obama is no more a racist that anyone who disagreed with the polices of George Bush.

Now, however, the racism follies have taken a dire turn.

Recently, President Obama appointed Mark Lloyd to be the FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer.
In other words, Obama’s “Diversity Czar.”

The following is a quote from Mark Lloyd regarding his feelings about conservative dominance of the public airwaves:

“There’s nothing more difficult than this because we have really truly, good, white people in important positions, and the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions,” he said.
“And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will not change the problem. But we’re in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.He added: “There are few things, I think, more frightening in the American mind than dark-skinned black men. Here I am.”

Can someone please explain to me just what the hell is going on in this country?

Am I the only one who sees that Mark Lloyd has insulted the intelligence and integrity of every non-caucasian person in America?

What he is saying, in effect, is that there are a lot of good white people who own/run communications outlets, but because they are white it isn’t fair.

That’s like a white guy saying that the NBA is biased because the majority of the players are black.

You think Glenn Beck raised a ruckus when he exposed Van Jones, let him make a statement like that and watch the fireworks start!

Or to make the claim that white media executives should step down in favor of minorities.

“We’re in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so that someone else can have power.”

Mr. Lloyd, do yourself and the rest of America a favor.

Resign now.

Because if you and the other socialists in the Obama administration think that the Tea Party protests opposing health care reform were something, watch what happens when you try and overturn the Constitution Of The United States!

A little something known as the First Amendment may not mean anything to you and your brethren, but you will find that you will not be able to silence the voices of the American people.

Especially conservative American people.

For those of you who are wondering what Mark Lloyd’s apparently racist remarks have to do with silencing free speech, check back with us tommorow.

The Health Care Video Obama Doesn’t Want You To See

Astroturfers?

Brooks Brothers Brigades?

Nazis?

UnAmerican?

These are just a few of the terms that have been directed at people who have the courage to voice their opposition to Barack Obama’s health care reform package.

Now the Obama camp has taken things to the next level.

In Obama’s America, if you exercise your Constitutional rights, you are subject to arrest:

Is America a Christian Nation?

This is a guest post from our friend Les Kremere. Les runs the Facebook Group “Godly Minds, Bold Hearts” of which The Freedom Medium is a member.

Our founders in their profundity knew that as our country progressed down through the years, its direction would be challenged. To answer this challenge, they put in place many checks and balances to keep in focus their vision. Today, the direction our country should take is a debate–some would say it’s part of America’s cultural battle–in the form of a question: Are we a Christian nation? Arguments abound even though facts easily come down on the side of the affirmative. Many of these facts, however, are little known as they are no longer taught in today’s schools.

Why is it important to know our foundational history? Woodrow Wilson explained in his election campaign for President that,

A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about…. America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the tenets of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture.

Facebook’s page titled “Godly Minds, Bold Hearts” will open the eyes of any seeker of America’s truth that we are, indeed, a Christian nation.

The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and Saint Matthew, from Isaiah and Saint Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don’t have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State. — President Truman, 1950

Following that basic foundation and rationale to its conclusion is something even secularists should be able to appreciate.

The Phrase “In God We Trust” Is Unconstitutional

At least that’s the claim of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group from Wisconsin that claims to represent the views of America’s atheist and agnostic population.

The furor started when a Congressman from California,Dan Lungren, introduced a bill to the House to have the words “In God We Trust”, as well as the text of the Pledge of Allegiance engraved on the new Washington D.C. Capitol Visitors Center.

The House voted 410-8 to approve the bill, the Senate has endorsed a similar plan.

And that is how the controversy began.

Voicing the erroneous claim that such a move would violate the Constitutional edict regarding the separation of church and state, the group has filed a lawsuit in the hopes of halting the proposal first set forth in Rep. Lungren’s bill.

The co-chair of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Dan Barker has made the claim that the House and Senate are using “the machinery of government to promote their particular private religious views”, and that such actions are unconstitutional.

We would have to disagree with Mr. Barker, based upon both the values of the Constitution, as well as the tenets of democracy.

First, here is the phrasing from the First Amendment that applies in this situation:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

 I would respectfully ask Mr. Barker or anyone else that feels as he does how adding the words “In God We Trust” or “Under God” to a public building can possibly be seen as Congress having passed a law establishing a religion?

For those of you who do know what that phrase really means, and why it is the first line of the First Amendment to the Constitution, please leave your comments explaining it to Mr. Barker and his minions.

Which brings us to the second part of our claim.

In doing research for this article, we found, depending upon which set of data one could consider to be accurate, when polled as to their religious beliefs and/or affiliations, five to nineteen percent of Americans responded that they were either atheist or agnostic.

It stands to reason therfore that at least eighty one percent of Americans believe in a higher power, and as such would not have an issue with the words “Under God” or “In God We Trust” being displayed on a public building.

That statement, of course, is only a logical conclusion, the percentages may be different.

In any event, it would appear that the vast majority of the citizens of this country do not hold the same religious views as Mr. Barker and those who feel as he does.

And  one of, if not the most basic principles of our republic is that the majority rules.

The majority of Americans do not seem to agree with the beliefs of the ”separation of church and state” crowd.

The Constitution is not being violated.

Why would any court of law even consider such a lawsuit?

Yes, the same amendment also guarantees the right of free speech.

However, it helps when what you are saying makes sense.

Right-Wing College Group Riles Students on Campuses Nationwide

 A claim often made by liberals is that they fully support free speech.

As long as they agree with what you have to say.

A student group that bills itself as “America’s right wing youth movement” focused on countering radical multiculturism, socialism and mass immigration is causing a stir on a growing number of college campuses across the country.

The conservative political group Youth for Western Civilization is currently organized on at least seven university campuses. According to its Web site, the group hopes to inspire Western youth on the “basis of pride in their American and Western heritage,” counter and ultimately defeat “leftism on campus” and create a social movement in which a right-wing subculture is an alternative to what it calls a “poisonous…Read the rest of this entry

Next Page »