John McCain: His Bull-ishness

Every time John McCain speaks he reveals the lengths he is willing to go to win the presidency of the United States.

He's also aligned himself with former Democrat turned Independent-Democrat Joe Lieberman to the point of no-return.

McCain supporters are tagged McCain-iacs.

He crafted the McCain-Feingold legislation which guts our first-amendment rights of free speech. Guess McCain-iacs don't care about that.

Reason Magazine clip

John McCain's War on Political Speech
How the Arizona senator and other campaign finance reformers use the law to muffle critics and trample the First Amendment.
Bradley Smith | December 2005

...For other "appearance of corruption" examples, we need look no further than the father of campaign finance reform himself, Sen. John McCain. In 2001 the Brennan Center, a group that advocates campaign finance reform, held a large fund-raising dinner whose honored guest and speaker was the "straight-talking" senator from Arizona. Several big corporations--many with interests before the Senate Commerce Committee, of which Sen. McCain was then the ranking minority member--sponsored the event. These sponsors included such companies as Coca-Cola; the investment firm Bear Stearns; many top law firms with lobbying practices in Washington; cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris--yes, Big Tobacco; and even Enron, which as we know is the most evil corporation in the history of the world. The event grossed an impressive $750,000.

Now what does the Brennan Center do? Well, the Brennan Center lobbied extensively to pass the McCain-Feingold bill, an issue that Sen. McCain once declared was of "transcendent importance to me." (An interesting choice of words, since transcendent, if you look it up in the dictionary, means "beyond human comprehension.") The Brennan Center also provided legal services, pro bono, to defend the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold bill in court.

So let's put this together: The Brennan Center invites Sen. McCain to speak and then approaches a large number of corporations, perhaps saying something like, "Sen. McCain--the ranking minority member of the Commerce Committee, before which your company has a great deal of business, and a possible future presidential candidate--is coming to speak. Would you care to sponsor a table?" And Enron and Coca-Cola and Philip Morris just suddenly decide that they are very interested in campaign reform and kick in some good old soft money, which the Brennan Center uses to lobby and provide free legal services for an issue of "transcendent importance" to none other than Sen. McCain. Appearance of corruption, anyone?

Wouldn't suggesting that corporations support the Brennan Center to provide legislative support to Sen. McCain on the issue that made his national reputation carry the same potential for blackmail and favoritism as corporate donations to political campaigns? Yet there is no suggestion that we should have broad prophylactic prohibition of that kind of fund raising--despite the fact that doing so would not only address this very real "appearance of corruption"; it would do much less to infringe on the free speech of the citizenry than McCain's treasured campaign finance restrictions...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36322.html

At least so far, the Internet remains unregulated in that area. But beware, McCain supports such regulation there too, doesn't believe the net should be exempted...

Has McCain equivocated on the issue of so-called comprehensive immigration reform? When you hear that phrase you know it's code for "amnesty" for illegal aliens.

Other sites have doggedly tracked McCain for your information. Be aware.

Video: John McCain says he “never supported amnesty
December 30, 2007

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/30/video-john-mccain-says-he-never-supported-amnesty

clip

The First Amendment says this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And that's precisely what it means.

Accordingly, I believe we can all get behind these following points:

Freedom of speech and the press is of critical importance to the preservation of both individual freedom, and the free character of our nation.

It is a traditional American Liberty that we guard jealously.

This Freedom is directly and unambiguously protected by the Bill of Rights.

Our Blogs are the way we choose to directly manifest that freedom. They are our sacred 21st century soapboxes, and we view them as being completely protected.

The Infrastructure that enables blogs is the instrumentality of that freedom, and is therefore also protected.

The universal criticality of this transcends partisan consideration.

Therefore, We, the proud members of the McCain-Feingold Insurrection, will continue to excercise our right of free speech through our online venues as we see fit, without limitation.

We shall vigorously defend our right and ability to do so going to such lengths and using such means as the situation and our individual consciences dictate.

posted by geekWithA.45 at 6:25 PM


http://mccain-feingold-insurrection.blogspot.com/

Related

Reactivating Liberty
George Will
Thursday, June 28, 2007

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/will/s_514726.html


A Setback for McCain-Feingold?
Tuesday, Jun. 26, 2007 By REYNOLDS HOLDING

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1637305,00.html

clip

5-4 Supreme Court Weakens Curbs on Pre-Election TV Ads
Ruling on McCain-Feingold Law Opens Door for Interest Groups in '08

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 26, 2007; Page A01

The Supreme Court yesterday substantially weakened restrictions on the kinds of television ads that corporations and unions can finance in the days before an election, providing special interest groups with the opportunity for a far more expansive role in the 2008 elections.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the 5 to 4 decision, saying the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act's prohibition against the use of a candidate's name in such ads in the days before an election was an unconstitutional infringement on the groups' rights to advocate on issues.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500548.html

Campaign Law Dogs McCain

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/2007_04.html

Speak My Way or Else

This religious controversy over what people choose to say for inclusion on a Starbucks coffee cup is in direct opposition to the right of freedom of speech guaranteed to all in the United States.

I think I'll suggest several quotes made by the Founding Fathers.

"The Way I See It"

http://www.starbucks.com/retail/thewayiseeit_default.asp?cookie%5Ftest=1

Letters to Starbucks

http://www.starbucks.com/retail/thewayiseeit_letters.asp

World Net Daily

Starbucks markets more 'anti-God' coffee cups
Company welcomes national dialogue despite boycott threat by some patrons
Posted: May 9, 2007
8:38 p.m. Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Coffeehouse giant Starbucks is standing by its campaign to put thought-provoking messages on its coffee cups despite a national uproar and threat of boycott over a message some felt was "anti-God."

Controversy erupted this week after a customer became steamed reading a quote that stated:

"Why in moments of crisis do we ask God for strength and help? As cognitive beings, why would we ask something that may well be a figment of our imaginations for guidance? Why not search inside ourselves for the power to overcome? After all, we are strong enough to cause most of the catastrophes we need to endure."

The quote was written by Bill Schell, a Starbucks customer from London, Ontario, Canada, and was included as part of Starbucks' "The Way I See It" campaign to collect different viewpoints and spur discussion.

A WND story posted Sunday afternoon publicizing the cup became a hot topic on national radio shows this week including Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham.

One reader, Ken Peck of Lakeland, Fla., has since purchased a coffee with another message he felt was a slam against his Christian faith, and snapped a photograph of it.

The message reads:


Heaven is totally overrated. It seems boring. Clouds, listening to people play the harp. It should be somewhere you can’t wait to go, like a luxury hotel. Maybe blue skies and soft music were enough to keep people in line in the 17th century, but Heaven has to step it up a bit. They're basically getting by because they only have to be better than Hell. -- Joel Stein, columnist for the Los Angeles Times.
"There's absolutely no reason to put that out on a cup," Peck told WND. "From a marketing standpoint, it blows me away. I don't put a picture of Christ of my business card."

Peck says the issue has energized him to push for a boycott of Starbucks in favor of other local coffeehouses in Polk Co., Fla.

"Everyone I've shown the cup to has been flabbergasted, whether they have a faith in Christ or not," he said.

Seattle-based Starbucks, meanwhile, is making no apologies about the God-related messages, nor its campaign.

"We are committed to this program," Starbucks communications manager Tricia Moriarty told WND, noting that quotes about matters of faith make up only a small fraction of the printed quips.

"We cover topics such as theater, film, the environment, food and sports," Moriarty said. "The cups are not pro- or anti-religion per se."

When asked if there were any scenario that would prompt the company to remove a certain cup from its campaign, she said she could not comment on a hypothetical situation, saying only, "Certainly, we have no plans to remove any of them."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55627

C-Span's Brian Lamb misses little-known Congressional abuse of power.

This morning, a caller to C-Span's Washington Journal (hosted by Brian Lamb) briefed guest Ruth Marcus on situation of woman incarcerated for six months for attempting to publicly speak at a Senate Judiciary Committee. The caller mentioned the woman's name, but neither Lamb nor Marcus had heard of her or the situation of her imprisonment in a DC jail for six months.

Neither also seemed all that interested, and went on to talk about whatever, a bit about John Murtha and the Abscam scandal... the mainstream media, which Marcus credits for meaty reporting that allows her to do her job as Washington Post editorial writer and commentator... Rush Limbaugh's tagging the media, "drive-by" media... Now they have time for only two more calls... so we begin our search for truth.

C-Span Journal

A quick check on the net reveals...


Free Elena Sassower, DC Prisoner #301-340

To: D.C. Court of Appeals, Senior Judge, Frank Nebeker; D.C. Superior Court, Honorable Chief Judge Rufus King, III; D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure.

The Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc. (CJA) aims to put an end to back of the bus justice, which has made judicial victims out of decent, honest, and loyal Americans. When litigants do not have the "right" political connections with the judges who decide their fate, they are the oppressed "underdogs" when they go up against those who do. The result, unfortunately, is biased and dishonest decisions, which knowingly disregard the Rule of Law, for which these corrupt judges must be held accountable. The criminal case, United States of America v Elena Sassower is the perfect case in point.

The petition set forth below provides the critical information. For more specific details and substantiating documents, go to the homepage of CJA's website at judgewatch.org, and click on "Paper Trail to Jail," and "Tale of Two Transcripts."

Excerpt
WHEREAS, WE believe that the First Amendment is DEAD when a patriotic, law-abiding, and dedicated American like New Yorker Elena Ruth Sassower, nationally recognized judicial reform advocate and Cofounder and Coordinator of the Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc., a national, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, working for years to ensure that only the best qualified lawyers become, and remain, judges, is arrested, incarcerated and serving a SIX MONTHS prison sentence in a jail in our nation's capital for "Disruption of Congress." All this, for speaking out to protect the public interest in the integrity and impartiality of our judiciary. Her wrongful sentence was vindictively ordered to begin forthwith, i.e., on June 28, 2004 , the very day of sentence, so as to ensure that she celebrated the 4 th of July weekend in the DC jail, with her release not due until CHRISTMAS DAY,

WHEREAS, this totally bogus charge was based on Ms. Sassower's having respectfully asked the following question at a May 22, 2003 U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearing to confirm a number of President Bush's nominees to LIFETIME federal judgeships, including NY Court of Appeals Judge Richard Wesley, who was being nominated to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (including New York, Connecticut and Vermont) her precise words deserve to be remembered forever:

http://www.petitiononline.com/elena/petition.html

Center for Judicial Accountability

http://www.judgewatch.org/

"Disruption of Congress" Case

http://www.judgewatch.org/DisruptionofCongresscase.htm

elena sassower

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=elena+sassower&btnG=Search

On June 28, 2004, Elena Ruth Sassower was sentenced to six months imprisonment in the D.C. Capitol Jail by Judge Brian F. Holeman of the D.C. Superior Court for "disruption of Congress," a federal misdemeanor. Below are details of Sassower's offense, as reported by the Westchester Crusader four days before her sentencing. ..

JUSTICE NOT JAIL TIME FOR JUDICIAL ACTIVIST
The Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc. (CJA) is calling for "justice not jail" for Elena Sassower, its Coordinator, who on June 28th returns to our nation's capital for sentencing before D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian F. Holeman, following her week-long jury trial before him and conviction on April 20th on a spurious criminal charge of "disruption of Congress," which the organization plans to appeal based on "a litany of reversible errors of law and fact."

CJA is a non-partisan, non-profit citizens' organization co-founded more than a decade ago by Ms. Sassower, an Ivy League graduate, to depoliticize the processes of judicial selection and discipline by increasing citizen participation. On May 22, 2003, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a "public hearing" to confirm President Bush's nomination of New York Court of Appeals Judge Richard Wesley to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, covering New York, Connecticut and Vermont. The "hearing" was adjourned without any inquiry as to whether anyone present wished to be heard - at which point Ms. Sassower rose and made her polite inquiry, "Mr. Chairman, there's citizen opposition to Judge Wesley based on his documented corruption as a New York Court of Appeals Judge. May I testify?"

Ms. Sassower was thereupon taken out, arrested, handcuffed behind her back, incarcerated for 21 hours, during which she was kept incommunicado, and criminally prosecuted for "disruption of Congress." By contrast, protestors at last month's May 7th hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee who interrupted the hearing by shouting out for Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to be fired and unfurled a "FIRE RUMSFELD" banner were NOT even arrested.

The Center views the case against Ms. Sassower for "disruption of Congress" as a vicious assault on citizens' rights - and retaliation for CJA's longtime public advocacy in exposing the corruption of the federal judicial selection process.

http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/sassower2_box.htm