According to this website he is:
How much of this is true I have no idea. However if it holds water there is cause for concern IMO.
How much of this is true I have no idea. However if it holds water there is cause for concern IMO.
Last month, the DISCLOSE Act failed to pass in the Congress. Today, the Washington Examiner learned that the President plans to circumvent the legislative branch and to pass the DISCLOSE Act by fiat with the signing of an executive order.
[T]he order would require all companies that sign contracts with the federal government to report on the personal political activities of their officers and directors.
The White House claims the EO would make the federal government more transparent. But a quick look at who Obama chose to exempt from the EO shows this is false: unions that sign collective bargaining contracts with the federal government would be exempt from the disclosure requirements. The clear intent of this bill is to suppress speech and punish Obamas enemies.
According to a Congressional Research Service review of Executive Orders over the last 40 years, no White House has ever issued an EO dealing with campaign finance. Signing the DISCLOSE Act EO would be an unprecedented power grab by Obama. Quote Via: The Washington Examiner.
This effectively means that if your company, that has govt contracts and gives money to the opposing party, could have their govt contracts pulled for not donating to the party in power. This executive order is no way to enact change by the stroke of a pen with NO legislative representation. This bill failed, so move onto deficit reform, creating jobs, and energy independence.
A political rumor column (Beltway Confidential?) in a free ad rag (Washington Examiner?) reports that Republican sources allege that the Obama administration might be planning an executive order... I think I'll wait for something a little more concrete before I get all worked up about it.
How much of this is true I have no idea. However if it holds water there is cause for concern IMO.
How about the Associated Press then?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/No-2-House-Democrat-against-apf-1681676828.html?x=0&.v=1
or the Huffington Post?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-wertheimer/hoyer-vs-hoyer-house-mino_b_860522.html
But you're probably right, this is a 100% fictional work of some evil conservative with a racist agenda against the black president The world is a better place with skeptics like yourself!
Why do you have comic sans in your sig?
And if you read the links you gave VS what the op posted you would see that CallMeJoe is correct. The OPs little peice has a lot of BS and junk in it.
All Obama might do is "require anyone submitting bids for government work to disclose two years' worth of political contributions and expenditures. The order would apply if the total exceeded $5,000 to a given recipient during a given year."
It does not block someone from donating and its only when you apply for Gov Contracts. Don't want to disclouse then don't go for Fed Gov contracts.
because he's another bible thumpin attention hoe who wants the world to know about his omipotent god! But you already knew this didn't you???? lol
the intarweb is a goddamn playground for hidden neocon/bibble thumper/closet racists... lots of them
Granted at this point its hypothetical. But even you can see the potential for abuse?
Actually it is a smart move to help re-level the playing field.
Since the Supreme Court gave unlimited money and voting powers to Corporations we should at least know what individuals are behind the unlimited money and power at said Corporations and which side they are supporting.
And if you read the links you gave VS what the op posted you would see that CallMeJoe is correct. The OPs little peice has a lot of BS and junk in it.
All Obama might do is "require anyone submitting bids for government work to disclose two years' worth of political contributions and expenditures. The order would apply if the total exceeded $5,000 to a given recipient during a given year."
It does not block someone from donating and its only when you apply for Gov Contracts. Don't want to disclouse then don't go for Fed Gov contracts.
Less than 30% of federal workers belong to a union, and out of that 30% less than 50% have any type of wage collective bargaining rights. The vast majority of federal workers are nonunion.
My company does not need, and should not need, to know my political affiliation or activities.
I dont care who's in office, a President should not be bypassing Congress.
I dont care who's in office, a President should not be bypassing Congress.
Perhaps the question is why congress lets the president by-pass them so often.
And if you read the links you gave VS what the op posted you would see that CallMeJoe is correct. The OPs little peice has a lot of BS and junk in it.
Actually it is a smart move to help re-level the playing field.
Since the Supreme Court gave unlimited money and voting powers to Corporations we should at least know what individuals are behind the unlimited money and power at said Corporations and which side they are supporting.