Democrats Wrestle With Court Decision
Jan 25, 2010 Political
This past week the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were allowed to spend as much as they want to support or oppose a political candidate or issue. Corporations are still limited in how much they can donate to a candidate but they are now allowed to spend what they want on things like political ads that favor or oppose a candidate. The issue revolves around free speech and the Court ruled that this was a free speech issue.
Democrats had expected this ruling and are now looking at ways to curb the process. Several ideas are floating around that would involve CEOs being required to get shareholder approval before funding political advertisements and not allowing the costs to be deducted as a business expense on taxes. There is also an idea that would require the CEO to be the voice on the ad approving the message.
Will any of these restrictions apply to the unions? SEIU spent millions of dollars in support of Obama and helped get him elected. The unions spent over half a million dollars trying to get Coakley elected in Massachusetts. The unions, and you can name them from SEIU to the teacher’s unions, spend huge sums of money on Democrats in order to get them elected. There has never been any concern among Democrats with regard to curbing the spending of their supporters. Since they view this ruling as something that will favor Republicans they now want restrictions placed on the process.
I don’t like the idea of any group spending a fortune to get a candidate elected or to push a particular agenda but they have the right to spend their money as they wish. My problem lies in the expected favors that follow. Groups spend money (in favor of or opposed to both political parties) and when all is said and done they expect payback. Democrats have their feathers ruffled now but they have been the recipients of huge sums of money from their supporters who seem to be able to spend as much as they want.
I wonder why the unions don’t have to get the permission of union members before they spend money on a candidate. Perhaps if the unions stopped spending millions and millions of dollars on candidates and issues they would have the money to fulfill the obligations they have to their members. Maybe then they would not have to come to the taxpayer with hat in hand looking for us to pay their way.
We scream about Wall Street paying huge salaries and bonuses and then taking taxpayer money to get right and yet we do not make a sound when the unions spend millions on candidates and then beg us for money to keep their members employed and plush with benefits.
I don’t like all the influence that is bought by any organization spending money on politics but it is their money and they can spend it however they wish. But if the Democrats are going to impose all kinds of rules then those rules need to apply to everyone, including their friends in the unions.
Source:
WSJ
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: donations, free speech, influence, law, politics, supreme court
Senator Dodd Reduced Aviation Security
Dec 29, 2009 Political
Now that securing the nation’s airports is again on the front burner, after the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack, the Washington Examiner is reporting that one Senator introduced an amendment to reduce aviation security. The Examiner reports:
Back in July, Senator Chris Dodd, D-Conn., proposed an amendment reducing aviation security appropriations by $4.5 million in favor of firefighter grants — a notoriously inneffective[sic] program. In fact, the money was specifically “for screening operations and the amount for explosives detection systems.”
According to the report, Dodd reduced aviation security by $4.5 million to give the money “to line the pockets of a constituency that supported his presidential campaign in a big way.”
Politics over security, yep that sounds like a Democrat.
Obviously this had no impact on what took place on Christmas but one has to wonder what affect it is having now that security has been stepped up. Would that money have been used to buy more x-ray screeners that airports are now begging for? Would explosives detectors now be in place so that dogs would not have to do the job?
Senator Dodd is not likely to win reelection next year. His constituency is unhappy with his illegal sweetheart mortgage deal and his role in the collapse of the housing market.
The fact that he played politics with our security cannot sit too well with them either.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: aviation security, Democrats, dodd, national security, politics
The Nobel Appease Prize
Oct 9, 2009 Opinion
Barack Obama was the “surprise” winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. As my co-writer Blake points out, he has not done anything to earn it. I have to agree, what has Obama done to earn the award? He has been in office for only nine months and nothing he has done has resulted in any kind of peace.
Even those except his most ardent supporters would have to ask what he has done to get this award.
As far as I am concerned the award means little. It has been given to people who have had little to do with peace including Al Gore (who received his for something that was supposed to be science) and Yasser Arafat (who was anything but peaceful). The award is basically a political award and is used to push an agenda, to give some credibility to the people who espouse the same views of the committee regardless of accomplishment.
The nomination of Obama was made just before the 1 February deadline and only 2 weeks after he took office. What was he nominated for? His acts up to that point certainly did not warrant the prize. If the nomination is for past deeds then he certainly did not qualify.
If it was for the deeds of the past nine months then one has to ask what he has done to earn it. What did he do that made him more deserving than the other nominees who actually have accomplishments in the area of peace? Obama has not brought peace to the Middle East. His relationship with Israel is strained and he has coddled terrorists as well as others who wish to do us harm. He has talked a good game but that is not worthy of the award.
This was purely a political move designed to bolster a man who was hurt by the IOCC and by his continual missteps on the world stage.
I am not saying that Obama would not have a term in office (or work after he is out of office) that eventually led to him actually deserving the award, that is something we cannot know. However, it is clear that he has done nothing, up to this point, to deserve it.
The award has always meant little as far as I am concerned because of some of the folks who received it and more importantly, those who did not. Reagan never received one and he certainly had more to do with peace than Carter, Gore or Obama. But the award has been made political and that tarnishes it, in my view.
If Obama has done anything to earn this award it was his appeasement of our enemies and the rogues around the world who would do us harm.
Perhaps the committee thought they were voting on an Appease Prize*…
*Thanks to my friend Doug Ross for this term.
Others:
Absurd Decision (Times UK)
Mixed Reviews, Embarrassing Joke (al-Reuters)
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Swine Flu Diverts Attention
Apr 28, 2009 Opinion, Political
A great deal of attention has been given to the newest outbreak of the flu mostly because this is a strain that is not commonly associated with transmission among humans and there is no vaccine. While it is well and good to pay some attention to it one must wonder why all the CDC warnings and the elevations of threat levels. I certainly understand the travel restrictions but the reality is that there are only 40 confirmed US cases and no one in the US has died (as of this writing). Mexico has handled the issue fairly well and there have been just over 140 deaths in that country.
In the US each year about 36,000 people die from the flu and about 200,000 require hospitalization.
I think that the fervor over the flu is designed to take our attention away from the bad news that has come out lately. GM is getting rid of Pontiac (if you have a low mileage one put it away) and that will result in the loss of 21,000 manufacturing jobs. GM and Chrysler are preparing to file for bankruptcy and this will cause a lot of turmoil in the automotive industry. Ironically, Ford, the only one of the big three not to take bailout money, is doing OK, not great, but better than the others.
The Swine Flu scare is also a great cover for Congress who can work on passing more and more spending packages and enact things designed to give us universal health care coverage without the public debate. They can take advantage of this emergency to pass even more items to drive us ever closer to Socialism.
The Obama Administration has shown that it is a smoke and mirrors operation. They manufacture one crisis after another in order to tire people and wear them down. Then they can keep passing stuff unnoticed and before you know it, BAM, we have all these expensive things and even greater tax burdens. The economy was a crisis that we had to act upon immediately or we might not recover. Then it was not as bad as he thought. Of course, he came to that conclusion after spending a couple of TRILLION dollars to fix the spiraling economy. The stimulus will not kick in for some time. We are seeing some signs of working out of the economic downturn now. This means that things are turning around before the stimulus has had a chance to affect things. If we had done very little or nothing we would be turning around and we would have saved a couple of TRILLION dollars.
But Democrats had an “emergency” to exploit. Let us not forget that George Bush helped put this in motion. I did not agree with it then and I don’t agree with it now. I think the difference is Bush was making an honest attempt to fix things and not taking advantage of the situation. Obama is taking advantage of the problem to nationalize the banks and take over companies.
The Swine Flu, as of right now, is not a cause for alarm (just as Obama said). It is something we should keep an eye on and we should take the basic steps to prevent transmission of the disease. The number one way to do that is to wash your hands. Wash them frequently and the transmission of disease will be drastically reduced. Your mother told you to wash your hands for a reason.
The flu comes each year and makes a lot of people sick and it kills quite a few. These Swine flu reports might be sentinel events indicating a larger problem ahead. We need to keep track but we also need not lose sight of what is going on around us with regard to our politicians.
They will use this “emergency” to their advantage as long as we let them get away with it.
The CDC is tracking the outbreak and has a sign up for Swine Flu updates. There is also good information about the disease and what you can do to reduce your risk. Take the time to read it but don’t let the flu take your focus away. We can worry when it looks like this will become more widespread. Let’s keep an eye on it but let’s keep in mind that thousands get sick from the flu at any one time during flu season and they don’t go bananas like they are right now. This could certainly get worse but as it stands right now, it is a minor outbreak.
The sleight of hand artist The Amazing Obama wants you to look away.
How do the open borders folks feel now? ILLEGALS with swine flu could walk into this country at anytime undetected and spread the disease. This is what you get when you don’t uphold the law.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Don’t Ask The Question If You Don’t Want The Answer
Apr 20, 2009 Political
I have never been one to sugar coat an answer to a question and I don’t tell the person asking what they want to hear if I feel that is not correct. Of course, like everyone, there are questions I prefer not to answer or that I answer tactfully in order to spare one’s feelings. Does this make me look fat is one such question…
I have always been of a mind that you should not ask a question unless you are prepared for the answer even if it is not what you wanted to hear. Not every answer will be the one you want and some will not be tactful.
During the Miss America Pageant Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked by Perez Hilton, a gay man, if she believed in gay marriage (he actually asked her if 46 states should follow the lead of the four that allow gay marriage). Miss California answered in a strange way but she ended up saying she believed marriage was between a man and a woman and that is how she was raised:
“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.” Fox News
We don’t live in a land where you can choose to marry same sex. There are a few states that allow it but nearly all define marriage as between a man and a woman. But Miss California committed a sin because she did not affirm to the world that homosexuals should be able to marry. I think she could have answered it a little better but I am happy she stood for her beliefs.
Hilton’s response was rendered on his blog (today) when he said that Miss California was a “dumb b*tch.” Well, he should not have asked the question if he was not prepared to hear this kind of response. He indicated he would have preferred a politically correct response.
The gays in the audience were livid indicating that she should have never been runner up with that kind of belief. Who knows, maybe she would have won if she had given the answer that they wanted rather than the one that honestly depicted her belief though Hilton contends she lost because she is dumb. My understanding is that she was clearly in the lead prior to that question.
The guy who runs the Miss California competition, Keith Lewis, was saddened by her response. Why? Did he not expect her to say what she believed? Perhaps he thought that since she is from California she would be in favor of same sex marriage. One audience member said that her answer was different than 95% of the people in attendance. Perhaps (though there is no way of really knowing), but she comes from a state where voters rejected same sex marriage on several ballot initiatives. Here is what Lewis said:
“As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman,” said Lewis in a statement. “I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family.”
If politics do not belong in this then why did they allow Hilton to ask a question that has been the topic of a political battle for quite some time?
If the gay men in the audience (and according to the 95% guy, there were many) want to hear a different answer to that question then they should have their own pageant.
They could call it The Siss America Pageant.
Once again, the tolerant homosexual community is intolerant of someone who disagrees with its agenda. Nowhere is that any clearer than in the response from Hilton.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: gay marriage, miss america, miss california, perez hilton, politics