Friday, December 31, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
No Labels - More Centrist Failures
I found this article by Adam Bitely at getliberty.org to be compelling.
By Adam Bitely
“No Labels” launched on Monday morning with a conference in New York City featuring a “who’s who” of failed closet-liberal politicians attempting to create a fabricated movement in an attempt to make their agenda relevant. The “No Labels” agenda — which appears to be to campaign that voters are irrational for not electing Big Government politicians — has already failed to gain traction amongst the electorate around the nation. The election results on November 2nd, 2010 indicate just that.
The “No Labels” roll out featured politician has-beens such as Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), Rep. Bob Inglis (D-SC), former Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), and exiting Governor Charlie Crist (I-FL). All of these politicians have been tossed out by the electorate or read polling data that indicated they were rather unpopular in their districts or state and decided to save themselves from the embarrassment of losing at the voting booth. Mike Castle specifically, who lost his bid for the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate in Delaware this past September, indicated that the voters in his state were irrational to go against his support of Big Government projects like Obama’s “stimulus” and the bailouts.
The politicians at the “No Labels” launch spoke much too frequently about “hyper partisanship” that is spiraling out of control while failing to acknowledge that it is they that have led to the problem that they plan to tackle. The nation is too divided they argue, and “No Labels” will allow the “radical center” to have a voice at the table of government.
The folks behind “No Labels” must have missed the fact that a solid majority of independent voters sided with tea party movement influenced candidates in November that promised to put an end to the political establishment that runs the government. Independent voters rejected the politicians that are the very symbol of the Washington political establishment that “No Labels” is comprised of.
While the use of the words “hyper partisanship” (it felt like every speaker mentioned this at least three times a minute) and “starting the conversation” ran wild throughout the “No Labels” launch conference, fiction and myth ran even wilder.
For instance, one of the speakers in the evening program at the “No Labels” launch referenced a “hyper partisan gridlock” that is allegedly out of control in D.C. This person was obviously asleep for the past two years while Democrats ran Congress with solid majorities while simultaneously controlling the White House. No such gridlock existed. But don’t expect the folks at “No Labels” to correct the record.
Further, the politicians that were showcased throughout the event have been running the government in DC that they were critical of throughout the event. These politicians are the problem, and definitely are not the solution.
At one point, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg criticized the Founding Fathers for being wealthy landowners while attempting to make a point that there is a severe problem that only the wealthy have access to government power. Mayor Bloomberg must have forgotten the size of his own bank account, being a billionaire and the wealthiest politician in America. He must have also forgotten that he had the law changed that would have prevented him from running for a third term, which would have allowed a new, fresh voice to run the city.
While it is nice to think that politicians will come together in Washington to fix America’s problems while setting aside political differences, it is naïve to believe that “No Labels” will achieve any meaningful successes. If the establishment politicians that pranced around the “No Labels” conference were truly serious, they could show us by first removing any party labels they use and then actually focus on getting the nation back in fiscal order.
Such organizations like “No Labels” are just another tool in the D.C. political establishment’s shed of political tactics used to deceive voters in to believing the myth that they are doing the work of the people. The politicians behind “No Labels” are the same politicians that have run the nation into the ground.
If Americans fall for this front group, the nation will be in serious trouble.
Adam Bitely is the Editor-in-Chief of NetRightDaily.com.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Stealing the American Dream
Originally found at Getliberty.org and reproduced here because eminent domain abuses run rampant.
By Rebekah Rast
The Singh/Kaur family came to America from India in hopes of a better life and increased opportunity.
The family settled in New York and has since run two gas stations in the West Harlem neighborhood of Manhattanville. For 25 years the family worked around the clock to maintain its stations and even installed a car wash on one of them.
The business is all the family has.
“This is their official business,” says David L. Smith, attorney for the Singh/Kaur family. “It’s what they do, it’s what they own — this is their livelihood.”
If you go to the family’s gas station now, you will notice that the car wash is no longer working. Why? The Singh/Kaur family can’t take out a loan to have it fixed.
It’s not because they have bad credit or wouldn’t be able to pay the loan off, it’s because they are being threatened with eminent domain. No bank will finance property that might be taken away.
In the same neighborhood, Nick Sprayregen owns his storage facility, Tuck-It-Away Associates, LP. He houses items for about 2,000 local families and small businesses within his four-building operation.
Sprayregen’s business has taken a hit. Possibly due to the economy, but mostly because of the same threat of eminent domain that is trying to take the land of the Singh/Kaur family.
Neither property owner is giving up their land without a fight.
The entity attempting to seize the land from these property owners is Columbia University, a private school. The university wants to build a new 17-acre campus in the neighborhood of Manhattanville.
Current New York law considers property in “blight” conditions, a condition of disrepair, to be able to be seized by eminent domain procedures. With a loose definition of what “blight” conditions look like, many corporations and cities have seized on opportunities to takeover properties they justify as “blighted.”
Columbia University partnered with Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), a quasi-government authority, to take over the land.
As previously reported by Americans for Limited Government (ALG), Manhattanville business owners’ attorney Smith and former New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Norman Siegel were able to prove that Columbia and ESDC conspired together to produce the conditions of “blight” that would then allow the ESDC to seize the property wanted by the university. They also found that many of the “blighted” buildings were already owned by Columbia and it was the university’s responsibility to clean them up. Because the university was not keeping the buildings and spaces up to code, many of the businesses in the area were forced to move out. Constant threats of eminent domain also caused them to leave.
In December 2009, a state appellate court struck down the ESDC’s actions as illegal. The case was then heard by the Court of Appeals on June 1st, 2010.
The decision from the Court of Appeals, as reported by The New York Times, overturned the appellate court’s ruling that barred the state from using its power of eminent domain to take private property.
A disappointing loss for the Singh/Kaur family and for Sprayregen.
“It is ethically reprehensible that a private entity should partner with a government agency to take private land,” Sprayregen says.
The Singh/Kaur family’s attorney went onto say that this battle of Columbia trying to take their private property has been going on for eight years. “Over eight years of pushing and Columbia has only made one financial offer to the family for the land. It was very low and completely inadequate.”
The only option left for the property owners is the United States Supreme Court. Papers have already been filed. Now they must wait with their fingers crossed in hopes that the Supreme Court will hear the case.
Smith believes they have a chance.
About five years ago the Supreme Court made a questionable ruling in another eminent domain case, Kelo vs. City of New London. Susette Kelo was a property owner in New London, Connecticut, when pharmaceutical company Pfizer decided it wanted a new corporate facility in her neighborhood. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the pharmaceutical giant and an entire neighborhood was stripped down for its new facility, shops, restaurants and hotels.
The rest of the story is even more devastating. Four years after the Supreme Court ruling, Pfizer moved out. Land that once provided families with a home was now empty and barren.
The case received national attention and since then, many states have reformed their eminent domain laws to protect the rights of property owners.
New York has not.
The eminent domain laws in some states are skewed such that if you have more money, more power, friends in the right places and partner with the right agencies, then whatever land you want can be yours.
Eminent domain was never supposed to look like that.
The laws established by America’s Founding Fathers were a way for the country to grow and prosper for the benefit of all mankind. Eminent domain was primarily in place to be used for roads and other public services.
Part of what makes America great is that its citizens have the right to own their own property. It gives them a place of their own, makes them feel established and gives them a sense of pride.
It is the American Dream, after all.
“No matter how big a business, private entity, corporation or even the government, the rights of a property owner should stand even bigger and stronger,” says Bill Wilson, president of ALG. “Their voice should be heard the loudest and their property valued the highest.”
The Supreme Court has another chance to right a past wrong in the case of eminent domain.
“This would be the perfect case for the Supreme Court to do some tweaking,” Smith says, in regards to the outrage over the Kelo case ruling. “We are keeping our fingers and toes crossed.”
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Baucus' Chilling Effect on Speech
By Bill Wilson
Raw, brute force — that is the preferred campaign tactic of Obama and his allies in the Congress.
On September 28th, 2010, Senator Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee sent a letter to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) urging the agency to investigate 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) organizations for “engaging in political activity”, as reported by Politico’s Ben Smith.
Senator Baucus cited the 501(c) section of the tax code, writing, “The law requires that political campaign activity by a 501(c)(4), (c)(5) or (c)(6) entity must not be the primary purpose of the organization.” That is technically true. It is unconstitutional, however, and Senator Baucus’ letter demonstrates exactly why.
Not only has the tax code under section 501(c) been used to limit the types of speech that certain organizations can engage in — which on its face violates the First Amendment — now Baucus wants to use the IRS to intimidate groups and threaten their tax-exempt statuses “[e]ven if political campaign activity is not the primary purpose” of the group. This is designed purely to have a chilling effect on the speech of any organizations that are otherwise lawfully exercising their rights to freedom of speech.
The issue for Baucus boils down to disclosure. These groups are not required to publicly disclose their donors like political parties and candidates, although they must be disclosed to the IRS. For Baucus, that means they are not allowed to fully exercise their free speech rights under the First Amendment, even though the First Amendment provides for no such conditional exercise of the right.
Baucus is inviting the IRS to reinterpret the 501(c) section of the law, apparently to even rein in activities previously allowed for under that section. For example, he complains about the activities of Americans for Job Security in Alaska for promoting a referendum campaign, even though these groups are legally allowed to engage in referenda processes without any public disclosure requirements.
Under Baucus’ interpretation of the law, the Federalist Papers, which advocated for the adoption of the Federal Constitution via referendum, would be illegal because they were published anonymously under pseudonyms.
Justice Clarence Thomas had the same problem with the recently decided Citizens United decision, which upheld disclosure requirements of groups engaged in electioneering. In justifying his partial dissent of that decision, he wrote of the “the fallacy in the Court’s conclusion that ‘[d]isclaimer and disclosure requirements . . . impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities, and do not prevent anyone from speaking.’”
“Of course they do,” Thomas wrote, citing “real-world, recent examples” of intimidation: citizens receiving death threats for supporting a referendum, losing their jobs for appearing on a donor list, declining to donate to a candidate’s campaign for fear of reciprocity from a sitting attorney general, having their property defaced and damaged, and other clear examples of disclosure rules being used to silence speech.
“Disclaimer and disclosure requirements enable private citizens and elected officials to implement political strategies specifically calculated to curtail campaign-related activity and prevent the lawful, peaceful exercise of First Amendment rights,” Thomas explained.
“I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in ‘core political speech, the ‘primary object of First Amendment protection,’’” Thomas concluded.
While Baucus and other members of Congress are concerned about legally-constituted groups openly expressing their views, they apparently have no problem with fraudulent voting. FOX News recently reported on massive voter registration fraud in Texas, where a group called “Houston Votes” registered some 25,000 people to vote — but only 1,793 of them turned out to be valid.
This follows widespread efforts by groups like ACORN to submit phony voter registrations in several swing states, including Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Missouri. ACORN had a long history of such fraud in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Mexico.
If Baucus had a commitment to fair and open elections, he would be investigating a clear pattern of voter fraud by shady ACORN-like groups; not deputizing the IRS to be his thugs to shut down legitimate debate. In the least, Baucus’ efforts to silence that debate show how little he and his ilk have to say in defense of the disastrous policies of the Obama Administration.
Individuals speaking out, whether publicly or anonymously, for or against candidates standing for public office, attempting to influence the outcome of legislation, or promoting ballot initiatives are no threat to “elections that are the constitutional bedrock of our democracy,” in Baucus’ words. Phony voters showing up at the polls are.
Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government, a 501(c)(4) organization.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Tokyo Rove
I was amazed at the numbskullery by Karl Rove on the Eve of O'Donnel's win.
He could have just shut up.
But no, his words will be used against the Republican candidate in November. Probably to no avail, as we intend on winning that seat, but his posture is one that was seemingly meant to demoralize the troops, those tea partiers who are proving the conventional wisdom folks wrong at each turn.
The cartoon, stories and others like it are taken from GetLiberty.ORG. Enjoy