SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: coug who wrote (79456)1/22/2010 12:14:36 PM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 89467
 
Political speech is the most important speech. You think the fathers gave us free speech in the first amendment to protect people who wanted to make porno movies ?

No it was because no one could talk about the king and what he was doing to the citizens.



To: coug who wrote (79456)1/22/2010 12:25:36 PM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 89467
 
BOSSIE: 'Congress shall make no law . . .
By David N. Bossie

Writing for the Supreme Court of the United States in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission yesterday, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted that campaign-finance laws required that "a speaker wishing to avoid criminal-liability threats and the heavy costs of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak."

Think about that for a moment: Citizen of the United States needed to seek permission from a government agency before speaking about a politician who ostensibly is a representative of the people. Not only that, but a citizen who spoke without government permission was at risk of a prison sentence.

In 2007, Citizens United Productions released a film entitled "Hillary The Movie."Naturally, we wanted to advertise our film and distribute it to those who wished to see it via cable "on-demand." In an unconscionable violation of our First Amendment rights, the government restricted us from doing so because the film and the advertisements that I produced referenced a candidate for federal office.

I was stunned by the government's decision. I believe that, above every other category of speech, political speech must be the most protected. If our right to political speech can be denied by the government, how are we to hold our representatives to that government accountable for their actions? If we are not permitted to speak about our own government, can it truly be considered "our" government?

From Thomas Paine's publication of "Common Sense" before the American Revolution, to the ratification debate featuring John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison memorialized in the Federalist Papers, to the editorial writers of today, advocacy of political causes through popular media is inextricably intertwined with the fabric of this country. It is no coincidence that in the Bill of Rights, the right to freedom of speech is both first and absolute.

Over the last hundred years, however, Congress and the courts have decided that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" does not mean what any citizen reading those words for the first time would reasonably think. For the last hundred years, progressively more restrictive laws have been passed encroaching on our right to free speech. Each time a new law is passed, it is done incrementally and under the guise of "good government" so as not to frighten us. But as soon as we have grown accustomed to the previous law, another is passed that takes away just a little more of our freedom.

This process came to a head last March, when the deputy solicitor general of the United States, representing the official position of the government in front of the nine justices of the Supreme Court, declared that the government had the constitutional authority to ban the publication of a book if Congress passed such a law. That comment crystallizes the dangers of a hundred years of campaign-finance "reform." It is inconceivable that a learned man like the deputy solicitor general in such august company as the justices of the Supreme Court would have made that comment a hundred years ago. It is only because Congress and the courts have quietly stolen away small pieces of our First Amendment rights over the course of a century that such a position could be taken.

There can be honest disagreements about the role of money in politics. But I would hope that, whether Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, we can all agree that any attempt by the government to silence a citizen should be met with a stern rebuke. This is not an issue that is easily categorized as "conservative" or "liberal." In our case, the ACLU joined with the NRA, and the AFL-CIO joined with the Chamber of Commerce in support of Citizens United and the First Amendment. We were fighting as much for the rights of filmmakers like Michael Moore as we were for our own right to produce, advertise and distribute films.

Thankfully, the Roberts Court has put the brakes on a slide down a very slippery and very dangerous slope. With yesterday's ruling, so-called "reformers" have been put on notice that, as Justice Kennedy said in the opinion of the court, "when Congress finds that a problem exists, we must give that finding due deference; but Congress may not choose an unconstitutional remedy."

David N. Bossie is president of Citizens United, a nationwide grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring the government to citizen control.



To: coug who wrote (79456)1/22/2010 4:06:29 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
US Policy: More War, Less Relief
______________________________________________________________

by Sarah Lazare

Published on Friday, January 22, 2010 by CommonDreams.org

As Haiti asks the world for help turning around the destruction wrought by the January 12th earthquake, the U.S. is funding destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Obama is expected to ask for another $33 billion for the military budget this year, on top of the $1 trillion that has come out of U.S. taxpayers' pockets since 2001, to fund the so-called War on Terror.

In contrast, the president has pledged $100 million in aid to Haiti, amounting to not much more than the mortgage on a rich person's house.

The U.S. government has sent over 5,000 U.S. military personnel to Haiti, with the total expected to reach 10,000, as aid becomes increasingly militarized in the wake of this disaster. Some aid groups are openly complaining about the U.S. military presence: Doctors Without Borders said that five of its airplanes carrying medical equipment were turned away by the U.S. military and rerouted to the Dominican Republic. French and Mexican planes carrying medical aid were also turned back. U.S. soldiers are now patrolling the streets of Haiti, many with large weapons slung over their shoulders.

And many Haitians are suspicious of the influx of U.S. troops, claiming that the U.S. has been looking for excuses, for a long-time, to regain U.S. military control of their country.

With the inundation of images of death, injury, and collapse in Haiti, realities are emerging about the global relationships that set the stage for these kinds of catastrophes and divert resources to war and militarism instead of real relief.

Over eight years of war and occupation in Afghanistan and six in Iraq have left those countries utterly devastated. More than a million Iraqis and thousands of Afghanis have died, with countless people in Iraq and Afghanistan displaced to neighboring countries. Infrastructures, homes, schools, and mosques lie in ruin, and those who remain must deal with societies destabilized and ethnically polarized by wars that fuel these divisions, on top of the constant U.S. and international military presence. As we enter 2010, there is no end in sight to the occupations, and viable alternative social structures in these countries have been flattened by devastating military campaigns.

If the images of these wars were widely circulated in the media, they too would shock and horrify the world.

Now, as Haiti lies in shambles, the Obama administration is asking Americans to reach deep into their pockets to fund an escalating military campaign and countless more years of destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the same troops being sent to fight these wars are also being deployed to Haiti, a country desperately in need of humanitarian aid, not military presence.

As we live this painful historical moment, the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. - whose birthday was celebrated Monday - in reference to the Vietnam War, are eerily relevant:

We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now, let us begin. Now, let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter-but beautiful-struggle for a new world... Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., April 4th, 1967
_______________

*Sarah Lazare is an anti-militarist and GI resistance organiser with Dialogues Against Militarism and Courage to Resist. She is interested in connecting struggles for justice at home with global movements against war and empire.



To: coug who wrote (79456)1/22/2010 8:01:29 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Bruce Springsteen, Dave Matthews and Stevie Wonder Confirmed for Haiti Benefit Telethon Tonight

jambands.com

Many of the world’s biggest musicians will participate in a global telethon to raise much needed funds for the nation of Haiti. The two-hour telethon, billed as the most widely distributed telethon in history, will air on ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, MTV, CNN, PBS, Bravo, HBO, G4, Comedy Central, BET and many other channels at 8 PM ET this evening, January 22. The event will also stream live via YouTube, Hulu, MySpace, AOL, MSN, Yahoo, Fancast, MTV.com, CNN.com, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, Alltel and Sirius XM. The event is organized by George Clooney.

Artists scheduled to perform include: Bruce Springsteen, Dave Matthews, Wyclef Jean, Alicia Keys, Justin Timberlake, Stevie Wonder, Coldplay, Bono and Jay-Z, among others. The performers will be recorded in several cities throughout the country.