Friday, August 30, 2013

Smart Legislation

In my last post I point out the flaws with Congress and legislation – that their solution to problems are short sighted and they fail to take into account future ramifications that could impact the laws. Yes, it is impossible to predict all future outcomes, but many are obvious – such as life expectancies going up and this is one reason social security and Medicare are becoming insolvent.

In a previous post about the judicial system I discussed doing away with judges for sentencing purposes. I remember reading an article that infuriated me – “What If Michael Vick was White?” The article basically said if Vick where white he would have gotten a lesser sentence. Maybe, but my argument about the judicial system is that the same person (regardless of race) would have gotten ten different sentences in ten different venues. That is why I think computers can do a better job handing down sentences. This is the only way to eliminate the opinions and biases of judges. Computers would yield the same sentence to first or second time drug offenders regardless of their age, sex, or ethnicity. This is the only way to issue truly fair and impartial sentences.

Well, why not use computer programs tied to legislation to make the legislation smarter? One thing the government (at all levels) does well is collect data. Maybe it is time to put this information and data to good use. There is no reason a program can’t be tied to legislation and or the fiscal wellbeing of the country. A program can be used to increase or decrease taxes or spending depending on current economic conditions. As a firm believer of lower taxes and spending – I am sure a computer program that models economic conditions will come to the same conclusions. If, for instance, government debt reaches a certain level or a particular federal program becomes a liability because it has reached a predetermined limit of the nation’s spending, than the software program tied to these policies or budgets could trigger automatic cuts.

Computers can be used to make tough and unpopular decisions that lawmakers are unwilling to make. This approach will help overcome political polarity and decrease the emphasis on money and lobbying. It would remove human error and biases when writing legislation. And software programs can help to correct poorly written legislation. Programs can be updated as more data becomes available to keep up with the changing times. Programs can be used to replace fiscal decisions made by the Fed and even illuminate the future outcome of not only laws, but executive orders, rules, mandates, and regulations passed by any government organization.

Let’s examine ObamaCare for instance. If during the operation of the program it fails to meet CBO projections, then the program could automatically scale back expenditures from the healthcare program. In essence, the ObamaCare legislation would police itself (oversight) and be able to identify potential fraud, waste, and system abuse. Yes, programs can eliminate government red tape and bureaucracy. The computer system could adjust expenditures based on the health of the economy. And better yet, the flaws of lawmakers can be avoided or corrected.

Yes, I live in a mathematical fantasyland. But the technology and data exists for this to become a reality. Wouldn’t it be nice to live in a world where we did not have to worry so much about who our elected officials were since we have computers adjusting and correcting their biases, ideologies, and opinions? Wouldn’t it be nice to eliminate the power and influence of money in politics? Wouldn’t it be nice to eliminate the opinions and biases of judges who legislate from the bench? Yes, it would be nice, but what we would do without our government bureaucracy?

Monday, August 26, 2013

Duct Tape and Congress

What does Congress and Duct-tape have in common? They are both used to make temporary or patchwork fixes. Whenever I go on long day or multiday climb or hike, the most essential safety and repair item I pack is duct-tape. Duct-tape has bailed me out of many adverse situations. I have used as both a band aide for abrasions and to protect blisters. I have used it to repair tent and clothing tears (it is easy to tear material when we travel with a lot of sharp items such as crampons and ice axes). I have used it to fix broken headlamps, tent poles, and other gear. I have used duct-tape to repair broken hoses in cars and in other gadgets. However, no matter how good duct-tape is to repair things, I always make sure products are replaced or fixed properly before the next trip. Duct-tape is not a permanent solution.

Congress acts the same way as duct-tape (except for the fact I cannot see any of these overpaid buffoons fixing anything with their own two hands). A majority of legislation they create and pass is generally a temporary fix or just a patch to the problem. They fail to address the crux of problems by continually passing it off to future dates time after time. In the meantime, as problems and issues deteriorate, Congressional members are too polarized and afraid to commit political suicide to address the heart of these issues.

Case in point, policies such as ObamaCare, Social Security, Medicare, taxes, budget spending, and so forth are all good examples of Congress passing legislation without understanding the future ramifications of the policy. In other words, government policy fails to be strategic. For instance, congressional members never considered the possibility of life expectancies increasing when drafting Medicare or Social Security legislation (even though this was the trend since man was introduced on the planet). And this is a major reason Social Security and Medicare is going bankrupt. ObamaCare fails to address the main concern about healthcare in this country – the proportionate growth of healthcare costs compared to inflation. Because of this huge oversight, ObamaCare will be another entitlement that will grow into fiscal insolvency. Congressional members also failed to consider the possibility that people will rely on entitlements for their entire lives when drafting legislation. And obviously when it comes to fiscal matters such as taxes and spending, congressional members think we can continue to increase taxes and spending without any future consequences. Why do we face fiscal cliff decisions periodically? Because congressional members failed to find permanent solutions and we are therefore forced to periodically face these budget fights.

Is there a way to overcome the short sightedness of Congress and their inclination to base decisions on political gain instead of the welfare of the country? Yes, but I seriously doubt anyone in Congress will like my idea – Smart Legislation.

Friday, August 23, 2013

Why Advocacy Groups are Bad for the U.S.? (Part III)

Progress – Whenever there are two extreme advocacy groups progress is slow and a total waste of money and resources. Instead of groups trying to come together to creatively solve issues; they are stubborn, brainwashed, and resort to being completely disrespectful and hateful towards their adversaries (I was always taught to respect adversaries). This is no way to resolve differences. I proposed using carbon scrubbing technology to bridge climate change ideologies; I proposed allowing the people of each state vote in an election as a way to resolve social issues; and I proposed using smart guns to bridge differences in gun rights ideologies. I was called a lot of names from both sides and even threatened for merely brainstorming instead of blamestorming. If my ideas of a smart gun were available, then we would have the forensic data to understand what happened during the Trayvon Martin shooting. We would have known the exact location the gun was fired, the direction the gun was fired, and the height at which the gun was fired. This would have corroborated Zimmerman’s story or shown he was liar. And maybe today the dozens of people who have died in the aftermath of the Martin decision would have been saved. This would have been progress and provide forensic data to resolve “stand your ground” disputes. Research companies tell us that they are making progress on curing medical disorders. This is really not true. Despite throwing trillions of dollars into research over the past half century we are no closer to developing a cure for cancer and uncovering what causes any neurological disorder. Progress has been made in preventative care, especially in imaging. Some progress has been made to treat symptoms with new drugs (unfortunately, most drugs may help alleviate some symptoms but have other adverse side effects). Many advocacy groups such as Livestrong take in millions, but the money does not even go to find a cure. One of the biggest problems stunting progress for advocacy groups is hypocrisy. Environmentalists, for instance, will not practice what they preach. For instance, environmentalists do not think the same restrictions they want to place on corporations should apply to individuals. Environmentalists want to put green energy sources in your backyard, but not in their own yard. Environmentalists want you to conserve energy, so they do not have to.

Publicity and Perception – Advocacy groups in many cases will do whatever it takes to obtain publicity even if it is negative or false. Usually special interests paint a false perception such as green energy is favorable for the environment. This is not true. Hydropower damns kill fish, wind turbines kill birds, and wind and solar farms take up huge land masses and disrupt plant and wildlife. Electric car batteries weigh 600 pounds and the materials to make the batteries are obtained through mining.

Proactive – Many advocacy groups are reactive instead of proactive. We see behavior with civil rights leaders – Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They only spring into action once they perceive an injustice was done. This type of reaction works best to polarize and brainwash followers and does nothing to unite Americans.

Protection – Most advocacy groups are protected by the government and do not have to pay any taxes. In fact, many advocacy groups receive government funding (there is nothing political about this?). And of course there are many advocacy groups who feel they are protecting something – this is especially true with the hundreds of environmental groups. Environmental groups will go as far as they can to protect a bug at the expense of their neighbor’s wellbeing. As I pointed out earlier, green energy does not protect the environment.

I have come up with a dozen ways advocacy groups are bad for the U.S. just using the letter P. I suppose there are hundreds of other reasons using the letters of the alphabet.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Why Advocacy Groups are Bad for the U.S.? (Part II)

Propaganda and Propensity – Whether we are in agreement or not, we all have been brainwashed to some extent; it is just a matter as to how much. For example, if you watch or read opinion news sources you have been brainwashed. And the more you read and watch opinion news sources the more brainwashed you will become. The key to propaganda is use fear mongering tactics to scare you into their way of thinking and to use repetition to get their message locked into our brains. Corporations use the same tactics with commercials. I believe as a society we are becoming weaker and our overall intellect is dwindling (partly due to reliance on technology and the disappearance of social skills - loners), hence we are more susceptible to be brainwashed. Besides, there is a large populous that would like no other than to have our governing bodies make all their decisions for them largely because they incapable, irresponsible, unaccountable, and lazy. I may side more with the views of Limbaugh or Hannity, but I guarantee you I came to the same conclusions in a vastly different and in a more analytical fashion. In fact, I avoid reading or watching any news items anymore. I merely read titles and devise my point of view from analyzing data. In many cases, the media and government use propaganda techniques to divert attention from one advocacy group to another. For instance, the government and media were successfully able to shift focus from anti-government groups over the IRS scandal to civil rights advocacy groups over the Trayvon Martin trial.

Problem Solving – We have become a nation of problem creators and not problem solvers. To solve a problem you need to be creative and to think outside of the box. And since an advocacy group has an extreme and narrow point of view there is no way to properly solve the problem they are advocating for. For instance, to solve climate change one side wants to punish companies who emit CO2 instead of finding a solution that would be beneficial to all. Their proposal is merely to create a shift in power – not equally dividing the power. In fact, this is how most issues are resolved. Most laws, mandates, rules, and regulations are not enforced equally amongst individuals, localities, states, organizations, and corporations – ObamaCare is a good example. The Senate immigration law is another example. Anytime a law is over 2000 pages long it is because lobbyists and special interest groups have carved out exceptions for their constituents and thereby complicating the law in an unfair manner.

Production and Prosperity – In many cases, the advocacy group is merely pushing an idea. They create nothing tangible like a product that will create jobs to help the economy. Gay marriage and PETA advocacy groups are a perfect example. They are pushing an ideology. The only people getting wealthy from these organizations are lawyers and lobbyists. What a waste of money. Most advocacy groups who employ lawyers are the worst. Lawyers do not create anything, but merely find a way to garner more power at the expense of others.

Proficiency – There is nothing proficient (mastery of a subject) about advocacy group solutions to problems. In education the solution is to test students to meet a minimum set of requirements for a few subjects. Many subjects are ignored and nothing is done to maximize student test results. Unions’ solution to achieve proficiency is to eliminate competition in education and to provide everyone an award for trying – how is that proficient? This is mediocrity at best.

Procrastination – The overabundance of advocacy groups creates tons of local, state, and federal bureaucracy that leads to the procrastination of more important issues such as our economy and jobs.

Monday, August 19, 2013

Why Advocacy Groups are Bad for the U.S.? (Part I)

I am not going to say that all advocacy groups and individuals that support them are bad for the U.S., but a majority of these groups are causing problems. Here are my reasons:

Polarity – Many causes and special interest groups have opposing advocacy organizations. When this happens, they generally fall as either Right or Left; Republican or Democrat; or Conservative or Liberal on the political spectrum. There is no grey area or area in the middle; hence many advocacy groups are extreme opposites. No one is advocating on middle ground trying compromise. And to complicate matters, there are so many advocacy groups seeking political attention this is only working to polarize Americans and the federal government further. Pro Life v. Abortion, Union v. Right to Work, Fossil Fuels v. Green, Gun Control v. Second Amendment, Socialism v. Capitalism, Gay v. Marriage, Environmentalists v. Fossil Fuels, and Private Enterprise or States’ Rights v. Big Government, to name a few. I refuse to join any advocacy group or political party because they restrict brain growth and reason.

Priority – Individuals feel their cause or special interest is the most important thing and should receive top priority. This relates to how our society is devolving into a populous of narcissistic individuals whose focus is very narrow and self-indulgent with no regards to others.

Power – The goal of advocacy groups is to achieve more power for their cause. Power may come in the form of more money, laws, rules, regulations, and or mandates. I believe in the conservation of power. Just as there is only enough money to go around, there is only enough power to go around. Hence, the strengthening of one advocacy group must lead to the weakening of another. One final point, many advocacy groups believe money solves all problems, this is a bad assumption. For instance, pouring more money into education in poverty stricken areas will not improve the education of students if other variables such as the curriculum, teachers, and administrators are not improved.

Probability, Prediction, and Prognostication – No one can predict the future. However, many advocacy groups and organizations seem to think they can. What is particularly strange about this is less than 1% of all Americans have the capacity to create or understand statistics, models, programing, or linear algebra to predict future trends. For this reason, both sides of the climate change debate are perplexing since no one can predict the future. The same can be said for both sides of the gun debate – neither side can definitively proclaim the future outlook on crime. What if PETA gets its way and everyone becomes a vegetarian? How does the U.S. produce nearly 500 million more pounds of vegetarian food a day to feed everyone? In other words, be careful what you wish for. We can become identical to India with cows roaming the streets and people starving to death.

Monday, August 12, 2013

Sandusky, Hernandez, and Governing Bodies (Part III)

The NCAA would be wrong to punish Florida over Hernandez, but since they set the Sandusky precedent, they would be negligent not to be consistent in their actions. After all, if the NCAA treats Florida differently than Penn State than that in itself is a NCAA violation because they are providing one school an unfair advantage over another school.

My point to this blog post is to show what happens when a governing body, in this case the NCAA, decides to make a power grab. Once a governing body implements a power grab, that power is there forever. The NCAA called the Penn State power grab a one-time deal. However, if the NCAA refuses to act against other schools equally, that is wrong.

This is the problem with government agencies alike. Once they implement a power grab, that power is there forever. For this reason, our society is loaded with rules, regulations, laws, and mandates that are strangling society and our constitution.

I have argued that one of the most influential things that define our persona is how we behave once given a position of authority. And my experience is most people abuse their power once in a position of authority. This explains why the federal government is growing beyond control – power grabs. It explains why there is a web of bureaucracy in every facet of government. It explains why there is so much fraud and waste in government. It explains why laws, rules, regulations, and mandates are not enforced equally amongst states, corporations, municipalities, individuals, and organizations.

Think about the Obama power grab and how that has increased the power of the executive branch and the federal government. He created Czar Posts with no congressional oversight. He has moved unilaterally on very complicated and controversial issues – gun control, immigration, climate change, and war (Libya). He has placed the control of healthcare in the United States (18% of GDP) under federal law. He has enforced laws such as ObamaCare and foreign aid as he sees fit, not as they are written. With the help of the Supreme Court, our federal government has the power to force Americans to buy any product they see fit – and call it a tax. The federal government has taken over all student loans. This is all bad precedent and this power taken by the federal government has come at the expense of the individuals who reside in this country. This precedent and federal power grab under Obama has weakened the Constitution and has literally annihilated all states’ rights.

No power grab is a one-time event, it is permanent! Once power is increased at one level, this means it must be weakened at another level. It is common sense just as is the conservation of energy, mass, and momentum – there is a conservation of power.

Friday, August 9, 2013

Sandusky, Hernandez, and Governing Bodies (Part II)

Now that the NCAA has set this precedent here is my question – If Hernandez is found guilty of murder will the NCAA be consistent and punish the University of Florida football program in the same manner it punished Penn State? After all, there are many similarities between the two the cases.

Both Hernandez and Sandusky committed their crimes once they were no longer at the schools.

Both Hernandez and Sandusky committed vicious and violent crimes that impacted the lives of countless people.

Both the University of Florida and Penn State looked the other way and did not discipline any wrongdoing. Hernandez was said to have failed several drug tests, was in a bar room fight (but mysteriously the case resolution is unknown), was questioned in a double shooting that left one man in serious condition, and photos were uncovered of Hernandez holding illegal handguns. In all, Hernandez was suspended for one game. In fact, Florida coach, Urban Myer, had a record of recruiting kids with questionable backgrounds and for not disciplining players who committed crimes. Did Florida look the other way just as Penn State did for Sandusky? Can the NCAA rule that Florida had an unfair advantage over other teams because their discipline was too lenient and allowed players to play when they should have been booted off the team?

Both the University of Florida and Penn State communities looked the other way. In the case of Sandusky, a school guidance counselor did not believe a student who confided with her. And let’s not forget a grand jury decided not charge Sandusky back in 1999 (meaning he was cleared of any undoing while he was a coach at Penn State – but the investigation cost him his job). Hence, the community had a chance to stop Sandusky. The same can be said for the University of Florida. How else can we explain Hernandez having no record when in Gainesville even though he committed several felonies? Communities like their football and will do anything to help these programs to win games – including looking the other way when a football player commits a crime.

If Penn State and community enabled Sandusky then it is easy to say the same about Florida and community about Hernandez. Think about it; why would over half the NFL teams take Hernandez off their draft boards and the rest lower his value if Hernandez had no police record? NFL teams did their homework and knew Hernandez was tied to guns, drugs, and gangs. After all, Hernandez’s tattoos told the story of gang involvement. They also knew the University of Florida and local police protected Hernandez. Hernandez was a late first or early second round value who dropped to the fourth round. Hernandez duped the Patriots into selecting him by writing them a letter about how he is reformed and seen the light – It was the place he wanted to be drafted – close to his hometown of Bristol Connecticut. But like any reformed addict, to be successful they must leave the area they resided to get a fresh start. For this reason, the Patriots were the worst place for Hernandez to land – too close to many previously bad influences.

Both Sandusky and Hernandez flied under the radar; even though it is unimaginable that those closest to these monsters felt nothing was wrong? If Paterno should have known Sandusky was a threat to kids, then Myer should have known Hernandez posed a serious threat to others.

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Obama is in Retreat Mode

Even Obama is running away from his policies. In Obama’s Cairo speech he pledged better Muslim relations. Now Obama is closing up shop around the Muslim world. The US is retreating in Afghanistan and going home with the job unfinished. Obama is negotiating with the Taliban terrorists to try to save face. Dangerous terrorists are being freed and escaping from prisons around the world. The US closed over 20 of its embassies around the globe including those in countries like Egypt and Libya where Obama praised the Arab Spring uprisings and supported the resistance. How can we improve relations with the Arab world when we cannot even establish a diplomatic presence? Obama claimed al-Qaida was decimated by his drone program, but his actions to close up shop and retreat tell a completely different story. In fact, the US is losing the war on terror. The US lost the Benghazi terror attack – four Americans including our Ambassador are dead and still no one has been held accountable. And why would the Obama administration want to find these culprits (CNN interviewed one of the terrorists, but yet US federal authorities cannot capture this culprit). If US authorities did successfully apprehend these terrorists then the real story of what happened and the cover up will come out. For this reason, Obama and company want this story to go away and therefore, are not even trying to hold anyone accountable. In fact, the Obama administration watched Americans die in the Benghazi attack and failed to send any help. It took nearly 24 hours for some of the wounded survivors to be rescued.

We are losing the battle against Iran and North Korea and their ambitions to develop long range missiles and nuclear weaponry. Edward Snowden has stolen and given national security information to our enemies. Meanwhile, Russia has denied any requests to return him to the US; instead they have given him asylum.

The US has been successfully attacked several times on our home soil (Fort Hood and Boston), and several other attacks would have succeeded if it were not for incompetence and some vigilant citizens.

At home, Obama is picking and choosing which parts of his signature legislation, ObamaCare, that he wants to implement. The unpopular corporate mandate has been conveniently suspended until after the midterm elections. In essence, Obama and Democrats are trying to distance themselves from this unpopular legislation. In fact, many house Democrats voted to delay the individual mandate of the law.

Obama is even retreating from his comments such as “We will not let Detroit go Bankrupt” or the fact he called the IRS targeting of conservative groups “outrageous”. Now Detroit is going through bankruptcy and Obama is now calling the IRS scandal “phony”. What does this mean? It means once again the president is backpedaling and will not hold anyone accountable for Detroit and IRS troubles. After all, holding anyone accountable for the Detroit calamity or the IRS mess will only make the White House look either complicit, incompetent, and or just plain stupid. The same can be said of Fast Furious (where the DOJ and White House are hiding behind executive privilege), Benghazi (where the State Department and White House tried to cover up a terror attack), and the EPA targeting conservative groups.

The Obama administration should change our National Flag from the current one to an all-White one which they can fly above the White House – signaling retreat, surrender, and the fact they have given up the fight. The bottom line, if Obama was in a MMA fight, he would have submitted to al-Qaida, the Taliban, North Korea, Iran, and Russia. He has submitted to finding the culprits behind Benghazi, the IRS, the EPA, and Fast Furious scandals.

Monday, August 5, 2013

Sandusky, Hernandez, and Governing Bodies (Part I)

We already know former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky is a monster (convicted serial rapist and pedophile – should have been sentenced to death). Penn State’s football program paid dearly for Sandusky’s actions when the NCAA involved itself for the first time ever in a non-football criminal case (Sandusky’s actions did not help the Penn State team win games by cheating – in fact, Sandusky was no longer employed by the school when he committed most of his crimes) . The NCAA leveled four years of sanctions including massive fines, loss of scholarships, lenient transfer policies, forfeiture of previous games, and a ban on bowl games. The State College Pennsylvania business community will also suffer when football attendance goes down when the team is no longer competitive. The NCAA argued that Penn State put winning football games above all else by protecting Sandusky. Maybe this true, but Penn State was the only Division I NCAA program to never be sanctioned in any sport. Hence, Penn State played within NCAA rules and guidelines better than any other school in history – and that argument still holds true today. Since the Sandusky crimes did not violate any NCAA rule, the NCAA decided to make this one time exception and make up the rules as they saw fit – a power grab.

In 2011, 7% (1 out of 14) of all Division I football players were arrested. About 40% of these arrests were because of a violent offense (mostly assault – i.e. bar fights). I did not count DUI as a violent offense, but it can be if there is an accident. In all cases, the NCAA did not intervene (even in cases of rape, murder, and attempted murder) and allowed schools and local judicial systems to hand out punishments as they saw fit. After all these types of crimes were not considered cheating and ultimately did not provide their team an unfair advantage over another team on the playing field. What made the Sandusky case different – it involved children. However, our justice system does not necessarily feel crimes against children are any worse than violent crimes against adults based on sentences. A person who rapes an 18 year receives the same sentence as a person who rapes a 12 year old in most states. The NCAA decided to prioritize and rank crimes. Is it right for the NCAA to look the other way when a football player rapes a fellow student, but intervene if the crime was committed against a youth? This is certainly not consistent.

Ex-Florida Gator and New England Patriot tight end, Aaron Hernandez, is not equal to Jerry Sandusky – at least not yet. If Hernandez is found guilty of killing Odin Lloyd (execution style); if he is found to be complicit in a 2012 unsolved double homicide; and if he found guilty of the 2012 shooting of Alexander Bradley; then Hernandez is also a monster (serial killer). And let’s not forget the police are still investigating the death of a Hernandez coconspirator in the Lloyd shooting (car accident).

I have long said the NCAA was wrong to issue itself one time power to interfere and intervene in the Sandusky case. This set a bad precedent. I argued that this would be no different than the SEC punishing a company with fines and penalties because one of its chief officers was a serial pedophile. This action hurts all the innocent people who work at the company especially when the stock price tumbles. In other words, this action punishes more innocent people than guilty ones. The same can be said for the NCAA actions against Penn State.

Friday, August 2, 2013

What is the Liberal Definition of Free Speech?

What is the liberal definition of free speech? It is anything that does not offend the liberal ideology or way of thinking. Unfortunately, many people use their first amendment rights in offensive ways – such as protesting at the funerals of fallen servicemen. Do I like it, of course not, but it is the right of individuals to not only speak their minds, but to express their views. Liberals pushed hard for the First Amendment to also cover the freedom of expression; hence the Supreme Court protected things such as nude dancing, flag burning, and armbands back in the 70s.

Today, liberal senators Jon Tester and Chris Murphy are pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to reverse the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. This would ultimately eliminate any constitutional rights for corporations. Liberals contend that corporations are not people and that money is not free speech. Well, liberals are wrong on both fronts. First, money is the most common way used by people to express themselves. After all, people buy things that they like and this best defines their personalities. Secondly, the same restrictions that Tester and Murphy want to impose on corporations will not apply to groups and organizations such as unions and Planned Parenthood. In fact, under the Tester and Murphy way of thinking the federal government should not be considered people and protected under the constitution. Heck, corporations are a much closer representation to people than organizations or groups because they pay taxes. This shows the true motives of liberals and their version of free speech – everybody is protected by the First Amendment so long as their views are not offensive to the liberal ideology. In other words, the government can dictate what taxes, rules, mandates, laws, healthcare, etc. corporations must comply with but they are not allowed to participate in election process by contributing monies to campaigns. Think about it, enemy combatants, criminals, and illegal immigrants would have more constitutional rights than corporations.

We saw this same fight come up in the past with the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine was created decades ago when the main media outlet was the radio. The goal was to balance conservative and liberal speech on the airwaves. Liberals want to enforce the Fairness Doctrine today because conservative talk shows dominate radio airwaves. However, today, there are many more ways for media pundits to reach the masses – TV, Internet, school, phone, etc. And liberal personalities dominate these outlets. Once again this shows the true motives of liberals who want to silence conservative personalities but not liberal ones.

Then there is the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (F.I.R.E.), that wants to force colleges and universities to treat as sexual harassment any language that strikes someone as offensive (rather than requiring it to be offensive by an objective standard) and convicting students based on a preponderance of the evidence (rather than a tougher standard like beyond a reasonable doubt). So anyone on campus who wants to allege offense can decide what speech is allowed.

The liberal idea of free speech is to suppress conservative views because they find it offensive (yes, the days of respecting our adversaries is long gone). And this vision is clearly being displayed and implemented by the Obama administration. The IRS and EPA have admitted to targeting conservative organizations. The DOJ targeted conservative media outlets (who are supposed to be protected under the First Amendment). The administration is using drones and the NSA to spy on Americans.