be applied even more broadly. Think Facebook and other social media sites.

be applied even more broadly. Think Facebook and other social media sites.

This act must be fought, but what will we do if the battle is lost?

This is tailor made for the very concept of jury nullifiction, whereby every liberty loving American swears a personal oath to themsevles to protect any blogger who would flaunt such a law in an act of disobedience to it on the grounds it is blatantly uncontstitutional. How would you do this?

If the DISCLOSE act passes and even if the Supreme Court rules it constiutional, you the juror take it upon yourself to find any defendant not guilty. This is the ultimate power of the people to protect those who stick their necks out to fight a travesty of liberty and the rule of tyranny:

http://tinyurl.com/24fwnsw

I know Erick practiced law and perhaps he can chime in here. The lawyers I have talked to say this happens more often than one might think and often without the user of such a tactic knowing that it has a name. The juror feels compelled to wiggle their way in to the box and then wreck havoc on the process as they feel the accused is being unfairly targeted or abused by the justice system.

There are times that I feel that the leadership in The Senate must require their party members to vote together if they want future support from the party establishment. One such time should come as this terrible financial non-reform bill is pushed to its finality (are you listening Sen.s Collins and Snowe?).

The second is the above bill. If Sen. McConnell is unwilling or unable to do this, then he needs to step down as the leader o thef senate republicans.

There should be a very simple litmus test applied.

Freeze the size of The Federal Government and require that one department be abolished before another department is created.

to add an amendment that explicitly exempts web site or blog or what have you. As I read the bill now it is explicitly stating that it is regulating paid individuals, ie folks what are paid to have opinions. Also, as I read it now, it does not try to block free speech in the webosphere, but does try to regulate ‘paid’ speech. However if your knickers are in a twist, don’t fight the whole bill which tries to shine light into the murky area of campaign finance, but get your congressman to put in an amendment which makes clear the tacit protections.

These are very dangerous times for everyone, The left is seeing their power slipping and will do anything to hold on to it. From now until November they will try to push everything as fast as they can regardless of what people of our country want.

From my view some of our elected employees are edging on treason.

The Obama administration has managed to take over health care, and are working on finance. Now this effort to regulate who can, or cannot, speak freely. Just how long are the people of this nation (and our so-called elected officials) going to stand for this complete destruction and obliteration of our Constitution and Bill of Rights?

As I’ve said before, 2012 may well be too late to save America. By then, we could all well be a Socialist society, and not a Democratic one.

Filibuster EVERYTHING those people are sending up. Every nominee, every bill. They have proven, beyond any doubt, that everything on their agenda is anti-freedom, anti-prosperity, anti-good employment, anti-defense, anti-America.

Just keep it simple. America has already spoken, and it is up to the Senate Republicans to grow a pair, and just stop the train.

Eric, glad to see you picked this up, I actually posted here on this topic a few days ago.

It’s hard to believe, but regulating bloggers is only one of the serious issues with the DISCLOSE Act – among other things it strips citizens of the right to anonymously associate with their fellow citizens and speak through those groups (think NRA or National Right to Life), and the bill is so poorly drafted that it will create significant confusion about what is and is not allowed, meaning many people just won’t speak out at all.

We’ve been following this issue closely at the Center for Competitive Politics, and done probably the most and best analysis on this assault on the First Amendment. Anybody that’s interested in learning more of the details can check our stuff out at our web site, address below.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org

is Republicans don’t get the message out and the left plays it as the party of no. They need to start making some noise get the message out and then filibuster. It sometimes makes my fell like we are doing all the work for them.

“After all, the ruling allows more Americans to participate in political discourse and to speak their minds publicly, which is grossly unacceptable to the elite political class of Washington, which knows that it knows best and which knows that additional citizen opinions just get in the way of the candidates telling the real truths about themselves.”

This is false. The ruling doesn’t allow more Americans to participate in political discourse. Every American can already do that–every CEO can say whatever he wants whenever he wants to. Rather, the ruling allows corporations to draw money from their funds to use in political discourse. But corporations are not American citizens because they are not human beings.

Let’s get it right, please.

I am furious to the point of cursing every single one of those lowlife spawned sewer scum!

Oh what the heck!

May your body parts become scrofulous, wither and fall off.

You have obtained a level of corruption so great, redemption is beyond your grasp and zombies would not feast on you for fear of contamination!

This republic was not established by cowards; and cowards will not preserve it. ~~Elmer Davis

I am stone forged from the fires of creation into flesh ~~Pamela1631

The greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.~~Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret.)

The Concord Project: Fighting for Freedom in the Fall

They make that sound like a bad thing. Sometimes the answer, in life itself, is “no.” Remember Ted Kennedy? He had unlimited funds and unlimited medical care, but life said “no.” This is sad for him, but still, true.

Just because people want something, it doesn’t mean there exists a right to have it. And just because conservatives say “no”, it doesn’t make them the party of no, it makes them the party of real life.

The reality is that government is in place to assure the pre-existing rights of The People, those self-evident truths that we keep hearing so much about. They are NOT in place to regulate my speech about their job performance. No servant should presume to tell me how or when I can rate their job performance.

Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania’s Attorney General and Republican candidate for Governor issued supeonas after the primary vote the other day to Facebook demading the identities of two bloggers critical of him. It seems like free speech will so become one of yet another endangered freedos in the US.

We can’t let the erosion of our freedoms continue. We need to stand up and fight. We need to be relentless in our pursuit to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions and tell them what we want done. We need to continue to remove any who fail to vote in accordance with the principles we hold dear.

President Obama spoke to the graduating class at Hampton University in Hampton, Virginia. The man who made the internet a cornerstone of his campaign, tweeted (or twitted?) constantly to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of young fans, and used Facebook and other social media to great advantage, told the graduates that they were facing a new world in which they would be bombarded by too much unfiltered information. Further, the man who won election on the promise of ‘change’, told them that, unfortunately, the breathtaking change caused by this overload of information couldn’t be stopped. His speech seemed to imply that being exposed to all kinds of arguments is a BAD thing. That it might even threaten democracy. It’s a far cry from the time Americans treasured a ‘multiplicity of voices.’ That expansive variety of thought and expression guaranteed that somehow, some way, the truth would be heard. Apparently, that’s not what the Obama administration has in mind. In fact, in the financial reform bill, they’re seeking to put control of the internet in the hands of the Federal Trade Commission. Think about the almost total control of every aspect of our lives the government has gained through the misapplication of interstate commerce laws! That’s a chilling thought. Of course, that’s what it’s all about, isn’t it Barry?

Obama tells graduates that they are facing a new world in which they will be bombarded by too much unfiltered information? Being exposed to all kinds of arguments is a bad thing? The President who promised change wants to control every aspect of your life? This coming from a President who has concealed the following documentation about his life: kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records. Why? and why won’t the lame-stream media talk about this?