Showing posts from January, 2010

On Obama

Just a quick note on what I heard in Obama's state of the union speech:  A whole lot of what the American people want to hear and nothing about what his real plans are, unless you are talking about his strict "sanctions" on Iran.  Heck, maybe he'll just give them the evil eye.  Maybe I am just sick of politics.  I did hear the words he said and noticed that there was spin.  Yes, even in the state of the union.  So much politicking, trying to force republicans to vote for his agenda, "because you can't just vote against everything".  It is as bad as when he claimed that the reason Massachussetts voted in a Republican on a platform of conservatism and smaller government was because the voters there were angry with the Bush Administration and wanted to send a message.  Is anyone even buying this anymore?  He is starting to believe he really is the second coming of Christ.  He really must. I cannot figure him out.  I really don't want to believe that he…

Supreme Court upholds First Amendment

On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment and appropriately struck down government prohibitions on many sorts of privately-funded political advertising. In doing so, Heritage Foundation legal scholar Hans von Spakovsky argues, the court "upheld some of the most important principles: the right to engage in free speech, particularly political speech, and the right to freely associate."
The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, originated as a question about campaign finance laws and whether they apply to an unflattering film about then-Senator Hillary Clinton. After the government argued that campaign finance laws could even lead to bans on books, the Court ordered a rare re-argument to address the broader constitutionality of limiting corporations' independent spending during federal election campaigns.
It was a question of "ancient First Amendment principles," the Court stated in its majority opinion. It is no coincidence that t…

Obama's Secret Vault

On Glenn Beck's Jan. 7 show, he was rightly puzzled regarding the exact purpose of President Barack Obama's Dec. 16 signing of an executive order "DESIGNATING INTERPOL AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES."

Beck spoke for a host of other government watchdogs when he said on the air: "We've been asking ever since it was signed: Why? Who can tell me what special interest group asked for this? If it were about terror, why not tell us that when he signed it? This Congress attacks our CIA and FBI, but Interpol gets immunity? Why? It makes no sense."

Glenn, I agree. But I think I recently have seen behind the veil on the White House's covert mission and mystery with Interpol.

The rest of Obama's executive order reads: "By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations …