ChiBama Politics –
Hopefully the left will take notice of this danger to us all.
posted at 3:35 pm on May 19, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
The same sloppy legislative writing that created so many unintended consequences in ObamaCare also plagues the DISCLOSE Act, the effort in Congress to tighten spending rules in the wake of the Citizens United decision — and that’s the generous take on the situation. Reason’s Bradley Smith and Jeff Patch warn that the perhaps-unintended consequences of legislative language will allow the FEC to regulate political speech online. The fact that media entities like the New York Times have specific exemptions built into the bill makes the intent, or lack thereof, rather murky:
Last week, a congressional hearing exposed an effort to give another agency—the Federal Election Commission—unprecedented power to regulate political speech online. At a House Administration Committee hearing last Tuesday, Patton Boggs attorney William McGinley explained that the sloppy statutory language in the “DISCLOSE Act” would extend the FEC’s control over broadcast communications to all “covered communications,” including the blogosphere.
The DISCLOSE Act’s purpose, according to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Chris Van Hollen and other “reformers,” is simply to require disclosure of corporate and union political speech after the Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that the government could not ban political expenditures by companies, nonprofit groups, and labor unions.
The bill, however, would radically redefine how the FEC regulates political commentary. A section of the DISCLOSE Act would exempt traditional media outlets from coordination regulations, but the exemption does not include bloggers, only “a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication…”
In Citizens United, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected disparate treatment of media corporations and other corporations (including nonprofit groups) in campaign finance law. “Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment,” Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.
No legitimate justification exists for excluding media corporations from regulations on political speech applicable to other corporations, unless the goal is to gain the support of editorial boards funded by the New York Times Co.
The response to this criticism has been both predictable and instructive. Instead of actually discussing how Reason got the argument wrong in its initial reporting on the subject, a Public Citizen lobbyist (which supports the legislation) called it a death-panel argument. Another group attempted to defend Congress by assuring us that the FEC would “most likely … stand by the 2006 Internet rules” and not investigate political bloggers.
Most likely? Color me comforted….Continue Reading
Natural Born Citizen –
From the desk of Mario Apuzzo:
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
I have already written an essay explaining that the Founders and Framers relied upon natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel for their Article II definition of a “natural born Citizen” and not upon the English common law. That essay is entitled, ‘The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law’ as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is . This essay will address the related specific question of whether the Framers gave to the “natural born Citizen” clause the same meaning that the English common law gave to a “natural born subject.”…Continue Reading
Lt. Col. Lakin’s Journey –
Here’s a site for those interested in more in-depth knowledge about Court Martial process.
(A work in progress – 5/13/2010 18:01:44) Where-ever possible I have linked to items that are publically available on the web without having to go to LEXIS or WestLaw for example.
Note, there are some areas of Article 32, UCMJ, practice where I am rooting for LTC Lakin.
The Article 32, UCMJ, hearing is currently scheduled for 0900, 11 June 2010, Rm. 134, Bldg. T-2, WRAMC. The Article 32, UCMJ, appointing authority has granted a defense requested delay in the hearing from 6 May 2010 to 11 June 2010. The delay counts as defense delay for the purpose of R.C.M. 707, which is the speedy trial provision applicable in non-custody case.
Military Matters –
Here’s an interesting tidbit online yesterday at Talking Points Memo.
Here is the full text of John L. Perry’s column on Newsmax which suggests that a military coup to “resolve the Obama problem” is becoming more possible and is not “unrealistic.” Perry also writes that a coup, while not “ideal,” may be preferable to “Obama’s radical ideal” — and would “restore and defend the Constitution.” Newsmax has since removed the column from its website.
Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention
By: John L. Perry
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
# Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”
# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized….Continue Reading
Brothers and Sisters in the Military – When are you going to demand Obama establish that he is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to serve as Commander In Chief?
If your Oath to protect the Constitution is not important today, why don’t we just change the military oath of allegiance to reflect our current level of commitment?
I, _______, do solemnly swear to protect ME and I will try to defend the Constitution as long as it doesn’t adversely impact the aforementioned ‘ME’.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Other News –
From Hot Air:
posted at 10:43 pm on May 19, 2010 by Allahpundit
A Pakistani court has blocked Facebook amid a growing row over a competition on the social networking website to design cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.
Plans for the “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” contest drew an angry reaction, provoking street demonstrations in the Muslim majority country.
On Wednesday, Lahore High Court responded to a petition by the Muslim Lawyers Movement, ordering Pakistan’s internet regulator to block the entire site…
Rai Bashir, a lawyer involved in the case, said the site was blasphemous….
From World Net Daily:
Marxist-led study has close ties to Obama White House officials
Posted: May 19, 2010
NEW YORK – A George Soros-funded, Marxist-founded organization calling itself Free Press has published a study advocating the development of a “world class” government-run media system in the U.S. …
From Free Republic:
Commanders have reportedly ordered a U.S. military unit in Afghanistan to patrol with unloaded weapons. Some soldiers are being ordered to conduct patrols without a round chambered in their weapons, The US Report has learned from an anonymous source at a forward operating base in Afghanistan. Our source was unsure if the order came from his unit or if it affected other units. On war correspondent Michael Yon’s Facebook page, commenters stated that this is a common practice in Iraq, while others said that it is occurring in Afghanistan as well. According to military protocol, “Amber” status requires weapons to…
From American Thinker:
DoJ trial attorney in Black Panthers case resigns in protest
May 19, 2010
Will the veil of secrecy finally be lifted on this case? More