Navigation

Tag Archives | Free Speech

Disclose This!

By on June 18, 2010 in Commentary, Elections, Liberty 1

So the DISCLOSE Act is making headlines these days – and so is the NRA. Here’s what Hans von Spakovsky had to say on the Heritage Foundation blog:

Just as opposition was building in the House to the unconstitutional and burdensome DISCLOSE Act, which is intended to help Democrats in the November election by stifling the political speech of corporations and many non-profit advocacy organizations (but not unions), the National Rifle Association has apparently sold out.

Politico and others are reporting that the NRA has reached a deal to withdraw its opposition to the bill in exchange for an exemption for the NRA from its disclosure provisions. The exemption would apply to “organizations which have qualified as having tax exempt status under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code for each of the 10 years prior to making a campaign-related disbursement, that had 1 million or more dues-paying members in the prior calendar year, that had members in each of the 50 states, that received no more than 15 percent of their total funding from corporations or labor organizations, and that do not use any corporate or union money to pay for their campaign-related expenditures.”

There aren’t too many organizations that will fit within this exemption, but I understand the NRA thinks it is one of those that will. This exemption will not apply to small, less powerful 501(c)(4) organizations, which will be hit the hardest by the onerous, burdensome, and expensive disclosure requirements of the DISCLOSE Act, but it will apply to the large, well-funded and well-connected NRA.

After reading the act, it just reaffirms the position of the Tenth Amendment Center as an organization. a) We are For Profit – meaning, we’re not a 501c3 c4 527 or anything. We refuse to partner with the Federal Government – accepting its bribe of lower taxes – and accepting the risk that what we do will be restricted by their rules.

and…b) Our activism efforts are focused at a state level – so you won’t be seeing TAC ads on federal candidates. Why? Because no matter who wins in 2010 or 2012 or 20-whatever, I can promise you this – government will continue to grow.

So, while this act is obviously another constitutional violation, it won’t affect groups like TAC – while there aren’t many – because we’ve taken the position that the federal government is already a lost cause.

Continue Reading

Fear of the Federal Government is not radical it is American

By on May 9, 2010 in Founding Principles, Government 0

Our education “system” is broken. When the main stream media can get away with making the argument that it is “dangerous” to stir the people up to fear their government, which may lead to violence, shows their ignorance of our history and founding.

Our founders were skeptical and inherently suspicious of centralized power. The creation of the federal government only barely made it past the state ratification process. Along the way to ratification, several additions to the constitution, including the addition of the Bill of Rights was imperative because of the absolute distrust of a central “authority”. The state’s and founders had to not only build the argument for ratification, but also build a barrier to protect the states from an over reaching central authority by including the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”, otherwise the federal government would have never become a reality. This mistrust and fear of a central authority permeated the country and was the foundation of the greatest form of government ever derived by men. Regarding government; they knew less was more and more was a threat to all.

As we watch pundits make the arguments that some types of speech against the government can “enflame” violence toward the government, I ask you; what does the first amendment say; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The founders and our ancestors that agreed to ratify the constitution knew what was bound to happen by empowering a central government. So they included what they considered clear restrictions on the authority of the federal government because they did not trust any central authority. Today we find ourselves right where our founders predicted, but fortunately their fear, foresight, and protections are clearly documented in the constitution.

Listen closely when pundits and politicians talk about “types” of speech. The type of speech they are targeting to control either through a “chilling” effect or outright legislation is the speech we are engaging in against our government and its policies. We are assembling peaceably through tea parties and trying to redress our grievances. Is this not exactly what our founders were protecting us against? Is fear of the federal government unfounded? Were our founders radicals? Would our founders consider the tea party movement dangerous or patriotic?

Our founders were brilliant and prophetic about the rights they knew must be etched in stone because they were God given, and would one day come under assault from tyrannical forces. Those tyrannical forces are among us. We must teach our history or we will be throwing away our future

Continue Reading