Fairness Doctrine – John Malcolm

Has the Communist Manifesto replaced the Constitution?

June 9, 2012 by John Malcolm 6 Comments

By George Hawley | June 9, 2012 | Young Americans for Liberty

When the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union imploded two years later, Americans sighed a breath of relief. Seemingly overnight, our debilitating fear that a horde of T-72’s would blitz through the Fulda Gap evaporated; the world realized a nuclear holocaust would not be the Cold War’s coup de grace. What’s more, the Cold War’s conclusion freed millions of souls from Soviet oppression. We were right to be relieved. American conservatives, who were eager to take credit for USSR’s demise, were feeling particularly triumphant at that time. We had finally reached the “end of history,” and “democratic capitalism” reigned supreme. It remains to be seen, however, whether post-Cold War conservative chest thumping was truly justified.

Although all freedom lovers should celebrate the downfall of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the peaceful death of the Soviet Empire did not necessarily indicate the demise of Marxism as a force in the world. In fact, a strong case can be made that the United States is more Marxist now than ever before. It is true that a socialist revolution did not occur, as Marx predicted, via an apocalyptic struggle between workers and the bourgeoisie, but a socialist revolution of sorts nonetheless occurred. To those who believe Marxism has been relegated to “the dustbin of history,” I can only point to the words of Marx himself. The world we inhabit is not so different from the one Marx envisioned.

Change—and Some Hope

May 20, 2012 by John Malcolm 1 Comment

By Victor Davis Hanson | May 12, 2012 | PJ Media

Rays of Sun Amid the Storm

The Rasmussen Tracking Poll recently had Romney up 50 to 42 over Obama. At this early juncture, such polls mean nothing—except as diagnostic indices of why perhaps both candidates go up and down in popularity.

So why has Barack Obama plunged in the polls these last few days?

The Republican slugfest is over. The media cannot headline any longer the daily conservative suicide. Barack Obama’s job report came out at 8.1% unemployment—but, more importantly, with information that a smaller percentage of adult Americans are working than ever before, and fewer in absolute numbers than nearly four years ago when Obama took office.

So someone must be asking, “What then was the lost $5 trillion for?” Note, in this regard, the 5.4% unemployment rate that won George Bush the slur of a “jobless recovery” in 2004.

There was some pushback to Obama’s spiking the football on the anniversary of bin Laden’s death.

The Lovitz Curve

May 12, 2012 by John Malcolm Leave a Comment

By Zombie | May 11, 2012 | PJ Media

Remember the Laffer Curve?

First popularized in the ’70s and ’80s, the Laffer Curve was a brilliantly simple economic graph which demonstrated that government revenue grows as taxes are increased only up to a certain point, after which revenues begin to decline as tax rates approach 100%. (See idealized Laffer Curve on the right; click to enlarge.) The high point on the curve shows the optimal tax rate for bringing in the most revenue.

The reasoning behind this is self-evident. Obviously if tax rates are 0%, then the government will collect no tax revenue; but if tax rates are 100%, then the government will almost certainlyalso collect no tax revenue, because there would be no motivation for anyone to work, earn or invest, since all their income would go directly to the government. A tax rate of 100% may sound tempting at first, but since it would precipitate an economic collapse, the end result would be no economic activity to tax, and thus no revenue. Therefore, the most effective tax rate is somewhere in the middle; the trick is determining exactly where.

Keep the Laffer Curve in mind as we turn our attention to the astounding recent political transformation of comedian Jon Lovitz. On April 23, a recording of a Lovitz comedy routine savagely criticizing Obama’s “bullsh*t” class warfare rhetoric went viral on the Internet, and before long Lovitz was cropping up everywhere, in great demand as the spokesman for everyone disgusted by Obama’s claims that high earners “don’t pay their fair share” in taxes. And this is coming from a self-described Democrat who voted for Obama.

Most significantly, Lovitz claims that many of his fellow Hollywood liberals agree with him but are too afraid too say it publicly.

And then it struck me. Wealthy Hollywood liberals just love to skewer evil corporate fat cats and country-club Republicans, and up until now no one had encountered a limit to their enthusiasm for leftist class warfare rhetoric. And then…Obama went too far, and suddenly it got personal.

I realized that the principles behind the Laffer Curve also apply to the economic and political relationship between Democratic politicians and the Hollywood elite. Wealthy West Coast liberals will cheer on and swoon over any politician who engages in overheated class warfare rhetoric — up until a certain point, when it suddenly dawns on them that the rhetoric is aimed directly at themselves. Then very quickly their donations, fundraisers and helpful propagandizing start to dry up as the radical rhetoric begins to threaten them personally.

Just as in a Laffer Curve, Revenue and Support from Hollywood (RASH) is at a minimum for any politician who (like President Reagan, for example) doesn’t engage in talk of class warfare and refuses to demonize the rich; but it would also be at a minimum for any politician who’s so extreme (like Lenin, for example) that he’s likely to forcibly confiscate all the money and mansions of the wealthy Hollywood hypocrites. Somewhere in the middle, there is a perfect “sweet spot” for class warfare rhetoric that ensures maximum RASH – strong enough rhetoric to demonstrate your liberalism, but not so strong as to go “the full Vladimir.”

All this can be explained more clearly in a new graph. And so I hereby present: The Lovitz Curve:

Just as in the Laffer Curve illustration above, this is an idealized, symmetrical version of what the Lovitz Curve would look like. Yet progressive critics of the Laffer Curve claim that the point of optimal revenue is likely not at the exact middle (e.g. a 50% tax rate in that case), but most probably further off to the right of the graph, somewhere around the 70% mark. (On the right you can see what critics say a more accurate Laffer Curve would look like — click to enlarge.)

The same principle holds true for the Lovitz Curve. Hollywood liberals are much more enthused by and generous to politicians closer to the Lenin end of the scale than to anyone near the Reagan end of the scale. It’s not like they’re most enthused by perfectly centrist populists; instead, they tend to give RASH to fairly high levels of class warfare, just so long as it doesn’t get so high that it starts to become scary.

Thus, a more accurate Lovitz Curve would likely look something like this:

Read the full article here.

Introducing the “Lovitz Curve” (twitchy.com)
Jon Lovitz: Another Hollywierder Mugged by Reality (wizbangblog.com)
Lovitz: I meant it about Obama (politico.com)
The peak of the Laffer Curve is not the place to be (libertyorequality.wordpress.com)
Don’t beat yourself up, Lovitz. This bozo, sold everyone with smoke and mirrors.. (oforchristsakes.wordpress.com)
Jon Lovitz doubles down on Obama is a ‘f**king a**hole’ comments (dailycaller.com)
The Laffer Curve Shows that Tax Increases Are a Very Bad Idea — even if They Generate More Tax Revenue (forbes.com)
SNL vet unloads on Obama in EPIC rant (glennbeck.com)
The Laffer Curve Shows that Tax Increases Are a Very Bad Idea – even if They Generate More Tax Revenue (briancalbrecht.com)
SNL alum on Obama: ‘What a f**king asshole’ [AUDIO] (dailycaller.com)

Filed Under: Progressivism Tagged With: Campaign Donors, China, Class Warfare, Collectivism, Communism, Confiscatory Taxation, Democrats, Demonize, Economic Collapse, Fair Share, Fairness Doctrine, Federal Tax Rates, Fundraisers, Government Revenue, Hollywood, Hollywood Elite, Internet, Jon Lovitz, Laffer Curve, Lovitz Curve, Obama Campaign, Optimal Tax rate, Productivity, Proletariat, Propaganda, Radicals, Republicans, Rhetoric, Rich, Ronald Reagan, Scapegoat, Social Justice, Socialists, Soviet Union, Tax Increases, Vladimir Lenin, Wealthy

A New Declaration of Independence

May 10, 2012 by John Malcolm 4 Comments

By Eileen F. Toplansky | April 28, 2012 | American Thinker

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary to ensure that a President, who has led the country to near ruin and who is working to discard the basic principles upon which this Great Country rests, be peaceably removed it is incumbent upon us that we submit the reasons to the people.

Without any in-depth research or vetting about his background, Barack Hussein Obama was elected the 44^th president of the United States. There were voices of caution who early on exposed Obama’s connections to former terrorist Bill Ayers, anti-American vilifier Reverend Wright, crook Tony Rezko, and anti-Semite Rashid Khalidi, but they were laughed at as the people allowed themselves to be demagogued on hope and change. Evidence continues to suggest that Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate is, indeed, a forgery. This would make his presidential eligibility suspect.

Thus, the American people are at a critical watershed moment in our history. The facts are in; Obama’s ideology and core principles are now public and exist for all to see. We can no longer claim ignorance; we can no longer be naïve; we can no longer deny what is patently before us. The record of this current president is a “history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these United States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

Mr. Obama has “given himself the powers to declare martial law[.] It is a sweeping power grab that should worry every American.” Thus, “Barack Obama is very dangerous, the apotheosis of an insidious strain of authoritarianism that destroys from within.” In a statement published on December 31, 2011, Mr. Obama states that “[t]oday I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012.” Though he claims that he has “signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists,” it was Mr. Obama who “demanded the removal of any and all protections for US citizens and legal residents.”

And like King George III, Obama has now established the distinct possibility of placing “[s]tanding armies without the Consent of our legislatures” — although sadly, in this case, the Senate passed this unwholesome disgrace. King George III would be pleased.

In fact, Mr. Obama sees fit to bypass the “pesky” Constitution whenever it suits him, thus ignoring limited-government tenets which were at the core of the Founding Fathers’ belief system. Thus, the NDAA detention mandate allows indefinite military detention not just to foreigners; now “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority.”

In fact, should Mr. Obama be re-elected to a second term, “our rights to speech, religion and property, and to privacy in our persons and homes, will be transformed.” Mr. Obama has already “hectored Christianity on matters of conscience.” Through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare, Mr. Obama is forcing Catholic institutions to pay for insurance covering contraceptives. Why, when “religious liberty was weighed against access to birth control, did freedom lose?” — a clear intrusion into the first of the five protections of the First Amendment. Bishop Daniel Jenky has likened President Obama’s health care policies to the attacks on the Catholic church by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin of yesteryear. Dare we go down that totalitarian road again?

The onslaught against free speech has been heightened because of the “cooperation between [Mr. Obama] and the OIC or Organization of Islamic Cooperation.” The “Obama administration stands ‘united’ with the OIC on speech issues,” thus silencing Arab reformers and anyone who makes any allegedly negative remarks about Islam. The “repressive practices” of the OIC member-nations speak volumes about their restrictions on free speech. Hence, “the encroachment of de facto blasphemy restrictions in the West threatens free speech and the free exchange of ideas.” That an American president would threaten this most fundamental right is yet another resounding reason why he needs to be removed from office.

In December of 2009, Nat Hentoff, a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, asserted that “[i]f congressional Democrats succeed in passing their health-care ‘reform’ measure to send to the White House for President Obama’s signature, then they and he are determining your health decisions[.]” Thus, “these functionaries making decisions about your treatment and, in some cases, about the extent of your life span, have never met you[.] Is this America?” Hentoff concludes his piece with the revelation “I’m scared and I do mean to scare you. We do not elect the president and Congress to decide how short our lives will be.”

Thus, we still hold “these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles … as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” We do not declare violent revolution but do demand the secure right to change the government through the ballot box.

But even this fundamental right is being seriously eroded as the Department of Justice openly and arrogantly dismisses genuine cases of voter intimidation with nary a word of concern by Barack Obama. Although there is visual proof and evidence of threats to the voting public as well as exhortations of death threats to a man on trial, Attorney General Eric Holder turns a blind eye.

By his selective indifference, Mr. Obama has created a racially divisive atmosphere in America. He continues to promote this hateful attitude wherein the civil rights progress made in this country for all its citizens is ignored. Surely, Mr. Obama has “excited domestic insurrections amongst us” as he engages in racial division, class warfare, and phony gender wars. If Mr. Obama is, indeed, so interested in the rights of women, then why does he support Islamic sharia law, which demands second-class status for women? These diversions serve to stir up resentments; unfortunately, they are successful in obfuscating the shameless actions of this 44^th president.

Mr. Obama is not content with taking the country down the path to “European socialism.” His centralized control of the health care industry, his increases in entitlement programs, his redistribution of capital — in fact, his sweeping regulations that give the government new authority to control the entire financial sector — are reminiscent of Karl Marx’s 10-Point Agenda, and although communism was unknown in 1775, the signatories of the Declaration knew of the absolute power of the monarchy and would see through the oligarchic nature of this “ism.”

Amazingly, Mr. Obama has assured Russian leaders (who have gained their power through rigged elections) that American concessions are coming their way, but they [the Russian leaders] must wait because he is seeking re-election and he dare not tell his own people of his true intentions. What credible reason would a loyal American president have for weakening American and allies’ defense systems? During the open microphone conversation between Obama and Medvedev, a puppet of KGB Putin, the world learned whose interests Obama was truly serving. Surely, this is “enough to chill friends and allies, democrats and dissidents, all over the world.”

Furthermore, Obama has “obstructed the Administration of Justice[,]” instead pitting one group against the other through “waivers.” If ObamaCare is so laudable, why extend waivers in the first place? In fact, it is yet another example of how manipulative Mr. Obama is when he tries to make the people “dependent on his will alone.”

Mr. Obama has ignored the laws of our country to impose an arbitrary and capricious rule of law by outside forces. He finds it more expedient to pit the federal government against an American state which is trying only to enforce federal immigration law. To this end, Mr. Obama has seen fit to “subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution[,]” which was so clearly enumerated in the Declaration of Independence as reason to reject King George III. By issuing a Universal Period Review (UPR), the first of its kind, Mr. Obama has given the United Nations the right to dictate to Arizona. Thus, the “stakes for our national sovereignty have just been raised.” Despotic countries of the United Nations have now been empowered to dictate how Americans should conduct themselves. Is this not reminiscent of King George III “waging war against us”?

Moreover, the Obama State Department ordered the “suspension of routine border inspection procedures in order to whisk (Muslim Brotherhood) Islamists into our country. Thus, Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party did not have to go through the normal procedures of inspection. Recall that the Muslim Brotherhood’s mission statement is “Allah is our objective, the Prophet is our leader, the Koran is our law, Jihad is our way, and dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu akbar!” Negotiating with the Muslim Brotherhood is akin to negotiating with the dictator Hitler. It is appeasement all the way. Why does the Obama administration cavort with such people? Does this not make him unfit to defend the interests of America?

Read the full article here.

Romney Silent As Woman Says Obama Should Be Tried For Treason (buzzfeed.com)
Obama: ‘2012 is Make or Break for American Marxism’ (gulagbound.com)
Dictator Obama Issues New Threat to Supreme Court over ObamaCare (johnmalcolm.me)
Barack Obama speaks out and declares support for same-sex marriage – The Guardian (guardian.co.uk)
The Supreme Bureaucrats’ Decision on ObamaCare (johnmalcolm.me)
Lawmaker’s ‘How to Slap Washington’ Strategy (johnmalcolm.me)
Obama’s Second Term Transformation Plans (mb50.wordpress.com)
#NDAA: This is happening in America? (alexanderhiggins.com)
Obama Mentor Wanted Americans Put In Re-Education Camps (musicians4freedom.com)
From Communism Day to Government Loyalty Day (musicians4freedom.com)
In my humble opinion (100wnayelli.wordpress.com)
Tennessee Sheriffs Cracks Down On Obama Federal Agents Gone WIld: NDAA Nullified And Kidnapping Charges Against Feds.. (12160.info)
Nat Hentoff: I’ll vote for Romney … (wnd.com)
A long way from ‘hope’ and ‘change’ (wnd.com)
Virginia State Senate Passes Bill Forbidding Indefinite Detention of Americans: ‘Council of Governors’ member McDonnell could try to sabotage anti-NDAA law (destructionist.wordpress.com)
Impeach Obama 2012! Join the National Campaign! (musicians4freedom.com)
Chicago: the cesspool that gave us Barack Obama (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
ObamaCare Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics + More (papundits.wordpress.com)
Judicial Watch’s ‘Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians’ for 2011: Executive Edition – Big Government (politicalvelcraft.org)
Obama Gives Coal Miners the Shaft (gulagbound.com)
Obama: More Flexibility After Elections (myfoxphoenix.com)
The NDAA Provision for Detaining Citizens is Waived! Spread! (disclose.tv)
The Revolt Against the NDAA Hits Congress (mb50.wordpress.com)
Virginia lawmakers agree to reject NDAA (12160.info)
Obama Sets NDAA Detention Guidelines (todaysnews4you.wordpress.com)
Corporate Media Silent On Lawuit Over NDAA Being Used To Silence Journalists (jhaines6.wordpress.com)
‘Obama signed US into Police State’ [Voltaire Network] (powersthatbeat.wordpress.com)
Obama Worse than Bush on Civil Liberties – Romney No Different From Obama (ronpaulnews.net)
Pulitzer Prize journalist Chris Hedges suing Barack Obama for NDAA (vaticproject.blogspot.com)
Piracy vs Privacy: Obama may ‘oppose’ CISPA but still sign it like NDAA (fromthetrenchesworldreport.com)
Romney & Obama, the NDAA & Ron Paul (revolutionarypolitics.tv)
NDAA lawsuit – update from RT (video) (occupyblogosphere.wordpress.com)

Filed Under: Agenda 21, Progressivism Tagged With: Catholic Bishop, Catholic Church, Centralized Government Planning, China, Christianity, Citizens, Civil Rights, Class Warfare, Coastal Zone Management Act, Communism, Communist Manifesto, Concessions, Confirmation Hearings, Conflict of Interest, Congress, Consent of the Governed, Contraception, contraceptives, Core Principles, Core Values, Corporate-Financier Oligarchy, Czars, Daniel R. Jenky, Death, Death Threats, Debt Slavery, Deceit, Declaration of Independence, Democrats, Despotism, Distortion, Divide and Conquer, Dmitry Medvedev, Document Dump, Domestic Insurrection, Domestic Oil, Due Process, Egypt, Elena Kagan, Eligibility, Energy Production, Energy Sector, Engineering, Entitlement Programs, Eric Holder, Europe, Executive Order 13547, Fabian Socialism, Fairness, Fairness Doctrine, Federal Government, Financial Sector, First Amendment, First Principles, FOIA, Forgery, Fossil Fuels, Founders, Founding Fathers, Fourth Amendment, Fraud, Free Speech, Freedom, Freedom and Justice Party, Freedom of Information Act, Freedom of Religion, Global Governance, Government, Green Energy, Habeas Corpus, Health Care, Health Insurance, Ideology, Immigration Law, Indefinite Detention, Internal Revenue Service, International Space Station, Interrogation, IRS, Islam, Jeremiah Wright, Jihad, Jobs, Joseph Stalin, Judicial Watch, Karl Marx, KGB, King George III, Koran, Laws, Legal Residents, Liberty, Life, Life Span, Long-Form Birth Certificate, Martial Law, Marxism, Mathematics, Middle-Class, Mohammed, Monarchy, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslims, NASA, Nat Hentoff, National Debt, National Ocean Council, National Sovereignty, Natural Law, Natural Rights, NDAA, Obama Administration, Obamacare, Oligarchy, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Outer Space, Pathological Liars, Political Dissidents, Power Corrupts, Power Grab, Private Property, Prophet, Proven Oil Reserves, Pursuit of Happiness, Racism, Rashid Khalidi, Ratification, Re-election, Recuse, Redistribution of Wealth, Reform, Regulations, Republic, Republicans, Revolution, Rigged Elections, Royalties, Rule of Law, Rule of Men, Russia, Science, Self-Evident, Semantic Deception, Senate, Sharia, Socialism, Solicitor General, Space Exploration, Standing Army, State Department, State Legislatures, Supreme Court, Tax Increases, Tax Levy, Terrorism, Threat, Tony Rezko, Totalitarian State, Totalitarianism, Transparency, Treaty, Truth, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Territory, Unalienable Rights, Unemployment, United Nations, Universal Period Review, USGS, Usurpation, Vetting, Vladimir Putin, Voter Intimidation, Waivers, War on Women

Defeating Obama’s Socialist Propaganda

April 14, 2012 by John Malcolm 3 Comments

By Mark Alexander | February 2, 2012 | The Patriot Post

The Fallacy of the Left’s ‘Fairness’ Doctrine

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” –John Adams, 1787

Barack Hussein Obama centered his recent State of Disunion campaign speech on the worn socialist refrain of “fairness.”

“We can go in two directions,” Obama said. “One is towards less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for … building an economy that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few.”

His subsequent 2012 stump speeches include a variation of these words at his most recent whistle stop in Michigan: “I want this to be a big, bold, generous country where everybody gets a fair shot, everybody is doing their fair share, everybody is playing by the same set of rules.”

Let’s briefly review our nation’s history in regard to Liberty, taxation and “fairness.”

The first American Revolution was galvanized by a Tea Party protest against a small three pence tax surcharge on imported tea.

Our Founders were uniformly concerned about government power to lay and collect taxes and, accordingly, enumerated specific limitations on taxing and spending.

James Madison addressed the issue of unlimited spending, and his words are applicable today: “It has been [said], that the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare.” Rejecting that “misconstruction” of our Constitution, Madison went on to write, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.”

To ensure that federal taxation would be limited to these constraints, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of our Constitution (the “Taxing and Spending Clause”), as duly ratified in 1789, defined the “Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” but Section 8 required that such, “Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” This, in effect, limited the power of Congress to impose direct taxes on individuals, as further outlined in Section 9: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

That Constitutional limitation survived until 1861, when the first income tax was imposed to defray costs of the War Between the States. That three-percent tax on incomes over $800 was sold as an emergency war measure. In 1894, congressional Democrats tested the Constitution, passing a peacetime tax of two percent on income above $4,000. A year later, that tariff was overturned by the Supreme Court as not complying with the limitations set forth in Article 1.

However, the greatest historical injury to economic Liberty was dealt in the presidential campaign of 1912, when the father of Democratic Socialism, Woodrow Wilson, was elected on his mastery of class warfare rhetoric, as outlined in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto in the mid-19th century. He used Marx’s populist redistribution theme, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs,” to gain passage of the Sixteenth Amendment, which stated, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Read the full Article here.

Politics and commentary Share A People’s Primer on the Essentials of U.S. Constitutional Law (revolutioninmedia.com)
Obama is No Ordinary Socialist (genomega1.wordpress.com)
Relax citizen, we’ll take care of it… (faithorfiction.wordpress.com)
The Big Lie Of Obama/Buffet Rule (myvoice2012.wordpress.com)
Bob Goodlatte and the Constitution (truthn0tfear.wordpress.com)
Judicial Review v Judicial Activism (papundits.wordpress.com)
Obama calls Ronald Reagan a ‘wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior’ (rawstory.com)
Sen. Mike Lee: All Entitlement Spending Is Unconstitutional (thinkprogress.org)
Why Income Tax Was & Is Not Necessary To Fund the U.S. General Government. (politicalvelcraft.org)

Filed Under: Progressivism Tagged With: Capital Gains Tax, Civil War, Class Warfare, Collectivism, Common Defense, Common Sense, Communist Manifesto, Congress, Conservative Majority, Debbie Bosanek, Debts, Declaration of Independence, Deficit Spending, Deliberate Dumbing Down, Democratic Socialism, Democrats, Disinformation, Divide and Conquer, Economy, Enumerated Powers, Facts, Fairness, Fairness Doctrine, FDR, Federal Income Tax, Flat Tax, Forbes Magazine, Founders, Free Enterprise, Free Market, Fundamental Transformation, General Welfare Clause, George Bernard Shaw, Illegal Expenditures, Intervention, James Madison, Job Creation, John Adams, John Marshall, Karl Marx, Liberty, Limited Government, Living Constitution, Macroeconomics, Main Street, Marxism, Mitt Romney, Nation of Laws, Nation of Men, National Sales Tax, New Deal, Occupy Movement, Populism, Posterity, Propaganda, Redistribution of Wealth, Redistributive Justice, Regulations, Republican Majority, Republicans, Ronald Reagan, Rule of Law, Rule of Men, Sacred Oath, Sixteenth Amendment, Socialism, Standard of Living, State of the Union, Supreme Court, Sycophants, Tax Collection, Tax Reform, Taxation, Taxing and Spending Clause, Tea Party, Teddy Roosevelt, The Big Lie, Tyranny, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Constitution, Unalienable Rights, Wall Street, Warren Buffett, Woodrow Wilson

Super PACs = Super Free Speech

March 18, 2012 by John Malcolm Leave a Comment

By David Bozeman | January 25, 2012 | AmericanClarion.com

One of the many inconvenient truths that irks liberal sensibilities is knowing that the First Amendment applies to everyone. Yes, even the so-called rich and the Bible-thumpin’, gun-totin’ rednecks (mostly in the South) who never finished high school and are thus unaware of the suffering President Obama has endured on their behalf are, indeed, protected by the same Constitutional guarantees to free speech that liberal icon Larry Flynt enjoys.

A motley band of Occupiers in my hometown (Fayetteville, NC) recently protested, among other complaints, the Supreme Court’s two year-old ruling that ended limits on corporate contributions to political campaigns. In South Carolina, according to the Associated Press, Justice Antonin Scalia was asked about that same ruling at a Jan. 22 meeting of the state’s bar association. For those who don’t like the campaign commercials unleashed by the Super PACs, he simply responded “change the channel or turn off the TV.” Maybe not the most delicate response to a contentious issue but one that speaks to individual responsibility, nonetheless.

Justice Stephen Breyer, who voted on the losing side of the court’s 5-4 decision in “Citizens United” lamented that “there are real problems when people want to spend lots of money on a candidate… they drown out the people who don’t have a lot of money.”

Read full article here.