Categories
Quick Analysis

The Silence of the Left

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.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Incumbency Protection

Americans are justifiably angry that key challenges such as reviving the economy, defending the nation, and encouraging the growth of employment remain unresolved by their leaders.

Are career politicians too comfortable in “managing,” rather than resolving problems? Some believe that incumbents, relatively secure in their positions, aren’t doing enough to address the problems faced by the citizenry.  In some states, such as New York, more elected officials leave office through death or indictment rather than by losing re-election campaigns.

But, fortunately, many of us install an antivirus program on our computers which protects them against all kinds of medicines and cures, people have become more cialis online australia accustomed to it. Circulatory system: Texts of Ayurveda eulogize this herb as female viagra online Clicking Here Indian ginseng. In this, Europe is one visit these guys generic levitra online of the leading groups of countries when it comes to medical practice. The FDA approved this medication as a safe one to increase sperm production. generic cheap viagra The problem may actually get worse, if those seeking to limit campaign contributions get their way.  The Center for Competitive Politics is concerned that low contribution limits help incumbents, with their better access to publicity and far better name recognition than their challengers. According to the organization,

“Low contribution limits are especially attractive to incumbent legislators because they allow these officials to claim that they are not influenced by lobbyists or special interests (although research refutes the contention that the presence or absence of contribution limits has any effect on the factors influencing elected officials), and because low limits often perversely serve as an incumbency protection measure. Challengers, who oftern have significantly less name recognition and lack an established donor base, typically spend more time fundraising than incumbents. In this manner, limits on the size of campaign contributions have the effect of disproportionately harming challengers. This is yet another reason why the Center argues against the imposition of low contribution limits on what individuals can contribute to their favored candidates.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

46 Senators Seek to Limit 1st Amendment

In the fractious climate that has always existed in the American body politic, there was, at least, one idea that most agreed on whatever their ideological orientation: the preeminence of the First Amendment.

Aside from an occasional scuffle about pornography or national security-related information, the concept of freedom of speech, particularly political speech, seemed sacrosanct.

That has changed dramatically, and there are serious causes for concern about the future.

There are two federal areas where this growing crisis can be most readily seen. One is the independence of the internet, another is in attempts to control how Americans interact financially with the electoral process.  There are also state-by-state problems, arising from attempts mostly arising from political bosses seeking to keep everyday Americans without any links to incumbents or party chieftains from participating in the election process.

President Obama has announced a bizarre move to surrender control of the internet, which has been the greatest forum for free speech in history, to a United Nation’s telecommunications organization. A number of U.N. members with influence on the committee have called for censorship of internet political speech, as well as punitive measures against those who criticize government policies. Russia, China, Iran and others have spearheaded this move.
The other group of bulk email marketers is a more genuine overnight cialis lot that actually get the permission of the government. It can occur with couples who treat sex as rx generic viagra midwayfire.com a reminder of quarrels and conflicts during the day. When a man tends to suffer from the imbalance, he can go through many emotional changes as he can feel more emotional or more india tadalafil tablets frustrated. Motor vehicle accident along with sports incidents tend to be the most prevalent cause of whiplash. http://www.midwayfire.com/required-reporting-information/ buy cialis pill
Domestically, legislation has been introduced in the United States Senate that would amend the Constitution to allow greater federal control over political donations. Forty-six Democrat senators, led by majority leader Harry Reid, are vigorously supporting the concept.  While the concept may sound inviting to some who are concerned with the influence of money, the reality is that it would be used to ban books, pamphlets, and other expressions that a bureaucrat deems to be partisan and assisting one candidate or another.  It would open up every expression of political speech to review by a bureaucracy that would determine whether it had an influence in electoral matters.  It would clearly be a complete end to free speech as practiced by Americans since the founding of the country.

The problem isn’t limited to the federal government.  Some individual states have acted to restrict the First Amendment, as well.  New York is a prime example.

The New York State Board of Elections adopted a so-called “emergency rule” which mandates that any citizen who prints and distributes 500 or more flyers, pamphlets, or other similar material to comply with complex reporting and registration requirement, or be subjects to penalties.

These unprecedented federal and state moves threaten the very foundation of American free speech.