Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In which of the following countries are certain types of political free speech a crime?
The American Conservative Union ^ | J. William Lauderback, Executive Vice President

Posted on 03/24/2006 12:30:09 AM PST by Jim Robinson


In which of the following countries are certain types of political free speech a crime?

A) China
B) The United States

The answer may shock you -- because if you answered both "A" and "B," you're very close to being correct!

(And you could be 100% correct in a matter of days!)

Here's what happened:

In 2002, the Senate and House passed what is known as "McCain-Feingold"  -- a constitutionally questionable law that severely restricts the ability of ACU (and other not-for-profit organizations) to give YOU non-partisan information on candidates for federal public office prior to an election.

McCain-Feingold essentially regulates -- almost to the point of impossibility -- political "advertising" 60 days prior to a federal election that appears on "any broadcast, cable or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising."

However, when McCain and Feingold initially proposed this legislation, they could not foresee the massive power and influence that average citizens would eventually come to wield through the Internet and for that reason --"McCain-Feingold" did not explicitly mention communications over the Internet.

So McCain, Feingold, and others of their mindset  – when they realized they had overlooked the Internet in their efforts to regulate political speech -- went to court.

And -- big surprise -- a  U.S. District Court Judge (Colleen Kollar-Kotelly) appointed by Bill Clinton, ruled that Internet communications were also covered under "McCain-Feingold!"

Fortunately, the House of Representatives has put forth the Online Freedom of Speech Act (H.R. 1606) and a companion bill (S. 678) is under consideration in the Senate.

Both are designed specifically to exempt the Internet from the draconian "McCain-Feingold Act."

But we have to ACT NOW because a vote on H.R. 1606 -- to preserve free speech on the Internet -- may come any day now

And the vote may be very close!
 

Use the hyperlink below to send your URGENT Blast Fax messages to President George W. Bush, the leadership of the United States Senate and the leadership of the United States House of Representatives.

Tell them that you are outraged that a federal judge up-held McCain-Feingold and has taken away your freedom to speak out on the Internet.

 Demand that they reaffirm the First Amendment by voting “yes” on H.R. 1606 and S. 678.

http://www.acuactionnet.net/hr1606.html

AOL Members Use This Hyperlink

If the above hyperlink does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.

 

H.R. 1606 Affects You Too

I wonder what some of our elected officials think our Founding Fathers meant when they wrote: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech….”

Because it would appear they want to abridge it and abridge it and abridge it again – until people like you and me are bound and gagged and helpless.

Addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference in February this year, conservative thinker and columnist George Will said, And we are right now well into the most concerted and most dangerous attack on freedom of expression in this country since the Alien and Sedition Acts, which themselves were unsettled and therefore not designed to be permanent as the McCain-Feingold regimen of speech-rationing by the federal government is.”

Let's read what "McCain Feingold" says one more time and add the "Internet" to the legislation as McCain and Feingold intended:

"ANY [Emphasis Mine] broadcast, cable or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing or telephone bank [or Internet transmission] to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising."

Think of the implications:

Do you post a lot of opinions in forums or bulletin boards?

Do you frequently pontificate or express opinions in Internet chat rooms?

Do you maintain a blog that is available to the general public?

If any of these situations applies to you -- then guess what --  "McCain-Feingold" may apply to you too!

 

Use the hyperlink below to send your URGENT Blast Fax messages to President George W. Bush, the leadership of the United States Senate and the leadership of the United States House of Representatives.

Tell them that you are outraged that a federal judge up-held McCain-Feingold and has taken away your freedom to speak out on the Internet.

 Demand that they reaffirm the First Amendment by voting “yes” on H.R. 1606 and S. 678.

http://www.acuactionnet.net/hr1606.html

AOL Members Use This Hyperlink

If the above hyperlink does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.

 

Do You Remember Rather-Gate?

Why is the Left so rabid, so hysterical in its opposition to H.R. 1606?

The answer should be obvious:

They weep for the good old days when the only major sources of news were ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and newspapers like the New York Times.

They can’t get rid of Rush and Fox News, but they can still crush the political websites. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has made that a tantalizing possibility.

But they can beat down H.R. 1606 and when that happens, ACU and other activist websites (and possibly even your blog) will be effectively silenced – their mouths stuffed with reams of government regulations and miles and miles of red tape.

Or to put it another way:

We all remember what happened just before the 2004 presidential election.  Dan Rather and some producers at CBS -- in a blatant attempt to influence the outcome of the election -- published a FRAUDULENT story about President Bush's National Guard service.

Fortunately, bloggers (private citizens) were able to spread the truth and expose the fraud behind this story!

Would that have happened if "McCain-Feingold" applied to the Internet?

That's a good question!

And maybe that's why the New York Times came out AGAINST H.R. 1606; claiming that allowing free speech to go unregulated on the Internet would cause "a cornucopia of political corruption."  

 

Use the hyperlink below to send your URGENT Blast Fax messages to President George W. Bush, the leadership of the United States Senate and the leadership of the United States House of Representatives.

Tell them that you are outraged that a federal judge up-held McCain-Feingold and has taken away your freedom to speak out on the Internet.

 Demand that they reaffirm the First Amendment by voting “yes” on H.R. 1606 and S. 678.

http://www.acuactionnet.net/hr1606.html

AOL Members Use This Hyperlink

If the above hyperlink does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.


 

The Internet Is A Powerful Weapon

Don’t think that John McCain and his liberal cronies aren’t aware of the power of the Internet.  They know you are making a difference in Washington. 

Every time you jam their fax machines and shine the light of day on their plots, they are reminded of the power that you -- as average citizens -- are wielding.

And they don't always like it.  In fact, some actually fear it.  The power of the average citizens threatens their incumbency... it threatens the back-room deals they make with special interests... in essence, it threatens business as usual in Washington.

The Internet is the last vestige of free and effective political speech in America. It's what’s left of the Voice of the People.

Let's keep it that way!

Don’t let Congress take away your First Amendment rights!

And please ACT NOW -- because a vote -- to preserve free speech on the Internet -- may come any day!
 

Use the hyperlink below to send your URGENT Blast Fax messages to President George W. Bush, the leadership of the United States Senate and the leadership of the United States House of Representatives.

Tell them that you are outraged that a federal judge up-held McCain-Feingold and has taken away your freedom to speak out on the Internet.

 Demand that they reaffirm the First Amendment by voting “yes” on H.R. 1606 and S. 678.

http://www.acuactionnet.net/hr1606.html

AOL Members Use This Hyperlink

If the above hyperlink does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.

 

J. William Lauderback
Executive Vice President
American Conservative Union

 

AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION
     1007 Cameron Street | Alexandria, VA 22314 | 703-836-8602 | Fax 703-836-8606

Powered By GrassTopsUSA

 

 


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 109th; abuseofpower; bloggers; calltoaction; cfr; congress; corruption; elections; fec; freespeech; mccain; mccainfeingold; rally; scotus

1 posted on 03/24/2006 12:30:18 AM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Texas Termite; manna; Okies love Dubya 2; Fawnn; Harmless Teddy Bear; ...

Ping to some incredibly important stuff...


2 posted on 03/24/2006 12:34:54 AM PST by Brad’s Gramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
H. R. 1605 - Sponsor: Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] (introduced 4/13/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 4/13/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.

S. 678 - Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 3/17/2005) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 3/17/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

H. R. 1606 - Sponsor: Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] (introduced 4/13/2005) Cosponsors (9)
Latest Major Action: 11/2/2005 Failed of passage/not agreed to in House. Status: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 225 - 182 (Roll no. 559).

H. R. 4389 - Sponsor: Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] (introduced 11/18/2005) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 11/18/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.

H. R. 4664 - Sponsor: Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] (introduced 1/31/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 1/31/2006 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.

3 posted on 03/24/2006 12:35:00 AM PST by FOG724 (http://nationalgrange.org/legislation/phpBB2/index.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
The Expertise of the Regulatory State: The FEC and Internet Rules (CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM)
Red State ^ | March 23, 2006 | Brad Smith

Posted on 03/23/2006 11:31:44 PM PST by Lancey Howard

(Go to the link for the first half of this excellent and informative column for some the background info. Presented below is the best part, and I believe this provides a pretty good summary of what Jim, and hopefully everybody else, is concerned about. This is deadly serious business.)

_____________________________________________________

In any case, on the question of internet regulation, the FEC in fact brought its expertise to bear, and determined that it would not be wise to apply traditional regulation to the internet - indeed, as outlined here, it determined that the internet did not pose a threat or political corruption, and so exempted much of the web from regulation. The result was that Representatives Shays and Meehan sued, with the support of Senators McCain and Feingold, to force the FEC to regulate the internet. And won.

So here is where we are. The FEC, appointed for its expertise in the area, has determined that the internet does not pose a threat of corruption, and exempted it from much of the McCain-Feingold law's coverage. We have no idea if the President, charged with executing the law, agrees with his FEC appointees, because he has not said. Moreover, even if he did say, he cannot legally bend the FEC commissioners to his will, nor remove them for not following his policies, so he cannot be accountable. On the Congressional side, Senators McCain and Feingold, and their House counterparts, Representatives Shays and Meehan, lacking any meaningful way to exert legislative oversight (and probably lacking a majority to do so), decided to invoke the third branch, and so went to courts and sued. A judge, not appointed for her expertise in campaign finance or the internet, held that the FEC was mistaken.

With the FEC now under Court order to act, Congress as a whole seems lost as to what to do. A majority of the House voted to preserve the FEC's original regulatory exemption by writing it into the statute - but because the bill was brought up under special rules, it needed a 2/3rds vote to pass, which it did not get. Last week, the House simply punted on the issue. It seems fairly clear that the question of the internet exemption is exactly the type of issue that Congress intentionally left to the expertise of the Commission - expertise then ignored by Federal District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, at the behest of four members of Congress, represented by a bunch of foundation funded lawyers who work for "public interest groups" with no members.

This is the state of the modern regulatory state. It seems a far cry from the separation of powers and popular accountability envisioned in the Federalist papers.

4 posted on 03/24/2006 12:36:34 AM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

thank you, sent the URL to a ton of people, and they will do the same!


5 posted on 03/24/2006 12:37:50 AM PST by ferri (Be Politically Incorrect: Support the Constitution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I suggest Mr. Robinson, we find out which politicians at the Federal Level at on the side of Freedom of Speech on the internet and then concentrate efforts on those who are not.


6 posted on 03/24/2006 12:40:14 AM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

BUMP!!


7 posted on 03/24/2006 12:41:41 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup

I respectfully disagree. We need to hammer ALL of them just so nobody changes their mind, and so they see that it is in their interest to work to bring their colleagues on board.


8 posted on 03/24/2006 12:43:36 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: abbi_normal_2; adam_az; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; AMDG&BVMH; amom; AndreaZingg; ...

ping


9 posted on 03/24/2006 12:44:35 AM PST by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
''Seem'' ????

Of course, accountability is the very last thing these statist clowns want... 'twas ever thus, though.

10 posted on 03/24/2006 12:45:36 AM PST by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
then concentrate efforts on those who are not.

I've listed the bills above. 1606 has already failed in the House. Look up who voted how.

11 posted on 03/24/2006 12:48:49 AM PST by FOG724 (http://nationalgrange.org/legislation/phpBB2/index.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FOG724

Could you please provide a link as to a full list of those who voted Yea and Nea on 1606.


12 posted on 03/24/2006 1:00:45 AM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll559.xml

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 559
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)

H R 1606 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 2-Nov-2005 8:08 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
BILL TITLE: Online Freedom of Speech Act


Yeas Nays PRES NV
Republican 179 38 13
Democratic 46 143 13
Independent 1
TOTALS 225 182 26




---- YEAS 225 ---

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carter
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
English (PA)
Eshoo
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hoekstra
Honda
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
Latham
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Otter
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Udall (CO)
Waters
Watson
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (FL)



---- NAYS 182 ---

Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Boehlert
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hefley
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kirk
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (VA)
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Wu



---- NOT VOTING 26 ---

Ackerman
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cubin
Etheridge
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hyde
King (NY)
Marshall
McCollum (MN)
Menendez
Miller (FL)
Norwood
Oxley
Pearce
Pombo
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Reyes
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Stark
Young (AK)





13 posted on 03/24/2006 1:08:38 AM PST by Las Vegas Dave ("Liberals out of power are comical-Liberals in power are dangerous!"-Rush Limbaugh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Dave

Thank you for the list. But what does "On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass" mean?


14 posted on 03/24/2006 1:11:51 AM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 225 - 182 (Roll no. 559).

It just the way things are worded. A motion was made to suspend the rules, they do this all the time. Who knows what rule they wanted to suspend.

15 posted on 03/24/2006 1:20:59 AM PST by FOG724 (http://nationalgrange.org/legislation/phpBB2/index.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Dave

See post 15 where FOG724 partly answered my question.


16 posted on 03/24/2006 1:23:18 AM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FOG724

Thank you for clearing that up.


17 posted on 03/24/2006 1:23:36 AM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup

You are most welcome. I'll be going to DC lobbying in May. I will probably bring these bills up if there is no movement.


18 posted on 03/24/2006 1:25:19 AM PST by FOG724 (http://nationalgrange.org/legislation/phpBB2/index.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FOG724
You are most welcome. I'll be going to DC lobbying in May. I will probably bring these bills up if there is no movement.

Good luck, maybe you can make inroads before then by asking the NRA for help. This does effect them to in that their internet speech shall also be silenced.

19 posted on 03/24/2006 1:29:08 AM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup

I gave up on the NRA when they supported CARA, a government land grab.


20 posted on 03/24/2006 1:31:08 AM PST by FOG724 (http://nationalgrange.org/legislation/phpBB2/index.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jan in Colorado; Dark Skies; Former Dodger; expatguy; AmericanArchConservative; Cornpone; ...

PING.


21 posted on 03/24/2006 2:01:59 AM PST by USF (I see your Jihad and raise you a Crusade ™ © ®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sneakers

bump!


22 posted on 03/24/2006 2:41:01 AM PST by sneakers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
How convenient Washington abridges the rights of Americans to free speech but can't find the balls to regulate the 14th to stop anchor baby attractions to illegal aliens.

For such grievance was the first revolution's beginnings, and we now have no means of redress.

I honestly can't fathom who the heck some of those in DC think they represent.

23 posted on 03/24/2006 2:58:16 AM PST by azhenfud (He who always is looking up seldom finds others' lost change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

BTT


24 posted on 03/24/2006 3:00:48 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma

BTTT


25 posted on 03/24/2006 3:01:02 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
"This is the state of the modern regulatory state."

If you've ever been to China, you'd see the amazing similarities between our leaders' perceptions of the "governed".

26 posted on 03/24/2006 3:02:31 AM PST by azhenfud (He who always is looking up seldom finds others' lost change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Is advertising equals informing ?

Would it be unlawful to express your feelings and opinions about political parties or candidates ?

Or is it 'campaigning' that is outlawed by this ?

If so, how is it possible to draw the line between uttering an opinion and campaigning ?


27 posted on 03/24/2006 3:22:56 AM PST by globalheater (There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare - Sun Tzu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud

'learning from communism is learning to win'


28 posted on 03/24/2006 3:24:11 AM PST by globalheater (There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare - Sun Tzu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: globalheater

Some of our leaders appear to be striving hard to mimick them.


29 posted on 03/24/2006 3:28:56 AM PST by azhenfud (He who always is looking up seldom finds others' lost change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Mega Bump!


30 posted on 03/24/2006 4:34:32 AM PST by F-117A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drstevej; Gamecock; Jean Chauvin; OrthodoxPresbyterian; CCWoody; Wrigley; jboot; AZhardliner; ...

PATRIOTS,
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT!
PLEASE READ THIS AND ANY POSTS FROM J.R. IN THE LAST 48 HOURS.PING ANY OTHER FREEPERS AND I APPOLOGIZE FOR ANY DOUBLE PINGS.
GODSPEED!


31 posted on 03/24/2006 5:21:19 AM PST by alpha-8-25-02 ("SAVED BY GRACE AND GRACE ALONE")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle; brityank; Physicist; WhyisaTexasgirlinPA; GOPJ; abner; baseballmom; Willie Green; Mo1; ..

Not Pa. directly but it's important to know


32 posted on 03/24/2006 5:36:38 AM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288; ohioWfan; DrDeb; GretchenM; Wolfstar; Mo1; Peach; Txsleuth; NordP; mystery-ak; ...

Bump!


33 posted on 03/24/2006 5:55:20 AM PST by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: USF

Thanks for the ping.


34 posted on 03/24/2006 6:41:40 AM PST by Just A Nobody (NEVER AGAIN - Support our troops. I *LOVE* my attitude problem! Beware the Enemedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Scary stuff. I love GWB, but I greatly lament the fact that he signed McCain-Feingold.

Thanks for the heads-up. Will make contact.


35 posted on 03/24/2006 6:49:14 AM PST by Obadiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Done!


36 posted on 03/24/2006 6:55:23 AM PST by Just A Nobody (NEVER AGAIN - Support our troops. I *LOVE* my attitude problem! Beware the Enemedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

free speech ping


37 posted on 03/24/2006 6:57:47 AM PST by Buffettfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
If, as we knew at the time, McCain-Feinfgold was an affront to the first amendment, then why did GWB sign it? After the Democrats win in November (just a guess, a sleepless one at that) will he whip out his pen and sign a newer version of the "fairness doctrine" into law?

For all he has done that is positive, for all of the "feel good" times he gave us, when he signed the CFR bill into law all changed for me. It validated my belief that he is an elitist first and that he believes that the government is not formed at the consent of the governed.

I will contact my Senator(s) and advise them of the right thing to do. It is just too bad it had to come to this.
38 posted on 03/24/2006 7:16:50 AM PST by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alpha-8-25-02

Thank you so much!!


39 posted on 03/24/2006 7:49:19 AM PST by MarMema (Buy Danish, support freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

BTTT


40 posted on 03/24/2006 8:51:53 AM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
The Internet is the last vestige of free and effective political speech in America. It's what’s left of the Voice of the People. Let's keep it that way!

Well said...

41 posted on 03/24/2006 11:53:38 AM PST by GOPJ (Peace happens when evil is vanquished -- Cal Thomas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma

Thanks for the ping!


42 posted on 03/24/2006 11:55:10 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

bump


43 posted on 03/24/2006 2:24:34 PM PST by GretchenM (What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? Please meet my friend, Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah

Scary stuff. I love GWB, but I greatly lament the fact that he signed McCain-Feingold.

Any love I had for GWB has been almost totally replaced with complete disgust and disappointment.

44 posted on 03/24/2006 3:13:18 PM PST by frankiep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma; Jim Robinson

Free Speech silenced by McCain-Feingold, private homes seized by the government under "eminent domain"... just proves that the most important battlefront is right here.


45 posted on 03/25/2006 12:31:30 PM PST by Giant Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Final Authority

Why did GWB sign the CFR bill? ....It's just a guess, but I'm thinking that he had to keep a promise he'd made to McCain. He won the 2000 primary, but needed McCain's support. It wouldn't surprise me if GWB made the promise in exchange for that support. Possibly, at the time he made the promise, he was thinking to himself that the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional. After it passed, I myself was sure that the Supreme Court would rule against it, because it was so obviously unconstitutional. Boy was I wrong.


46 posted on 03/26/2006 5:04:06 PM PST by Molly K.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson