This is so cute:
A salsa dancing chihuaha.
Now that you are relaxed and had a good laugh or at least cracked a smile, hopefully, we can discuss another topic:
How to Bring this Country Together
The people must stand up to let politicians know that it’s time for real bipartisan problem-solving and legislation that truly respects each person’s idea of “freedom and liberty”.
We have freedom of speech yet do some people and organizations have more free speech than others – especially speech funded by millions of dollars from PACs and organizations like Crossroads GPS thanks to the lopsided Citizen’s United case?
Issues Confronting Americans Today:
1) What are the best ways to create jobs?
2) What can we do to bring affordable health care to all people in America?
3) How do we create a healthy economy?
4) How do we protect the environment for present & future generations?
5) How do we provide excellent public and private education K-12 and College level for our young people in America?
While the mantra from the GOP frequently entails the use of “freedom and liberty” sprinkled in every single politicians speeches at least 5 to 15 times, what precisely do these words mean to the speaker and the listener?
Do some in the GOP really think freedom means:
- People want the “freedom” to not have health care?
- People want the “freedom” to tell other people what they can do with their reproductive organs?
- People want the “freedom” to stop other people from having an organized way to fight for their rights, like in a union?
As the above list illustrates, the word “freedom” is being twisted into a knot by some folks so one group’s idea of “freedom” is actually the opposite of real freedom.
There are many meanings of freedom. Here are a few:
- The right to speak or act without restriction, interference or fear
- openness and friendliness in speech or behavior
- the ability to exercise free will and make choices independently of any external determining force
Trampling on other people’s freedom is not real freedom it is false freedom where some people seem to be saying and then legislating:
“My freedom is more important than your freedom.” Or, “Freedom means seeing it my way.”
Freedom of Speech, Justice Roberts and Citizen’s United
When the Citizen’s United case allowed anonymous donors to give millions of dollars to organizations like Crossroads GPS, the Supreme Court was basically saying that those with the most money have more freedom to have their voice heard.
There is light in the darkness of the ill-conceived Supreme Court Decision on Citizen’s United lead by Justice Roberts.
As Brad Friedman of Bradblog.com noted, this week a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Court made an important decision about when donors spending more than $1000 have to disclose their identity.
In spite of the fact that organizations like Karl Rove’s Crossroad’s GPS argued that disclosing the names of their big donors might put those folks at risk, two of the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Court ruled there was not enough evidence to support that claim.
Wow. This is progress. However, the case may end up in the Supreme Court. Will Justice Roberts wake up to the fact that it is unfair for wealthy donors to have more free speech than those with less money? We will see.
The Democracy 21 press release about the Appeals Court decision on donor disclosure related to “electioneering” by non-profit organizations stated:
“In the 2010 congressional races, groups making “electioneering communications” disclosed the sources of less than 10 percent of their $79.9 million in “electioneering communications” expenditures,” Wertheimer said.
“Every organization making “electioneering communications” in the 2012 presidential and congressional elections is now required to disclose the donors whose funds are being used to pay for their “electioneering communications,” according to Wertheimer. “All groups making “electioneering communications” are now on notice and we expect them to fully comply with the contribution disclosure provisions in the future,” Wertheimer stated.
According to the Democracy 21 press release, two judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals:
Judges Rogers and Griffith issued an opinion in support of their decision to deny the stay stating that the intervenors “have failed to make a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits” or “demonstrate that they will be irreparably injured absent a stay.”
Judges Rogers and Griffith said that “Congress was clear that all contributors of $1,000 or more are covered” by the disclosure requirement. “[I]n BCRA Congress evinced a clear intent not to limit section 434(f)(2)’s reach, and instead to cover allcontributors of $1,000 or more.”
Super PAC Mad Libs or
How Citizen’s United Brings you “free speech” by Big Money