Daily Archives: September 16, 2014

MAYPORT NAVAL BASE First Amendment Test (6.5 out of a 10)
Paid a personal visit to the Mayport Naval Station in Jacksonville, Florida on Friday, September 12, 2014. The Police lied and tried to intimidate EOG who was my backup. The officer told EOG...

By: F.T.G.

The rest is here:
MAYPORT NAVAL BASE First Amendment Test (6.5 out of a 10) - Video

WE ARE, as it always seems, at a pivotal moment in American history. At least thats what Sens. Tom Udall and Bernie Sanders maintained in a melodramatic Politico column recently as they explained their efforts to repeal the First Amendment.

Let me retort in their language:Its true that building the United States has been long, arduous and rife with setbacks. But throughout the years, the American people have repelled efforts to weaken or dismantle the First Amendment. We have weathered the Sedition Act of 1918, a law that led to the imprisonment of innocent Americans who opposed the war or the draft. Since then, we have withstood many efforts to hamper, chill and undermine basic free expression in the name of patriotism. We have, however, allowed elected officials to treat citizens as if they were children by arbitrarily imposing strict limits on their free speech in the name of fairness.But nowadays, after five members of the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment and treated all political speech equally, liberal activists and Democrats in the Senate would have us return to a time when government dispensed speech to favored institutions as if it were the governments to give.

In 2010, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 opinion striking down major parts of a 2002 campaign-finance reform law in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This case and subsequent rulings, including McCutcheon v. FEC, have led to more political activism and more grass-roots engagement than ever before. In the 2012 presidential election, we quickly saw the results.

More Americans voted than in any election; more minorities voted; more Americans engaged in more debate and had more information in their hands than ever before. More than 60 percent of all those super PAC funds came from just 159 donors, each of whom gave more than $1 million. And still, every vote held the same sway. You may be convinced by someone, but no one can buy your vote. I wish the same could be said for your senators.

Even less worrisome is the propaganda surrounding scary-sounding dark money dollars spent by groups that do not have to disclose their funding sources. The 2012 elections saw almost $300 million spent on engagement in our democratic institutions, and the 2014 midterm elections could see as much as $1 billion invested in political debate. That means more democratization of media and more challenges to a media infrastructure that once managed what news we were allowed to consume. Still, no one can buy your vote.

No single issue is more important to the needs of average Americans than upholding the Constitution over the vagaries of contemporary political life. The people elected to office should be responsive to the needs of their constituents. They should also be prepared to be challenged. But mostly, they should uphold their oath to protect the Constitution rather than find ways to undermine it.

When the Supreme Court finds, for purposes of the First Amendment, that corporations are people, that writing checks from the companys bank account is constitutionally protected speech and that attempts to impose coercive restrictions on political debate are unconstitutional, we realize that we live in a republic that isnt always fair but is, for the most part, always free.

Americans right to free speech should not be proportionate to their political power. This is why its vital to stop senators from imposing capricious limits on Americans.

It is true that 16 states and the District of Columbia, along with more than 500 cities and towns, have passed resolutions calling on Congress to reinstitute restriction on free speech. Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans support the abolishment of super PACs. So its important to remember that one of the many reasons the Founding Fathers offered us the Constitution was to offer a bulwark against democracy. Senators may have an unhealthy obsession with the democratic process, and Supreme Court justices are on the bench for life for that very reason.

Last week, Democrats offered an amendment to repeal the First Amendment in an attempt to protect their own political power. Whiny senators most of them patrons to corporate power and special interests engaged in one of the most cynical abuses of their power in recent memory. Those who treat Americans as if they were hapless proles unable to withstand the power of a television commercial are the ones who fear speech. Thats not what the American republic is all about.

Original post:
David Harsanyi The senators who really threaten America

Topeka U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts last week voted against a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit campaign expenditures by corporations. But Greg Orman, his independent challenger in this year's election, said he would support such an amendment.

Roberts was among 42 Republican senators who voted Thursday against closing debate on Senate Joint Resolution 19, a constitutional amendment that would reverse the U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as "Citizens United."

The court said in that case that limits on independent expenditures by corporations and other groups violate their First Amendment rights to free speech.

Our founding fathers knew that those in power would be inclined to retain it and, unless constrained, would use their power to punish those who would seek to challenge them or remove them from office, Roberts said in a speech to the Senate Sept. 8. The First Amendment denies us that power. It explicitly prohibits this Congress from passing laws that restrict the speech of the American people. With this amendment, the majority wants to try to remove that prohibition. They want to grant themselves the power to control speech to silence their opposition.

Orman, however, said he would support such an amendment as part of a broader package of campaign finance reform measures, including stricter limits on contributions from political action committees.

Current campaign finance laws are a perfect example of how both parties are focused on their personal or partisan benefit instead of the American public, Orman said in a statement released Monday. The lack of transparency allowed under Citizens United benefits Washingtons broken system at the expense of an informed electorate, and even more alarming is that the decision opens up the door for significant foreign influence in U.S. elections because donations can be made through any U.S. corporation.

The Citizens United case involved a conservative political group that wanted to air a film during the 2008 election cycle that was critical of Hillary Clinton, who was then a U.S. senator from New York seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. The group also sought to buy advertising time to promote the movie, and to distribute it through video-on-demand cable services.

But the Federal Election Commission said that would have violated the campaign finance law in place at the time, a law known as the McCain-Feingold Act which prohibited corporations and labor unions from making direct or independent expenditures in support or opposition to identifiable candidates.

On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the FEC, in favor of Citizens United, saying among other things that corporations are protected by the First Amendment's right to free speech.

The vote to end debate on the amendment failed on a straight party-line vote: 54 Democrats voted yes, while 42 Republicans, including both senators from Kansas, voted no. Three Republicans and one Democrat did not vote.

Go here to see the original:
Senate candidates differ on overturning Citizens United ruling

09/16/2014 09/16/2014

Updated: Tuesday, September 16 2014 6:51 AM EDT2014-09-16 10:51:43 GMT

On today's show: -Attorneys for Adrian Peterson are firing back this morning after new claims of another child abuse scandal. We'll tell you what they have to say. -Oklahoma lawmakers are launching a study into a new execution method. How they're exploring the use of nitrogen gas. -A state law that goes against what the federal government wants could soon make it harder for you to travel. We'll tell you what you need to know. All that and more from 5-7 this morning!

On today's show: -Attorneys for Adrian Peterson are firing back this morning after new claims of another child abuse scandal. We'll tell you what they have to say. -Oklahoma lawmakers are launching a study into a new execution method. How they're exploring the use of nitrogen gas. -A state law that goes against what the federal government wants could soon make it harder for you to travel. We'll tell you what you need to know. All that and more from 5-7 this morning!

Updated: Tuesday, September 16 2014 4:46 AM EDT2014-09-16 08:46:38 GMT

Humid & Warm with Slight Rain Chances...

Humid & Warm with Slight Rain Chances...

Updated: Tuesday, September 16 2014 12:04 AM EDT2014-09-16 04:04:47 GMT

New stores are breaking ground while others are opening their doors. After the completion of two large retail projects in the past two years, city officials say they're still working to diversify the shopping and dining selection citywide.

New stores are breaking ground while others are opening their doors. After the completion of two large retail projects in the past two years, city officials say they're still working to diversify the shopping and dining selection citywide.

Continue reading here:
Students invited to enter First Amendment contest