Redstate Morning Briefing

Armageddon: What Democrats Are Hiding & Why They Are Really Scared
Unions and Democrats are scared. They should be.

Very soon, Democrats and their union bosses' worst fears may soon be realized and, if they cannot continue their slight of hand, it may threaten their very existence. While it is true that Democrats and their union bosses are facing possibly debilitating losses on November 2nd, they are hiding the really bad news from voters until after November 2nd.

Do you remember that promise we heard back in 2008 about transparency? Democrats and, in particular, then-candidate Barack Obama stated emphatically that "transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency." What a joke that was. Well, it's time to shed some light on the house of cards that is about to come crashing down on Democrats' and union bosses' heads.

In June, a conversation took place in a hotel restaurant in Washington. As a latecomer to the conversation, it was easy to pick up that the topic that was the $165 billion union pension bailout bill introduced by Sen. Bob Casey [D-PA] in March.
Upon introductions, one of the individuals stated, "this is Armageddon."

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Obama and Democrats lie about Citizens United and campaign money

...it is telling that this White House would invest so much energy on pushing an argument that is so fundamentally false on its face. It tells you something about their respect for the American people, their belief in the gullibility of the media, and their character.

Barack Obama and the Democrats have a story about this election. It goes like this. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations have free speech rights in the Supreme Court decision Citizens United. Since then, all this corporate money has flowed into campaigns, blah blah blah. And the press has completely accepted this line of thinking.

It is complete nonsense. They probably want to concoct a falsehood so that this election somehow is not about the White House. But the reality is that their core narrative is simply false on its face.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

The Heartbreak of Palin Derangement Syndrome.

It's sad that this needs to be brought up, but it must: it would appear that the Netroots - as per their continuing habit of acting as if the American political system was identical to a pre-Giuliani Times Square peep show emporium - has gotten themselves in a bit of a scrape, again. Specifically, they spent several cheerful hours hooting and hollering over the way that THAT WOMAN suggested that the Tea Party not "party like it was 1773? before they noticed that. well, that the Boston Tea Party was in, well, 1773.
A couple of things: first, this storyboard; which is both cruel and accurate.
Second, while I understand and expect that your average online progressive blogger has about much awareness of American history as, say. Oh, this is awkward. An online progressive blogger would be the actual yardstick for 'abysmally ignorant about American history.' Nonetheless, while I understand that the Online Left is dumb. really, Gwen Ifill. You're supposed to be one of the bright talking heads.
Tsk, tsk.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

NRA Board Member Speaks Out On Collusion With DhimmiRats

NRA Board Member Cleta Mitchell Weighs in on the NRA's Backroom Deal for an Exemption from the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175):

"For its part, the NRA -- on whose board of directors I serve -- rather than holding steadfastly to its historic principles of defending the Constitution and continuing its noble fight against government regulation of political speech instead opted for a political deal borne of self-interest in exchange for "neutrality" from the legislation's requirements. In doing so, the NRA has, sadly, affirmed the notion held by congressional Democrats (and some Republicans), liberal activists, the media establishment and, at least for now, a minority on the Supreme Court that First Amendment protections are subject to negotiation. The Second Amendment surely cannot be far behind...

Democrats would effectively neuter the [Citizens United] decision by requiring the names of multiple donors to be recited in ads (thus shrinking the time spent on actual speech), requiring the CEO of a corporate donor to personally appear in campaign-related ads, expanding the coverage period to virtually the entire election year, and including myriad other rules that the NRA described last month as "byzantine" and an "arbitrary patchwork of reporting and disclosure requirements."

The NRA's wheel-squeaking bought it an exemption from those requirements. Tea Party organizations arising spontaneously since 2009? Out of luck. Online organizations with large e-mail followings but perhaps no formal dues structure? Forget it."

NRA Sells Out Gun Owners

Email from a friend out in the western part of the Territories.
HR 5175 Restriction of Free Speech
You Can't Call A Congressperson An Idiot Act

The NRA is fully prepared to sell out grassroots gun organizations across the nation, including VCDL, to the anti-gun Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives by not fighting a bill that will gag the free speech of those who criticize members of Congress.

The NRA, in a news release included below, has said it will turn a blind eye to H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act, since it exempts the NRA. Bottom line: the NRA has been bought off.

Here is the criteria in the bill for an exemption:
* More than 1 million members
* Has been in existence for more than 10 years
* Has members in all 50 states
* Raises 15 percent or less of their income from corporations

It appears the ONLY gun organization to meet that set of criteria would be the NRA - not GOA or SAF or CCRKBA, much less VCDL.

VCDL rarely criticizes another gun organization, but on this issue we cannot, and must not, hold our tongues.

Let me not mince words - this appears to be an unholy alliance between Nancy Pelosi and the NRA, which would wipe out the NRA's competition.

If you snuggle up with a rattlesnake you are going to get bit. The NRA is playing a fool's game if they think they will survive this unscathed. Nancy Pelosi is not their friend now, nor will she ever be.

For their own self-interest, the NRA is apparently choosing to drive, or at least ride in, the bus that is going to run over the rest of us.

Portion of Press Release from NRA:
On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech. As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill.

Guns and Free Speech
16 June 2010
The Wall Street Journal

The National Rifle Association is suffering a sudden onset of amnesia this week, as the gun lobby cuts a deal to exempt itself from the latest Congressional attempt to repeal the First Amendment. NRA members may soon regret the organization's bid to ingratiate itself with Democrats at the expense of its longtime free-speech allies.

The campaign finance bill, sponsored by Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Chris Van Hollen, is the Democratic response to the Supreme Court's January decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which restored the First Amendment right of corporations, unions and nonprofits to make independent campaign expenditures. At the time, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre called Citizens United "a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us."

Look who's arrogant and elitist now. Under the Schumer-Van Hollen bill, political speech would be bound up with new restrictions, including special burdens on government contractors and corporations that have a certain level of foreign ownership or received TARP funds. The bill also includes disclosure rules designed to hit corporations, requiring CEOs to appear to "approve this message" the way politicians do, and for groups to identify their donors. Except for the NRA.

Under the NRA carve-out in the House bill, the new rules won't apply to any organizations that have been around for more than 10 years, have more than a million members and receive less than 15% of their funding from corporate donors. That fits the NRA nicely, though as best we can figure, everyone else, from the Sierra Club to Planned Parenthood, fails to qualify. So much for defending the little guy against the fat cats.

This backroom deal came at the behest of Democrats from conservative states, for whom the NRA's scorecard of their legislative record can be a major boost or obstacle to election. Creating a special exception for the NRA, and thereby assuring the Democrats "good grades" on Second Amendment rights, eases the way for the bill to be passed. A failing grade on First Amendment rights is somebody else's problem.

By erecting what amounts to a grandfather clause of First Amendment rights, the bill creates a sort of interest-group incumbency, concentrating the power to speak freely among a handful of large and longstanding groups. Established organizations like the NRA provide important representation for their members, but their lobbying cause is specific and limited.

Left vulnerable by the special treatment are the smaller grassroots outfits that often pop up in response to new and immediate policy challenges. The ability of these groups to count on the full protection of the First Amendment is critical to diverse and responsive political debate.

The NRA may swing a big lobbying stick by virtue of the breadth and voting power of its members, but it draws its legitimacy from the Constitution and it has drawn support on gun rights from those who care about the entire Bill of Rights. Cutting a special deal at the expense of the First Amendment with lawmakers who have decided for now to stop gutting the Second Amendment reveals an NRA that is unprincipled and will be weaker for it in the long run.

Dissing SCOTUS Is Bad Karma

Attorney: Obama's remark reflects 'mob rule' mentality

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has taken issue with President Obama for comments during the State of the Union address.

During his speech in late January, the president criticized the Supreme Court for its
recent decision on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. "With all due deference to the separation of powers, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said while six of the nine justices were seated before him.

Speaking in Alabama on Tuesday, Roberts acknowledged anyone is free to criticize the court -- but that "the setting, the circumstances, and the decorum" must be considered. "The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court -- according the requirements of protocol -- has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling," said the chief justice. (See earlier article)

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel believes Roberts' comment about the president's statement as being "very troubling" is generous. Barber contends the administration has become more of a "mob rule."

Would that be "mob rule" as in a group of angry people, or "mob rule" as in Chicago style politics? No regard for the rule of law in either case, but the latter is deliberate and planned.

Justice Thomas On CU v FEC Decision

So it would appear that the original law dates back to the early 1900's with a Democrat Senator from Dixie trying to keep the black man in his place and silence the mean old Republican corporations.

Justice Defends Ruling on Finance

Justice Thomas responded to several questions from students at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla., concerning the campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice Thomas in the majority, the court ruled last month that corporations had a First Amendment right to spend money to support or oppose political candidates.

“I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.”

The part of the McCain-Feingold law struck down in Citizens United contained an exemption for news reports, commentaries and editorials. But Justice Thomas said that reflected a legislative choice rather than a constitutional principle.

He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.

“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”

It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”

Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”

Foreign Influence in American Elections

Zero is suddenly concerned about "foreign influence" in American elections. Maybe someone should investigate Jodie Evans and track all the money she "bundled" during the Presidential campaign. (Someone should investigate code pink, period.)

The louder the dhimmis holler about something, the more likely it is that they are guilty of doing that very thing.

Background here, here, and here.

Hypocrisy Squared

I don't always agree with the Newt, but he's dead right on this one.

Can We Trust the American People Mr. President? Yes, We Can.

In a breathtaking display of hypocrisy, President Obama used his weekly radio address last week to pledge to work with Congress to reverse the decision and declared: "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest.
The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections" (emphasis added).

This, from the president who negotiated back-room deals with special interests in order to force Democratic health care reform on the American people. This, from a president whose massive expansion of government into the private sector has set off a stampede of lobbyists to Washington to claim their piece of the taxpayers' pie. But even more glaring than the hypocrisy is the obvious contempt that supporters of bureaucratic campaign finance have for the American people.

Ultimately, the question comes down to one of trust. Can we trust the people, and not the government, to determine our political future?

The answer, Mr. President, is a familiar one:

"Yes we can."

Heritage Foundation on SCOTUS Decision

Supreme Court upholds First Amendment
January 22, 2010 By Amanda J. Reinecker

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 the rights to free speech and assembly are among the first mentioned in our Bill of Rights -- our Founders recognized that these rights are essential to the preservation of a free government.

"Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy and the means to hold officials accountable to the people," Spakovsky argues. But the right to free speech is not limited to individual persons, he argues. For-profit and non-profit organizations are greatly "affected, damaged, or even lost" by the laws Congress passes, so there is "no rational reason why they should not be able to engage in independent political activity."

Those who criticize the Court's 5-4 decision fail to recognize a key component about this critical First Principle: free speech "is written in terms of 'speech,' not speakers," as Justice Scalia explained in a concurring opinion. It is a right that applies to all. To deny it to would be an obfuscation of the written law and a violation of a fundamental right.