FEC to Study Regulating Political Speech on Internet
The liberals on the Federal Election Commission are eyeing political speech. First, they wanted to regulate books. Now, they want to go after the videos, blogs and websites of the Internet. Ann Ravel, vice chair of the FEC, announced that the commission will look into regulating the Internet because “a reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due.” Ravel wants to go after a “loophole” exempting political groups who distribute political ads for free across the Internet, insisting these ads must be disclosed to the FEC. But Lee Goodman, the FEC chairman, says these proposed regulations could entangle news sites, blogs or web forums. The Internet has been to political speech like ridesharing service Uber has been to the taxi industry — disruptive to the heavily regulated systems of the past. Doesn’t the FEC have more important things to do, like discouraging voter fraud and ensuring the reliability of voting technology, than tampering with the freedom of speech? More…
My Opinion: Leave Our Right To Free Speech Alone! If the FEC has their way, you will not be able to make the Truth known, nor even discuss it without prior approval. You will have to conform to their version of the Truth. They can just go ahead and throw me in jail cause I’m going to say what I want to say whether they like it or not.
You Didn’t Build That, Part II
At a Boston rally for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley, Hillary Clinton echoed Barack Obama’s famous “you didn’t build that” line in reference to businesses and jobs. Only she was perhaps even more explicit. “Don’t let anybody tell you that, uh, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” Clinton said. “You know that old theory, ‘trickle-down economics,’” she sneered. “That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.” For good measure, she added, “You know, one of the things my husband says when people say, ‘Well, what did you bring to Washington?’ [is], ‘Well, I brought arithmetic.’” Clinton is clearly trying to move left to head off a challenge from Elizabeth Warren. But it’s also interesting to note that her husband benefitted from what we call “Reaganomics” — supply and demand economics that gets government out of the way and lets people keep more of their hard-earned money. Reagan’s policies set off a two-decade economic boom. Clinton is suggesting we continue Obama’s policies of taxing and spending, and that’s hardly a reason to vote for her.
My Opinion: If Corporations and Businesses don’t create jobs, what the Hell does? The Government? The only thing I’ve ever seen the Government create is more debt, taxes, & regulations that inhibit your rights as an American. Has anyone that spews this crap ever fully explained where the jobs come from if not the Corporations and Businesses?
Economist Larry Kudlow: “Let me weigh in on the first two bills that the GOP should put on Obama’s desk. The Republicans should start with energy by legislating a Keystone Pipeline Authorization Act … and include energy reforms that would open federal lands to development and drilling and remove all restrictions to energy exports. … Who loses? Our enemy Vladimir Putin and his client state Iran. And if Obama kowtows again to the left-wing enviros, so be it. It’s a 2016 GOP agenda item. Second would be a business tax-reform plan that would slash the corporate tax rate to 20 percent, stop the double taxation of foreign profits and allow small business S-corps (including unborn start-ups, which are America’s real job creators) to take advantage of the new lower corporate tax rate. … A new Republican Congress should message that they’re tired of obsessing about Obama’s mistakes. Everybody knows about those. The trick now is to focus on solutions. On change. On saying, ‘We can do this. We can fix this.'”
My Opinion: The GOP are going to screw it up. Again. They really need to figure out what they stand for as a Party and just GO There! Promote what you stand for and, if enough people believe in the same thing, they will vote for you. Or not. But pussy-footing around all the major issues and not defining what you stand for is not the way to go. The Democrats have no problem stating what they stand for and look at all the votes they get.
‘Lone Wolf Attack’? Wrong!
By Mark Alexander
If they’re alone, why are there so many?
After the latest Islamist assault in New York, let us reiterate the proper interpretation of such attacks.
As noted in my recent column, Islamic Jihad — Target USA, the most likely near-term form of attack against military and civilian personnel on our turf will be similar to the conventional Islamist assaults in the Middle East — homicidal bombings or mass shootings. This type of attack is low tech but effective in terms of achieving instilling public fear with the long-term goal of extorting policy change. However, a note of caution about the predictable “analysis” that will follow these attacks. Government and media analysts alike will assert there is “no known connection between the assailant and Islamist terrorist groups.” That assertion is patently false.
Recall that in 2009, after Nidal Malik Hasan, yelling “Allahu Akbar,” killed 14 people (including an unborn child) and wounded 30 others at Ft. Hood, The New York Times opined: “[It is] important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions from the fact that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the Middle East. President Obama was right when he told Americans, ‘we don’t know all the answers yet’ and cautioned everyone against ‘jumping to conclusions.'”
Well, we do “know all the answers” now, and the conclusion is that these acts are directly tied to Islam. Yet the Obama administration and its media outlets insist the Ft. Hood attack, like the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, were not tied to established Islamic terrorist groups. They offer the same errant analysis of the 2009 murder of two American soldiers outside a military recruiting center in Little Rock, Arkansas, and conspiracies to detonate bombs in Times Square and the NYC subway system. The result is that Islamist ideology is allowed to propagate and flourish across our nation unabated.
However, these attacks and those to come were and will be directly tied to worldwide Jihad by way of the Qur’an, the foundational fabric linking all Islamist violence. Fact is, American Islamists, such as Louis Farrakhan, Anwar al-Awlaki, Sheikh Ibrahim and other self-appointed clerics, have galvanized their following by preaching hatred for America. And other American Muslin leaders, who would like to be perceived as legitimate representatives of Islam, offer little condemnation of Islamic violence. Their silence is deafening.
Describing Islamist assailants as “lone wolf” actors or “radicalized” constitutes a lethal misunderstanding of the Jihadi threat. Describing their attacks as “criminal activity” or “workplace violence” is asinine.
My Opinion: What do you call 100 Muslims at the bottom of the ocean?