Random thoughts: Michelle Nunn, Obamacare, Citizens United,

Just some thoughts . . . . . .

Michelle Nunn . . . . I would vote for her if she would run on a platform of (1)  vote against any feel-good gun legislation, such as AWB, universal registration, universal background checks, magazine capacity limits, waiting periods, etc.     (2)  repeal the (UN)Affordable Healthcare Act.   (3) call for across the board reductions in all budget items.  (3)  repeal The Patriot Act  (4)  repeal NCLB and throw out the Common Core curriculum.       Fat chance of her doing any of those things.  Instead, she has aligned herself with the Obamas.  At a fundraiser in DC last year, Michelle Obama said:

And let's not forget about that commonsense gun legislation that so many of us feel so strongly about.  Sadly, as you know, that bill failed, and you want to know by how many votes?  It failed by just six votes in the Senate -- six.
………………………………..
The fact is that right now, we are just six seats away from losing the Senate -- just six.  That’s how close these midterm elections are.  So it is critical that we elect Michelle Nunn, Alison Grimes, Natalie Tennant.  It is critical that we get them to the Senate.  
http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/11/18/remarks-first-lady-dscc-women-senators-event

If you are a gun owner in Georgia, or if you are just concerned about gun rights and/or any other freedoms, you need to join NRA.  And vote against Michelle Nunn.

xxxxxxxxxx

Obamacare . . . . . . it is now indefensible.  If a Republican had done what Obama has done with a law passed by Congress, the media would have impeached him, hung him, built a bonfire under his carcass, and sifted the ashes and buried them.  There have been now 27 major changes to the law by Presidential edict.  He can't do this.  Congress passed a law.  He is bound to execute that law.  Many of the changes have been blatantly political.  This latest deferment of certain requirements on businesses is just coincidentally put off until after the mid-terms.   The President lied about the law, and he knew he was lying when he did it.  "If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan."   He also said healthcare would be cheaper.  Anyone with good sense should have known that just couldn't be so.  He knew it was a lie.  The website train wrecked before it got out of the station house, at a cost of millions of dollars.  Why did his lapdog media let him get by with his lies and incompetence?  For the same reason they are not howling for his impeachment or resignation right now:  they have too much invested in the First Black President, the Messiah.  After all, they get a "tingle down the leg" when they hear him.   Even one of his liberal media sycophants is stating the obvious:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/why-i-m-getting-sick-of-defending-obamacare-20140211

xxxxxxxxxxx

Citizens United . . . . . . on my Facebook page, several times a day, "suggested posts" show up with titles like, "Kay Hagan wants to repeal Citizens United.  Please help her," or some such.  There are several different politicians or groups who have this as a stated goal.   Well, in actuality, what they are referring to is a Supreme Court decision that overturned much of the McCain-Fiengold Campaign Finance Reform Law.  The name of the case is Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission.  The Court found that provisions of the law that prevented corporations, labor unions, or "associations" from running so-called advocacy ads are unconstitutional restrictions of the 1st Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.   There is some discussion of what is "issue advocacy" and what is "express advocacy."   Basically, the Court ruled that protection of free speech was the paramount issue, and struck down the law.   There are a bunch of misconceptions, and outright misleading claims made by folks who don't like the SCOTUS decision.  Contrary to their claims, the groups mentioned, are NOT allowed to dump more gobs of money into a campaign.  They CANNOT, as a result of the law, send more money directly to a candidates campaign chest.  What they can do is to run radio and tv ads on certain issues.  In fact, one of the major purposes of McCain Feingold was to squelch the effectiveness of the National Rifle Association.    I'm going to shorten this with just a few facts.  Under McCain Feingold, the NRA could not have run ads in several states and Congressional Districts pointing out the abysmal 2nd Amendment stances taken by certain candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives.  Neither could AFL-CIO have run ads in strong union states publicizing the anti-labor stances taken by some states.  One argument I hear from those who are opposed to the SCOTUS decision is, "corporations are not people, and the 1st Amendment protects people, not corporations."  Well, corporations are made up of stockholders.  The NRA is made up of millions of individuals who contribute to the political NRA/ILA part of the organization.  My $50 contribution, combined with the $50 contributions of a few million others, gives us a voice we couldn't have without the right to pool our money and let NRA speak for us.  Here is a link to an article published by the American Civil Liberties Union before passage of the original bill.  ACLU is a right wing, conservative bunch of neanderthals if there ever was one. (NOT)  They give as good an argument against such ill-conceived legislation as anyone.
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-statement-campaign-finance-reform