QUOTE OF THE DAY: Two-bit terrorists aren't going to prevent me from doing what we need to do, and that is to promote our friendship in the hemisphere.
QUOTE OF THE DAY: Two-bit terrorists aren't going to prevent me from doing what we need to do, and that is to promote our friendship in the hemisphere.
The President was great in his El Paso speech today! I got to hear the whole thing!
Tonight on Radio Free Republic we have "On Target" with host John Bender! Tonight, Johns guest is Charles Cunningham, Director of Federal Affairs for the NRA!
Following John at 7pm/10pm, we have a special edition of RFR hosted by ALOHA RONNIE! AR, a Veteran of the Battle of IA DRANG-1965 / Landing Zone Falcon (3 mins out from Landing Zone X-Ray), who will be reviewing "We Were Soldiers"! AR will taking lots of calls!
To listen in while you FReep, go to theFRN Homepage and scroll down the left side for the RadioFR button!
Are there no pictures of that sweet moment, rintense??
You are so faithful.
Fighting words!
I hope everyone who is against it will write president@whitehouse.gov and tell him your thoughts.
I love the man and think he has done a great job as president but this troubles me greatly.
From CBS:
After years of delay, the Senate gave final congressional approval Wednesday to the most sweeping overhaul of campaign spending rules since the Watergate scandals. Continues CBS
================================================
From JohnHuang2:
Shays-Meehan = Big Government
The Shays-Meehan bill, which cleared the Senate yesterday on a 60-40 vote, would, if signed, constitute the most breathtaking expansion of federal power in decades.
The legislation, euphemistically called "Campaign finance reform", is big government writ large. It reads like a wish-list for bullyragging bureaucratic thugs hell-bent on riding roughshod over citizens and the U.S. Constitution.
And for shady, venal-minded, crooked incumbents in Washington, well, Shays-Meehan is nothing short of a dream-come-true.
Imagine you're a Senator for a moment.
Don't like the notion of citizen advocacy groups taking you to task in TV ads for this or that vote, particularly so close to election day? Don't worry, relax: Campaign finance "reform" comes to the rescue!
Under provisions of Shays-Meehan, broadcast ads by pesky outside groups would be strictly forbidden 60 days before a general election (30 days before a primary). Yes, your troubles are over, dear Senator incumbent.
Groups like the NRA and National Right To Life Committee would be gagged and muffled just as election day looms and voters start paying attention. And -- here's the best part: You're free to swarm the airwaves with gazillions of ads extoling your brilliant Senate record -- all the while smearing your silienced opponents! Dream come true? You bet. If you're an incumbent, that is.
For John or Jane Q. Public, however, this bill could be a nightmare.
Imagine the plethora of potential abuse by FEC pinheads charged with enforcing this misbegotten, draconian rot-gut. Busy-bee bureaucrats, lest we forget, will be writing the labyrinth of regulatory do(s) and don't(s), after all. For citizens wishing to exercise first amendment rights, better hire a lawyer first -- this tangled mishmash maze of legal gallimaufry could land you in the pokey. And saddle you with hefty fines, to boot. Ask the Christian Coalition.
With Shays-Meehan, the era of big government will be back -- with a vengeance. Its administration will require an unconscionable transfer of power from citizens and states to federal Washington. Agencies such as the FEC, under this measure, will mushroom into unyielding monoliths, inexorably.
Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves.
Yet, in assembling their mammoth shrine to leviathan government, "reformers" have overplayed their hand. Shays-Meehan contains the seeds of its own demise -- at the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.
So many of its fallacious provisions are so flagrantly unconstitutional -- so 'in-your-face -- the Supremes are likely to toss the whole thing in the ash-heap, in a New York minute.
The ash heap is, after all, the fate that awaits all such unlawful encroachments on our constitutional liberties.
That said, let me dispel a popular myth over why Bush intends to sign it.
Myth: Bush is a coward. He's afraid that a veto will spark a withering media/McCaniac firestorm, and a backlash from voters -- one which will cost him 15-20% points or more in popularity.
Fact: Outside the beltway, no one gives a rat's rump for Campaign finance "reform". Typically, this issue barely registers in surveys -- 2%, at most. With public attention focused so intently on the war, Bush could veto this easily with minimal downside risk. And he knows it.
Bottom line: The 'Bush is a coward' theory doesn't wash.
So why is he signing it? Most likely, his advisors tell him that signing it is the easiest way to kill it -- once and for all. The courts will strike down most -- if not all -- of its provisions. Doubling the limits on hard money donations to candidates -- a Republican advantage -- will likely survive, but not much else.
You may agree or disagree with this strategy -- I would much prefer a veto -- but to call the President a sniveling coward strikes me as hokum.
My two cents....
"JohnHuang2"
Everybody, LISTEN UP! GWB is NOT going to sign an unconstitutional CFR bill for a technical reason. Any law passed by both houses of Congress enjoys the presumption of constitutionality unless and until it's ruled unconstituional by the one and only branch of government empowered by the Constitution to interpret the Constitution, and that is the SCOTUS -- it's not the president, politicians, or citizens, PERIOD!
In other words, the CFR is, at the present time, constitutional, and it will remain so unless and until the Supremes declare that it's not.
GWB has promised to sign a CFR bill if the "constitutional problems" with it were resolved. Congress did that simply by passing it, so be patient, and let the system work.
So how will "the system work?" Somebody with standing has to run the gauntlet challenging the CFR's constitutionality all the way up to the SCOTUS. It has to accept the case, and that's at its discretion. The earliest, in practicality, a decision would be reached is about a year away.
Meanwhile, the 2002 elections will have come and gone and the GIANT trap the Dems and traitors have laid for GWB will be completely avoided and turned against them. Having nothing to offer, they will suffer massivly in the election, then guess what? Solid majorities in both houses of Congress will be behind an increasingly conservative legislative agenda sponsored by the White House and from within.
To repeat, the CFR is now constitutional, and GWB has promised to support one that is. That it's constitutional only due to a technicality is irrelevant. GWB cannot, and no chief executive should, usurp the powers of the other two branches of government to do their jobs.
GWB has been misunderestimated again, and several of you have been sucked into being disappointed by what you perceive as betrayal. It is, however, an absolutely brilliant move by GWB, so calm down, and don't break the faith!