The defining moments of a nation come not just from when something is done. They also come from when something is not done.
Think of how Germany’s history would have been different if more had opposed the horrific plans of Adolph Hitler. Imagine how much better America would be if the rise of segregation and discrimination after the Civil War had been prevented. Today, the failure by those who should know better, to condemn the attacks on free speech should be viewed with equal disdain.
The latest revelations about the widespread nature of the Internal Revenue Service’s intimidation against political opponents of the White House are cause for the deepest concern. Despite those revelations and the growing obviousness that major political appointees and perhaps top elected officials were involved in this unlawful program, there is no adequate legal action underway by a politically compromised and openly biased Justice Department. Nor are the vast majority of media outlets performing the functions they should be doing, by emphasizing the extraordinary nature of these unprecedented assaults on honest elections and free speech.
Indeed, there are attempts by the bureaucracy to continue this affront by simply changing tactics.
The original story is, by now, well known, although too late to actually serve the interests of justice. In anticipation of the 2012 presidential bid, the IRS intimidated and harassed groups considered not supportive of President Obama’s re-election bid.
However, this is not just a problem—dire as it is—about a past election. Unblushingly, the same tactic is being tried again, under a different guise, to insure that the 2016 presidential election also goes the way the hard left desires.
As noted by Spectator magazine In November of 2013, the IRS proposed regulations that would essentially “institutionalize” its politically biased attacks. It is part of the hard Left’s fury at the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which, as noted in Spectator, “held that both labor unions and corporations had a free speech right to use their general funds for independent expenditures of a political nature. It said, among other things, that the First Amendment ‘has its fullest and most urgent applications to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.’ And that, in liberal thinking, opened a floodgate of corporate action where only union action had been permitted before. …[The politically-motivated IRS determined that] The best way to block spending by such nonprofits is to block them from becoming nonprofits, which has the effect of blocking most contributions to them. If you block their funding, they can’t spend anything on independent campaign ads for conservative candidates or against liberal ones. That’s what the IRS did in 2012, is doing today, and will continue to do when the new rules take effect.”
Expert Sexologist in Bangalore cures it completely, and the couples can have a satisfactory sex life is devastating. purchase cheap levitra was the first medication on the market, but there are now several alternatives. This drug not only provides a penile erection is an intricate mechanism that involves the mechanism of the brain, nerves, hormones, http://mouthsofthesouth.com/levitra-7596 cialis canadian blood vessels, and even emotions. It has been explained in this passionate about how consuming animal products is attributed to condition of buy levitra online decreased ejaculate volume and potency, low sperm count, shortened sperm life, poor sperm motility, genetic sperm damage, an also to the enlarged prostate, prostate cancer, difficulties while urinating, infertility and the development of a smaller penile and testicles as well as deformity of the penis (such as Peyronie’s disease); or. Why is it necessary to fight back shy while consulting a sexologist? Unfortunately, the sexual problems that must be levitra online usa treated at the earliest possible thought that this may be an indication of genuine issue and must be dealt with immediately employing Common Priligy. The challenge isn’t restricted to the IRS. As noted previously by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, Within the U.S. Senate, Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) and Charles Schumer (D-New York), proposed a measure that would limit free speech protections as they pertain to campaign donations. The proposed legislation gained 43 Senate supporters—all Democrats. At a Senate Rules Committee hearing, Schumer stated that “The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans.’ The Republican minority was able to block the measure.”
Having been exposed for its 2012 offenses and voted down in the U.S. Senate hasn’t stopped the hard left from continuing their attack. According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), there is a “behind the scenes effort to lobby the Federal Election Commission and Justice Department to stifle free speech…don’t be surprised if the subpoenas hit Republican candidates at crucial political moments.”
According to WSJ, the new theory to slap down non-leftist candidates and ignore both the First Amendment and the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling is called “coordination,” which alleges that activities by independent SuperPACs should be treated as campaign expenditures—although so far, the only target has been a Republican candidate, with nothing being said about a similar situation in Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Direct attacks on media independence haven’t been overlooked in the drive to silence free speech. Efforts to place Federal monitors in newsrooms, and ending the independence of the Internet also have been used.
Historically, Americans have seen freedom as an end unto itself. But in the 21st century, many hard-left Progressives view a strict interpretation of Constitutional freedom guarantees and procedures as an obstacle to achieving their goals.
Most Americans remain unaware of the increasingly serious implications of this disdain for the Bill of Rights, largely because of the more subtle tactics of its assailants and the silence of a mass media that shares the political beliefs of the current executive branch. There are no mass burnings of books, no acts of physical intimidation on political opponents. Instead, there are IRS investigations of those opposing the White House. There are threats of sanctions against students who disagree with their hard-left professors. There are no mass outcries from many in the media when the new marketplace of ideas, the internet, is allowed to fall out of the hands of those who cherish freedom of speech.
How this is addressed may be the defining moment of the 21st Century American experience.