Obama intends to push failed DISCLOSE Act through executive order

Of course this only pertains to government contractors. Not recipients of government aid like Planned Parenthood, or unions. Come to think of it, this can't be Constitutional. I think a little old-fashioned conscientious objecting is in order. NOBODY should obey this if it is passed. Let the little tyrant try to get this backed up in courts. Heck, the Supreme Court denied it. The Congress denied it. Obama just can't keep his little tyrant hands off of political free speech. Not with an election coming up. Well he can POUND SAND!

Washington (CNSNews.com) –  In what the White House calls a push for transparency, a pending executive order would require companies doing business with the federal government to disclose political contributions to independent groups, but would not place the same requirement on public employee unions or federal grant recipients that typically donate to Democrats.

Entitled the “Disclosure of Political Spending By Government Contractors,” the order would implement parts of the DISCLOSE Act, which failed to get through Congress last year. The legislation sought to restrict campaign speech after the landmark Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the right of corporations and unions to donate to campaigns.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney confirmed Monday that work is underway on the draft order, and linked the move to President Obama’s stated commitment to transparency.

“We fully acknowledge there is a process underway,” he told CNSNews.com. “A draft is just that. It’s a draft until it makes its way through the process. The president is committed to transparency and he certainly thinks American taxpayers should know where their money is going.”

Government contractors are already required to disclose contributions to political candidates. This executive order would require the disclosure of any donations to independent groups, where conservative groups outspent liberal ones in the 2010 election.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the executive order would stifle free speech.

Read more here.

Do We Live In A State of Emergency?

As I am working my way through Michael Badnarik's book, Good to be King, I came across a part that says that the United States operates under several declared national emergencies, starting on March 9, 1933. And it is these declarations that cause the loophole in the constitution to allow the president to assume powers reserved for congress. Under normal circumstances, a president should not issue executive orders. Presidents do not legislate. Under normal circumstances, congress should declare war, not the president. But ALL wars since WWII have been declared unilaterally by the president, not congress.

We need to urge (DEMAND) that our legislators reverse and end all declared states of national emergency. I am not willing to sell my liberty for perceived (and fake) security. THIS is the reason we are flirting with Tyranny. And it must be stopped. We want to restore the Constitution? End the State of Emergency TODAY!

Will We Have The Discipline To Reverse Unconstitutional Legislation After November?

We have a lot of work ahead of us getting this country back to its Constitutional roots.   After we elect Conservative representatives in upcoming elections, many pieces of Obama legislation, such as Obamacare, must be repealed. Obama's unlawful seizure of private property, as with the automobile companies, must be set right. But we must discipline ourselves to look at ALL unconstitutional legislation, not just that put forward by Democrats. I'm thinking of the Patriot Act. Any portions of that act that permit search and seizure without warrant are unconstitutional and should be abolished. Including electronic searches. The founding fathers wrote about papers and effects. They corresponded using paper and nowadays we correspond electronically. That does not mean we give up our rights to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure.

Power, once gained, is seldom voluntarily relinquished. Liberal voters expected Obama to overturn the Patriot Act. They are surprised and disappointed that he has not. Historians are not surprised at all. And as the Obama administration seeks to label Tea Party patriots domestic terrorists as Janet Napolitano did last year in her outrageous DHS memo, we feel the dirt of Obama's boot on our necks.

If we are able to gain a vast electoral victory in November and in 2012, should we then sit on our laurels? Should we breathe easy and go back to watching reality TV? Should we feel OK because it is "our guy" in the White House and he is targeting those "other guys" over there, not us?

I say NO. "The only way to promote the good of the community is to unerringly protect the rights of the individual." M. Badnarik. Ayn Rand also touted the rights of the individual. Seizure of private property, I hope everyone will agree, is unconstitutional. But anti-terrorist legislation, particularly in a post-9/11 world, is a topic that we are not all in agreement on. But to me it is like protecting the right of free speech for communists, or anybody else you don't agree with. I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. I want an easy way to find/investigate/lock up terrorists, but I want to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. We must protect ourselves while protecting our laws. Without our laws, we are naked against tyranny. Be it tyranny of the majority (democracy) or tyranny of a president, we either defend our law or stand defenseless.
Pic via Baizaphotography.

Chairman Tom Price speaks out against the tyranny of the majority

He says that this is the most repressive majority in the history of the Republic. What we are seeing now is a tyranny of the majority. We are borrowing 50 cents of every single dollar we are spending. More here.

Cuba Libre? Forget it.

"Subversive messages like the above will no longer be displayed on the news ticker at the US diplomatic mission in Havana.

Barry’s latest attempt to love dictators into submission centers on Cuba, where this goodwill gesture will most likely be a precursor to more substantive talks with the Castros.

Where, no doubt, Barry will make concession after concession without reciprocation.

Castro may look like a harmless incontinent now but never forget that he came this close (pinching my thumb and forefinger together) to nuking the US in 1962.

But who cares about history?"
Great story, Track A Crat. Sometimes it's the little things like this that paint the picture of what is really happening. So we no longer push for freedom in Cuba. Couple that with censoring outgoing emails from the Republican Minority. Add it all up, and what do you get??? Say it with me now. Tyrannosaurus Rex. Er, I mean Tyrant King.