Monterey Bay Forum

National Organization for Women (NOW)   has a long  list of links– not updated since 2005–  to various left wind organizations including Color of  Pink and Common Cause.

NOW in addition to Color of Pink and Common Cause are  organizations which  oppose ALEC and want  to shut ALEC down.  ALEC is pro free markets and has provided legislation that is pro-business.

For more about ALEC go directly to their site.

ALEC And The Left’s War On Free Speech

Posted 05/16/2012

Advocacy: If you want an insight into today’s left, look at its multifront war against the American Legislative Exchange Council for committing the grave sin of pushing free-market bills in state legislatures.

At a recent meeting in Washington, Aniello Alioto of ProgressNow Colorado summed up the left-wing’s campaign against ALEC: “Never relent, never let up pressure, and always increase.”

According to the Washington Free Beacon, ProgressNow was one of several left-wing groups meeting at AFL-CIO headquarters earlier this month to plot their ongoing campaign against ALEC. Other groups included Common Cause and the Color of Change.

So what’s got the left so agitated? Is ALEC involved in organized crime? Has it stolen money from state treasuries? Bribed officials? Polluted the environment? Clubbed baby seals?

Nope. The left is targeting ALEC for the simple reason that it’s been effective in promoting pro-business, free-market ideas and policies, mainly by drafting model legislation that lawmakers can use as a template in their own legislatures.

Those bills, mind you, still have to make it through their states’ representative bodies, and then get signed by their governors.

In other words, it’s democracy at work.

But the mere fact that ALEC has succeeded in pushing back on the liberal state has the left in a state of apoplexy.
mp3Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast

Instead of debating the group, or working to counter it with their own liberal legislative efforts, they’re trying to shut it down.

For a while, the left had little success, until the Trayvon Martin shooting, which it dubiously tied to ALEC’s advocacy of state “stand your ground” laws.

As a Common Cause spokeswoman told Businessweek, “The Trayvon Martin thing was like a gift.”

Since then, the left has mounted a fierce campaign to target companies that donate to ALEC, acting like reverse extortionists who threaten a PR nightmare unless the companies stop paying up.

They don’t even bother to deny it. Color of Change talks about flooding targeted companies with “thousands of phone calls” and how it will “escalate pressure” with radio ads and threats of public action, the Free Beacon reports.

And the Center for Media and Democracy’s Lisa Graves boasted to the Washington Post a while back about the “enormous work and preparation behind the scenes by numerous public interest organizations and researchers and writers and journalists across the country,” and how it was finally paying off.

As ALEC’s Ron Scheberle correctly described it, “this is an all-out intimidation campaign.”

Unfortunately, more than a dozen risk-averse corporations have since capitulated, severing ties with ALEC.

Meanwhile, Common Cause has filed an IRS whistle-blower complaint claiming ALEC violated lobbying rules, and it’s asking state AGs to investigate the group.

If it all seems out of proportion, it’s because this campaign isn’t about ALEC. It’s about the left’s desire to silence voices with which it doesn’t agree, and it’s about bullying companies into giving only to left-wing causes.

As ALEC’s experience shows, the left doesn’t want open debate and dialogue or freedom of speech. It wants forced conformity.

What’s worse is the fact that “journalists across the country” — including those at the Washington Post and New York Times — who normally pride themselves as champions of free speech, have decided to play along with this campaign rather than call it out.

Obama makes up foreign policy on the fly. Obama ignored the Green Movement in Iraq in 2009. Now it’s time to provide the Green Movement in Iran with secure texting technology so they can communicate without the prying eyes of the regime. Let’s provide Iranian workers with a strike fund — hard cash so they can sustain a strike. And it’s certainly time for a free trade agreement with Iraq.

And how about the Wall Street Journal stepping up to the plate by making it easy for freedom seekers to read the WSJ in Arabic?

The following is from the Wall Street Journal, 2-19-2011:

‘The city of Chicago is famous as the home of improv, so maybe it shouldn’t come as a surprise that a President from Chicago would devise his foreign policy on the fly.

And so it has been, from the war in Afghanistan to the Guantanamo detainees to the trade agenda to the fall of the House of Mubarak. But now that the rest of Arabia appears to have caught the Tunisian freedom bug—and as a longstanding U.S. ally in Bahrain opens fire on peaceful demonstrators—maybe it’s time for the Administration to do more than merely react to events.

Where to begin? We suggest dusting off a copy of George W. Bush’s second inaugural address.

That speech, widely derided at the time as unrealistic and over-reaching if not outright utopian, had as its signature argument the line that “it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”

But Mr. Bush also made an important distinction between “the rulers of outlaw regimes”—think of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or North Korea’s Kim Jong Il—and “the leaders of governments with long habits of control.” Toward the former, Mr. Bush warned, citing Lincoln, that their days were numbered. Toward the latter, he advised: “To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.”

Wherever he is now, Hosni Mubarak might well be wondering whether he wouldn’t have been wiser to take Mr. Bush’s advice, rather than doing everything he could to spurn and belittle the freedom agenda. Ditto for Tunisia’s deposed dictator, Jordan’s nervous king, Yemen’s and Algeria’s reviled presidents and perhaps also the dangerously out-of-touch House of Saud. As for Bahraini King Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa and the rest of his ruling family, they may soon rue the day they lost whatever legitimate claims they had on their little kingdom by choosing repression over reform.

Then again, President Obama might also be wondering why he was so quick to junk his predecessor’s calls for freedom now that it is again in vogue (minus, of course, the Bush name). Though the President offered a nod to democracy in his now-forgotten Cairo speech in June 2009, he offered no support for Iranian demonstrators after that month’s fraudulent elections. He was also silent after Mr. Mubarak forbade international monitoring of last year’s rigged parliamentary vote. On a visit to Manama in December, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described Bahrain as a “model partner” for the U.S. and praised the kingdom’s “commitment . . . to the democratic path.”

Now that the Administration has been conscripted into the freedom agenda, one place to start is for Mr. Obama to meet publicly with dissidents from places like Libya, Syria and Iran, as Mr. Bush did in Prague in 2007, to lend a Presidential seal of approval to their struggle. That doesn’t mean forsaking democracy and human-rights activists in pro-American regimes. But it does emphasize the distinction between protest movements in totalitarian states—in which the U.S. has a clear interest in the overthrow of the regimes—and those in authoritarian systems, where the American interest is to press aggressively for political reforms.

View Full Image

Reuters

Protesters stand at the base of the Pearl Roundabout.
.In that latter respect, it behooves the Administration to warn families like the Al-Khalifas of the consequences the U.S. and the West will impose if the shooting doesn’t stop. The decision this month by the Swiss government to freeze Mr. Mubarak’s bank accounts is a particularly good lesson for authoritarians everywhere.

It would also help if the Administration could be more forthright in supporting Iran’s Green movement, which has demonstrated in recent days that it remains capable of mounting large-scale protests in the teeth of the regime’s apparatus of repression.

Such support need not be merely rhetorical. The State Department and Congress could fast-track the regulatory approvals needed to provide the Green movement with secure texting technology, so they can communicate without the prying eyes of the regime. The CIA could provide Iranian workers with a strike fund—hard cash smuggled into the country to allow Iran’s workers to sustain a strike—thereby replicating the conditions that brought down the Shah.

The Administration could also assemble prominent exiled leaders of the Green movement to sign a declaration of principles against the regime. That declaration could in turn be used to launch a human-rights campaign in the U.S. and Europe to support the movement inside the country.

Beyond Iran, the Administration might consider reviving its moribund trade agenda in the Arab world. In 2003, the Bush Administration proposed a Middle East Free Trade Area Initiative and signed free-trade agreements with Oman, Jordan, Morocco and Bahrain. But the last time the U.S. signed any kind of trade agreement with Egypt was in 1999. The only kind of deal the Obama Administration has signed was a Trade and Investment Framework agreement with Libya last year. Could we not at least negotiate a free trade deal with Iraq?

We do not mean to suggest some economic determinism here. The case of Bahrain, in particular, shows that relatively enlightened economic policy is no substitute for a lack of political freedom. All the more so when sectarian differences between ruler (Sunni) and ruled (75% Shiite) are added to the mix. Bahrain ranks first in the Middle East and 10th in the world on the Heritage Foundation-Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom, and its living standards are high. But as people become more prosperous, their frustrations with repressive governments usually grow.

***
Events in the Middle East are now unfolding at such a pace that none of these initiatives would likely have a direct impact in the short term. The influence of the U.S. cannot be decisive in what are, ultimately, domestic dramas. But that doesn’t relieve the U.S. of the obligation to press its political values, and doing what it can to tilt the direction of these revolutionary upheavals in a genuinely liberal direction.

The Obama Administration has squandered its first years of Mideast efforts on a combination of symbolic gestures like the Cairo speech and pointless diplomacy with the likes of Iran and Syria. It’s time it recognize that the real prize, and the best foundation for U.S. interests, is freedom.

Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
www.djreprints.com
More In Opinion EmailPrinter FriendlyOrder ReprintsShare: facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Viadeo
Orkut
Yahoo! Buzz
Fark
Reddit
LinkedIn
del.icio.us
MySpace

Freedom of Assembly is guaranteed by Article 31 in the Russian Constitution. For the 9th time rallies in Russia were forbidden and broken up by force. And what is Obama’s response? The Obama Administration expressed its “concern”. Wow.

Per the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editorial August 4, 2010 authoritarianism is rising in many places to endanger democracy. Which side is Washington on? Per the WSJ, the Obama Administration stance is “confused”.

The U.S. has cut support for democracy programs in Egypt. When Egypt extended its 29 year old state of emergency the State Department said nothing.

The story is the same in Latin America. Strong men now rule Venezuela, Volivia, Nicaragua, Equador and – of course – Cuba. The U.S. has pulled back support for civic society. And Washington’s response? Obama’s Administration has sought to engage the autocrats.

The Wall Street Journal titled its editorial A Democracy ‘Reset’. It ends with the comment, “How about an Obama freedom agenda?” Well, WSJ editorial writers, don’t hold your breath.

The WSJ forgets where Obama learned his values — in the pews of Rev. Wright’s church where Obama heard for 20 years how America is the cause of the world’s problems. Acts that weaken America abroad fit in with Obama’s agenda to return power to the disenfranchised. Democracy gives power to people. It is in Obama’s interest to engage the autocrats and turn a dim ear to the people ruled by autocrats.

So expect more headlines about beating up and arresting pro-democracy demonstrators. Obama is not interested in freedom or democracy. Obama wants to get rid of capitalism and free markets and substitute government control in its place. So who is the real autocrat in America? Autocrat Obama.

To: Congressman Sam Farr (for Monterey and Santa Cruz County, CA)
From: Dr. Cameron Jackson, licensed psychologist

I am opposed to the current the Health Care Reform bill which Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership offer Americans. I am worried and concerned how you, Mr. Farr, may vote because per your web site statistics you vote the Democratic Party line 98% of the time.

Now is the time that you, Mr. Farr, need to show independence from the Democratic Party line. Right now America is under one party rule by the Democratic Party. That is not healthy. The basic Robert’s Rules of Order that protect the minority Republican and Independent positions are not respected by Congress. Nancy Pelosi, the Rules Committee and members of Congress need to read or re-read Democracy in America by DeTocqueville. Protect the rights of the minority to speak! Have real debate! And please Mr. Farr don’t push bills down the throats of Americans just because of One Party Rule.

One question every American should pose and which I ask you: do you plan to give up your private health care coverage which all members of Congress get and use the same health care plan that the Democrats offer? If your answer Mr. Farr is No, that you plan to keep your private insurance plan — then the health care plan proposed by Obama and the Democrats is not good enough for We the People whom you represent.

I strongly oppose governmental interference in the health care decisions that people now make with their doctors. Of note in the current bill: The bill requires that medical doctors must have end of life and end of care discussions every 5 years.

I strongly oppose the government – at one swoop — taking over a fifth of the economy. The health care sector amounts to about 20 percent of the economy. The government does not have a good record for keeping down costs nor running anything efficiently.

New business need to grow on shoe-string budgets. This plan will drive small business out of business and prevent new ones from starting. With all the unemployed who have enormous talents and capabilities we need to do everything we can to encourage new business. Saddling on small businesses required costs for medical care is simply dumb.

Each person is a unique person with a unique medical history. Deciding whether to have surgery or not – whether to have chemo or not — is best done without government interference. Do we want the “compassion” of the IRS and the Department of Motor Vehicles affecting important medical decisions? No, we want the compassion and clinical judgment of our doctors without government interference.

written by Dr. Cameron Jackson, licensed psychologist
cameornjacks@gmail.com