” The FEC deadlocked in a crucial Internet campaign speech vote announced Friday, leaving online political blogging and videos free of many of the reporting requirements attached to broadcast ads — for now.
While all three GOP-backed members voted against restrictions, they were opposed by the three Democratic-backed members, including FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel, who said she will lead a push next year to try to come up with new rules government political speech on the Internet.
It would mark a major reversal for the commission, which for nearly a decade has protected the ability of individuals and interest groups to take to engage in a robust political conversation on the Internet without having to worry about registering with the government or keeping and reporting records of their expenses.
Ms. Ravel said she fears that in trying to keep the Internet open for bloggers, they’ve instead created a loophole for major political players to escape some scrutiny.
“ Some of my colleagues seem to believe that the same political message that would require disclosure if run on television should be categorically exempt from the same requirements when placed in the Internet alone,” said FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel in a statement. “As a matter of policy, this simply does not make sense.”
She said the FEC should no longer “turn a blind eye to the Internet’s growing force in the political arena,” and she vowed to force a conversation next year on what changes to make.
The three Republican-backed commissioners, though, said in a joint statement that Ms. Ravel’s plans would stifle what’s become the “virtual free marketplace of political ideas and democratic debate.”
Washington Times reports on the latest Statist move from our most Statist administration ever
” The New Haven SWAT team must have been pretty amped up: It was midnight, and they were getting ready to bust down the door of a man wanted on charges involving weapons violations, robbery — and murder. They were not sure how many people were in the house, or how they’d react. After a volley of flash grenades that set fire to the carpet and a sofa, they moved in, guns drawn. A minute later, they had their man zip-tied on the floor.
If only they’d double-checked the address first.
Bobby Griffin Jr. was wanted on murder charges. His next-door neighbor on Peck Street, Joseph Adams, wasn’t. But that didn’t stop the SWAT team from knocking down his door, setting his home on fire, roughing him up, keeping him tied up in his underwear for nearly three hours, and treating the New Haven man, who is gay, to a nance show as officers taunted him with flamboyantly effeminate mannerisms. If the events detailed in Mr. Adams’s recently filed lawsuit are even remotely accurate, the episode was a moral violation and, arguably, a crime.
And when Mr. Adams showed up at the New Haven police department the next day to fill out paperwork requesting that the authorities reimburse him for the wanton destruction of his property — never mind the gross violation of his rights — the story turned Kafkaesque, as interactions with American government agencies at all levels tend to do. The police — who that same night had managed to take in the murder suspect next door without the use of flash grenades or other theatrics after his mother suggested that they were probably there for her son — denied having any record of the incident at Mr. Adams’s home ever having happened.
This sort of thing happens with disturbing regularity. The New York Police Department killed an older woman in Harlem when they mistakenly raided her home in 2003. In that case, too, “flash-bang” grenades were deployed, and the concussions sent 57-year-old Alberta Spruiell into cardiac arrest, killing her. The NYPD was acting on information given to them by a local lowlife drug dealer they were leaning on. It was the first information he’d given them as an informant, and based on nothing more than that they went in hard — no-knock raid, grenades, the whole circus. As it turns out, New York dope-slingers turned rat are not entirely trustworthy. “
Read Kevin D Williamson’s whole piece on our road to serfdom …
” The city of Birmingham has settled a police beating lawsuit for $460,000, but the plaintiff remains behind bars and won’t get much of a payday.
Under terms of the settlement approved by the City Council and Mayor William Bell, Anthony Warren will receive $1,000, while his attorneys receive $359,000 in fees and $100,000 in expenses, AL.com learned this evening.
Read more of this disgusting outcome that demonstrates how the lawyers ALWAYS win . No surprise as they are the ones that make the rules and referee the matches . Sickening …
Yes , Governor Malloy actually said that “high capacity” magazines would help people fight against the Federal government .
” It probably seemed like a bright idea at the time: Let the police seize the ill-gotten gains of alleged drug dealers and other suspected criminals and sell it, using the proceeds to buy much-needed crime-fighting gear.
Unfortunately, the process—civil asset forfeiture—did not require convicting anybody of a crime. In fact, it didn’t even require charging anybody with a crime. Not surprisingly, this led to rampant abuse, which has been abundantly documented for many years. Various reform efforts, including a 2000 federal law, have been unable to stop what’s become known as policing for profit.
But Virginia lawmaker Mark Cole is going to give it another shot. That’s as good a sign as any that civil asset forfeiture has jumped the shark. “
We wish Mr Cole good luck . Legalized theft , aka civil asset forfeiture , is an abuse that is completely incompatible with the spirit of America as well as being blatantly unconstitutional .
” A group of conservative students protesting Hillary Clinton during her campaign rally at Oakland University in Michigan were threatened by a left-leaning Democrat, who vowed he would infect them with Ebola if they didn’t cease and desist.
“ I just came from Texas, I have Ebola, and now I’m going to give it to you,” said Larry Mitchell, 63, a member of the St. Clair Shores Democratic Club,on a video captured by Campus Reform.
The 25 or so students were corralled off by campus police and Secret Service agents at a site far from the event hall, where Ms. Clinton, the former Secretary of State, was speaking in support of two Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate and governor, The Blaze reported.
Witnesses said Mr. Mitchell approached them, threatened them — and then licked his hand and tried to wipe his saliva on them, Campus Reform reported. He also called them “fascists” and said their libertarian political beliefs were the causes of Ebola’s spread. “
Washington Times has more
” D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier on Thursday said her department will begin accepting applications next week for the first public permits to carry concealed firearms in the nation’s capital in more than four decades.
Lanier’s announcement came as the D.C. Council’s judiciary committee met to grapple with a federal judge’s ruling striking down the District’s long-standing concealed-carry ban. That ruling, handed down in July, will take effect next week.
Last month, the D.C. Council enacted emergency legislation — and is in the process of writing a permanent law — to allow city residents to carry concealed weapons. The measures set out requirements for D.C. residents who own properly registered handguns as well as nonresidents with a state carry license to obtain a permit to bear a concealed weapon in the city.
But both the temporary law and the permanent measure would be among the most restrictive nationwide, giving Lanier the final say on which applications are granted. The chief and other officials have said that strict rules are needed to ensure the security of dignitaries and high-profile events.”
Not exactly a shall-issue situation , this “emergency legislation” , while landmark in that the citizens of DC can finally attempt to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights , as written those rights are still to be “allowed” under the sole discretion of one political bureaucrat … further litigation seems a certainty . Any guesses as to the chances of the average DC resident being granted “permission” to defend themselves in one of the most dangerous cities in the country ?
Continued at Washington Post
” For much of its history, the United States had a notably decentralized government structure. Since the 1930s, the national government has undertaken new efforts to regulate the economy and society and to redistribute resources. Those new efforts have implied a greater centralization of authority in Washington. In the past the public often supported such centralization. Public opinion about federalism has changed. Voters are more supportive of decentralized policymaking on many issues where they previously supported a stronger national role. This shift in the public mood is consistent with other polling data that indicates profound distrust in the capacity of the federal government to act on behalf of the public good. On some issues, like national defense, much of the public continues to support national primacy. Such issues are often assigned to Washington by the Constitution. In contrast, much polling finds that many citizens believe state and local governments are likely to perform better than Washington. Americans support a more decentralized federalism than in the past both on particular issues and as a general matter of institutional confidence. “
The study is filled with topical data on the public’s shift away from supporting the overweening Leviathan state including this very telling nugget of information on attitudes towards healthcare …
As the above graph demonstrates , there remains one segment of society that is out of touch with the mainstream on who should decide the issue of healthcare and it’s not the Right . The results are the same or very similar on a wide range of issues , all indicating a strong support of state’s rights with the single exception of education policy .
The other single factor that remains steady is the Democrat’s desire for federal control over ALL issues . Once a statist , always a statist .
Read the entire study at Cato
Click for interactive map
” Global economic freedom fell slightly in this year’s report, and it remains well below its peak level of 6.92 in 2007. The average score fell to 6.84 in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available. In this year’s index, Hong Kong retains the highest rating for economic freedom, 8.98 out of 10. The rest of this year’s top scores are Singapore, 8.54; New Zealand, 8.25; Switzerland, 8.19; Mauritius, 8.09; United Arab Emirates, 8.05; Canada, 8.00; Australia, 7.87; Jordan, 7.86; and, tied for 10th at 7.84, Chile and Finland.
The United States, once considered a bastion of economic freedom, now ranks 12th in the world, tied with the United Kingdom at 7.81. Due to a weakening rule of law, increasing regulation, and the ramifications of wars on terrorism and drugs, the United States has seen its economic freedom score plummet in recent years, compared to 2000 when it ranked second globally.
The rankings of other large economies in this year’s index are Japan (23rd), Germany (28th), South Korea (33rd), France (58th), Italy (79th), Mexico (91st), Russia (98th), Brazil (103rd), India (110th), and China (115th). “