Archive for September, 2009

Ron Paul gives a great observation as to the increased rhetoric from the U.S. government regarding Iran’s disclosure of its nuclear facility this past week. Apparently, our government has know about this facility for some time.

Apparently, the mainstream media decided that rooting out federal government corruption by a member of Congress was not headline material.  At issue is the language (or the lack thereof) of the congressional bill passed last week stripping funding from ACORN.  The bill is HR 3571, the Defund ACORN Act. As noted by

This bill, designed to block any federal funds from going to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), was approved in the form of a motion to recommit with instructions to the House’s student loan bill (H.R. 3221). It has been noted that the bill is written so broadly that it could apply to organizations besides ACORN, including defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.

As of result of the language in the bill, Congressman Alan Grayson (D-Fl) has launched a campaign (as per his video campaign promise to his Florida constituents) to create a list of federal government contractors involved in fraudulent activities associated with government contracts. Assuming the bill’s language remains intact, Grayson would create the list as an attachment to the bill for future court review, and most importantly, ban these fraudster contractors from doing business with the government (taxpayer dollars).

Congressmen Grayson is asking for the public’s help in identifying those fraudulent contractors so he can develop a master list for the record. Here is Congressman Grayson’s request webpage. Perhaps Mr. Grayson is a rare breed of statesman and defender of our Constitution. Any efforts initiated to eliminate government corruption is worthwhile and has my full support. Other politicians (who should be statesmen) should take Mr. Grayson seriously and initiate similar actions to engage the public and try to re-insert some moral integrity back into public service. Perhaps I do not agree with all of Grayson’s political views, but I will support any effort, by any statesmen, to have our federal government bound by the Constitution.  Please help Alan Grayson clean up corruption in D.C.

One of the major assaults on our Constitution was the FISA bill passed during the Bush II administration after 911, supported by both Democrats and Republicans.  Of course, one of the major provisions of that bill allowed for retroactive and future immunity from past and future illegal wire-tapping conducted by the telecommunications industry.

In 2008, a great deal of political grandstanding took place as both (d) and (r) sought support for their position on FISA renewal.  Well, Obama, like the majority of Democrats, rallied against the FISA bill renewal only to capitulate at voting time.

The House passed legislation to expand spying authority, despite the objections of most Democratic lawmakers, almost ensuring that a White House-backed surveillance measure will become law.

The Democrats fought the Republicans over FISA, but massive lobby efforts and campaign contributions from the telecommunications industry swayed Democrats into supporting their position. This could have been defeated if (26) Democrats had voted for American freedom instead of Corporatism and continued immunity for the telecommunications industry.

Why did Democrat’s support the telecommunication industry instead of the American public? If you guessed industry lobby efforts and campaign contributions, then you’re barking up the right tree. investigated this connection and found “HOUSE DEMS WHO CHANGED THEIR VOTE TO SUPPORT FISA BILL, GIVING IMMUNITY TO TELCOS, RECEIVED, ON AVERAGE, $8,359 IN PAC CONTRIBUTIONS FROM VERIZON, AT&T, AND SPRINT.

This week Senate Democrats urge ending telco wiretap immunity .

The Obama administration earlier this week asked Congress to reauthorize the use of three techniques that expire later this year — roving wiretaps, access to business records and tracking suspected foreign militants who may be working individually rather than as part of a larger group, known as the “lone wolf” authority.

While there is some support for renewing those methods, some Senate Democrats have said they want to bolster privacy protections, something the Obama administration said it was willing to consider.

What’s changed since the vote of 2008?

2009 Lobby Effort to Congress
At&T -$8.19 million
Verizon -$9.2 million
Sprint/Nextel -$1.3 million
2009 Total Telephone Utility Lobby -$22.2 million

It looks as if the telecommunications industry has ramped up their lobby efforts and continue to shovel boatloads of money to both sides of the congressional aisle. Will the Democrats support privacy rights of American or continue, like their Republican counterparts, to cater to corporate amerika’s interest and continue their assault on the Constitution of America? I think money will win out and, unfortunately, the telecommunications industry has the royal flush in that game.

Contact your Congressional representative and ask them to protect American freedom instead of telecommunication companies’ profits. Support those in Congress who truly support the Constitution.

Just in time for Sonia Sotomayor to hear her first case as a Supreme Court Justice, the court today will begin hearing arguments for easing or eliminating restrictions on corporate and union campaign contributions. Even though the case stems from a group action, Citizens United, that released a critical movie about Hillary Clinton in January 2008, Hillary: The Movie, the larger issue is corporate and union influence as free speech versus excessive and unfair influence on elections by corporations and unions. The courts are considering overturning a 2003 ruling restricting broadcast political ads by corporations and unions just prior to an election and a 1990 decision placing limits on corporate campaign contributions at the state and federal levels.

As noted in this article by Reuters,

“Overturning these well-established laws would turn our elections into free-for-alls, with massive corporate and union spending,” said David Arkush of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group based in Washington.


“Corporate influence would likely be strengthened over all policy decisions — on healthcare reform, climate change, trade, everything,” said Arkush, director of the group’s Congress Watch division.

Over the past 30-40 years, various restrictions have been put in place to keep elections free from outside interests. However, many of the reforms put in place have been side-stepped with PAC’s, 527’s, and 501(c)’s.

Our election process in America is totally corrupt. One of the many contributing factors in this corruption is allowing corporations, unions, and other organizations to endlessly contribute to multimillion dollar political campaigns. Whether it’s via 527’s, bundlers, etc.., an election should not be unduly influenced from a non-voting,non-person. Individuals within a voting precinct should only be allowed to contribute to a political race within his/her precinct. When any individual outside my voting precinct contributes funds to a political race in my precinct, then my freedom of speech and opportunity to be represented is adversely affected. When non-person organizations/groups are allowed to contribute to political campaigns in my voting precinct, then the same negative effect occurs. Allow contributions to political campaigns only by individual voters residing in the precinct themselves. What harm could come from such a move? None. What benefit would arise out of such a policy? Plenty. For starters, voters may have a true voice in their election process.

“On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me,” Jones, special adviser for green jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a statement announcing his resignation just after midnight Sunday. “They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide.” link

All I can say is that it’s about time. I guess the revelation that Jones is also a 9/11 “truther” was the last straw. This guy was about as radical left as they come and there is no reason for someone who thinks “white people are poising urban youth” to be in any kind of advisory role to a U.S. President.

Good riddance, I say!!

There not much to say here. This guy is a buffoon and acts like a tyrant. Good luck to him in the next election.