Wilson said Southers never answered outstanding questions about whether he would support mandatory union bargaining for TSA employees. “Southers should have answered Senator DeMint’s very simple question. The answers he could have given would have most certainly been helpful in expediting his nomination,” Wilson said.

“Instead, Southers stonewalled DeMint, giving Senators reason to believe that Southers prioritized union kickbacks over homeland security,” Wilson added.

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) had placed a legislative hold on Southers, preventing him from being confirmed via unanimous consent. It would have taken 60 votes in the Senate to break the hold.

Speaking on NBC News this morning with Matt Lauer, DeMint had said, “what I’ve asked for, Matt, is just some debate and a recorded vote. They, they want to pass Mr. Southers in, in secret, without a recorded vote. I think there’s some significant issues. I’ve asked him if he is going to change the policy of collective bargaining within the TSA and he will not give me a straight answer.

Wilson and other critics also took issue with Southers’ abusing his position to order background searches on his estranged wife’s boyfriend, and for “equating millions of Americans with domestic terrorists.”

Wilson pointed to a 2008 video interview when Southers said, “Most of the domestic groups that we have to pay attention to here are white supremacist groups, they’re anti-government, in most cases anti-abortion, they are usually survivalist types in nature, [and Christian] identity-oriented.”

Complaining about the process of confirmation, Southers issued a statement with his withdrawal: “It is apparent that this path has been obstructed by political ideology… My nomination has become a lightning rod for those who have chosen to push a political agenda at the risk of the safety and security of the American people. This partisan climate is unacceptable and I refuse to allow myself to remain part of their dialogue.”

Wilson said “All he had to do was honestly answer Senator DeMint’s question about mandatory union bargaining for TSA employees. Rather than just answering the question, which was a simple yes or no, and agreeing to be judged by his answer, Southers instead opted to flee any accountability for his views — which now one must assume was in favor union bargaining.”

###

“Congressman Towns should be praised for investigating his own party’s Administration, who in this case threatened an inspector general,” said Wilson.

Towns is the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, who in a statement said, “If such statements were made they were entirely improper and pose a direct threat to the independence and integrity of the Inspectors General, and an affront to clear Congressional intent as expressed in statute.”

MacFarland says he was threatened because he wanted to warn Congress that his budget was too low as proposed for his office to complete its mission, which by law he is required to do.

Wilson agreed, saying, “Especially with the inspectors general whose purpose it is to monitor wasteful spending, OMB’s threats to any inspector ought to be investigated.”

Wilson continued, “Under law, any inspectors general who believe that they are being cut either maliciously or in error has a duty to inform Congress, and neither OMB nor any other arm of the Obama Administration should be targeting those inspectors as a result.”

“Nobody should be threatened by the White House for doing their jobs as stipulated by law,” Wilson added.

According to the NY Daily News, MacFarland “alleged that his office got a ‘not so veiled threat from OMB’ that it ‘will make life miserable’ if he informs legislators of his complaint.”

In his letter, McFarland wrote, “I am alerting to you about a very serious matter that represents an attempt to thwart an authority provided to us by the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 and that creates a risk of compromising our operational independence.”

Wilson called on the Obama White House to cooperate with Towns’ investigation, and to reprimand the budget official responsible for making the threats.

“At this juncture, it would be very appropriate for the Obama Administration to follow protocol and if necessary fire the official who abused his position to keep an inspector general quiet about a policy issue,” Wilson said, concluding, “and to immediately inform Congress of whatever action it is taking to make sure this doesn’t happen again.”

###

“The Roberts Court will go down as the greatest defender of the First Amendment since James Madison wrote it,” Wilson declared, calling the overturned restrictions, “censorship.”

“The twin pillars of censorship by the FEC Act: the so-called ‘influencing language’ standard whereby any speech that ‘influenced’ elections could be regulated, and the ‘appearance of corruption’ standard whereby any donations and expenditures that lead to the ‘possibility’ of corruption have now been struck down by the Roberts case,” Wilson explained.

“First, the ‘influencing language’ standard in Wisconsin Right to Life case, and now the ‘appearance of corruption’ standard in today’s Citizens United decision,” Wilson added.

According to the majority ruling written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, “Limits on independent expenditures, such as §441b, have a chilling effect extending well beyond the Government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption. The anticorruption interest is not sufficient to displace the speech here in question.”

“Under this ruling, corporate entity restrictions on political campaigning have thankfully been overturned, as they have a chilling effect on legitimate political speech protected by the First Amendment,” said Wilson.

Wilson also condemned Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for calling the decision “un-American.”

“Chuck Schumer needs to have his head examined,” Wilson said, adding, “the First Amendment was upheld in this case. It doesn’t get any more American than that.”

In Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, the court ruled against provisions that restricted Citizens United from broadcasting a movie it developed, Hillary: The Movie, that was supposed to air during the 2008 Democratic Primary. In particular, the court ruled that federal restrictions on independent political expenditures by a corporation is a violation of the First Amendment.

The court ruled 5-4 in favor of Citizens United.

According to Nathan Mehrens, Counsel for Americans for Limited Government, “the ruling set a major precedent. It’s going to be very tough to impose new campaign restrictions on corporate entities’ independent expenditures.”

The law, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as McCain-Feingold, “set up distinctions between individuals and corporate entities, treating them far different in the context of making independent expenditures constituting political speech.”

Mehrens said it was a “very good” ruling. “The McCain-Feingold restrictions were so bad, that groups could not even mention a candidate’s name during ‘black-out’ windows,” Mehrens explained, pointing to limits on when messages could be broadcast prior to primaries and elections.

“The case was filed by Citizens United as a pre-enforcement, as-applied challenge by Citizens United, meaning that they had not yet been restricted by the FEC. Citizens United, in winning the case, was able to show that restrictions did apply in this instance and that there was a reasonable likelihood that the FEC restrictions would be applied,” said Mehrens.

“In this case, the court decided that the issue was not moot despite the fact that the 2008 elections are over because they made a determination that this could happen again going forward,” Mehrens added.
Wilson said that the ruling “could set a template for groups to unhinge unconstitutional restrictions in the future through pre-enforcement challenges.”

Mehrens described the ruling as “pretty broad.”

“The only thing that really survived was the reporting requirements for the disclosure of campaign donors’ information, because Citizens United could not show the likelihood of injury,” Mehrens explained.

However, Mehrens said that “There are more cases in the pipeline that deal with campaign finance disclosures,” including Doe #1 et al v. Reed, WA Sec. of State, et al, U.S. Supreme Court Docket #09A356.

“The Supreme Court stayed an order of the 9th Circuit thereby preventing the WA Sec. of State from releasing the names of the signers of Referendum 71,” Mehrens said, adding, “While this case deals with referendum signers and not those who give financial contributions, the disclosure issue is similar.”

The Supreme Court vote was 8-1 to stay the 9th Circuit’s order.

Wilson called the ruling a “major step in overturning arcane, gargantuan censorship boards, laws and regulations that tie up our electoral processes in red tape, restrict speech, and favor incumbents.”

###

“Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin has chosen to ridicule those concerned about the names of 113,000 dead people appearing on the state’s voter rolls. With so much at stake in his state and throughout the nation in today’s election, one would expect him to be more serious and less cynical. After all, it’s his job.

“The fact is, if there is anyone who deserves cynicism, it is Mr. Galvin, himself. He is the person who in 2008 was found by the United States Department of Justice to have violated the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Acting of 2002. According to the Justice Department, he violated the law by failing to report and collect the number sent and the number returned of absentee ballots from overseas Military personnel registered to vote in Massachusetts.[2]

“In short, Mr. Galvin’s track record for enforcing election laws is far from sterling. He has no room to ridicule those who ask him simply to do his job – for a change.

“Additionally, Mr. Galvin has made it clear that he has a personal stake in seeing Ms. Coakley win the senatorial election: he wants her office. According to Boston Globe columnist Adrian Walker, “Galvin hints that if he is not selected for attorney general he will run for the office next year.”

“That being the case – and with his track record of election law violation — if Galvin had one ounce of integrity, he will remove himself from any oversight role in this election and ask that an independent overseer be brought in.”

###

“I am calling upon you to publicly denounce this blatant attack upon the citizens of your state. They will, I am certain, be eagerly awaiting your response,” Wilson declared in his letter, calling the tax on non-union health insurance plans “contemptible.”

“This is absolutely deplorable to American workers, 92 percent of whom do not belong to unions,” wrote Wilson his letter. “In essence, non-union employers and employees will be forced to subsidize the cost of exempting union workers from the tax, which will cost families in your states and districts thousands of dollars a year in additional charges.”

According to the Associated Press, “Officials say the White House and labor leaders have reached a tentative agreement on how to tax high-value health insurance plans to help pay for a revamped medical system…The proposed tax has been a major sticking point because labor leaders fear union members, with some of the more lucrative benefit plans, would be hurt. President Barack Obama supports it as a way to hold down costs by nudging workers into less pricey coverage.”

The tax, as passed in the Senate bill, would charge insurance companies a 40 percent excise tax on coverage above $8,500 for an individual and $23,000 for a family. Within three years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax would apply to nearly 20 percent of all workers. Within six years, it would reach a fifth of all households earning as little as $50,000 annually.

“Only now,” Wilson said in a statement, “the unions are exempted in a deal hand-crafted by Barack Obama.”

According to Wilson’s letter, “Immediately, [the tax] will have three impacts: 1) Health benefits will be cut as many insurers and employers stop providing such plans that were once affordable; 2) Of those plans not cancelled, the costs will be passed on to the insured, raising premiums; and 3) This new Health Care Penalty Tax will be used in Right-to-Work states as a backdoor method to forcing workers to join unions, since union dues would be less than the tax.”

This is a tax aimed at non-union workers and non-unionized businesses, in particularly, small businesses that provide good health coverage to their employees,” Wilson wrote, adding, “Moreover, this tax will disproportionately impact Baby Boomers, women, and the infirmed — in short, anyone that pays higher premiums because of medical need — none of whom have a seat at the closed-door negotiations hastily taking place now.”

“Meanwhile, union bosses of the AFL-CIO and the SEIU have been well-represented, as is indicated by this contemptible union exemption from the 40 percent excise tax,” Wilson wrote.

Previously, Wilson has called for negotiations on what he called a “government takeover of the nation’s health system” to be opened to the public. In a statement, he said this latest exemption for unions “illustrates with clarity why transparency is so important.”

“The American people have no seat at the table right now, as Congressional leaders make deals with union bosses resulting in kickbacks that non-union workers will have to foot the bill for,” Wilson said.

“It is up to Senators and Congressmen of right-to-work states to stop this tax on non-union health benefits dead in its tracks,” Wilson said, concluding, “There is too much at stake. 92 percent of workers not in unions must not be forced to subsidize the other 8 percent who receive union health benefits.”

###

“In the age of the Internet, Congress should be able to get the final bill up on government websites for a legitimate public review and comment period lasting two weeks, where constituent comments would be directly forwarded to the people’s Senators and Representatives,” Wilson said.

“There is too much at stake,” Wilson said, adding, “this is a bill that will nationalize one-sixth of the American economy, downgrade research and development in the medical sciences, take private options away from patients forcing them onto a government-run plan, ration health care away from seniors, and bankrupt the Treasury.”

“The American people have a right to know exactly what’s in the final version of this bill before Congress takes it up again,” Wilson declared, noting that “Nobody will know what the secret deliberations between Senate and House leaders will produce until the bill is posted publicly.”

Wilson said a Senate deal reached to secure Senator Ben Nelson’s (D-NE) support for a government “takeover” of the nation’s health care system “highlights the need for real transparency in the nation’s legislative processes.”

The deal would require every state except Nebraska to pay for the cost of expanded Medicaid eligibility (up to 133 percent of the poverty level) under the legislation.

The deal, which Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) called a “bribe,” is worth at least $45 million to Nebraska over the first ten years of the bill, according to the Washington Times.

Wilson said that “with real transparency, such an unseemly deal would never be allowed to occur,” and today along with 23 other free market and limited government leaders called on Senate and House leaders to take up C-SPAN’s offer to televise negotiations reconciling both versions of the legislation, fulfilling a campaign promise made by Barack Obama.

According to the letter, Obama “has broken a campaign promise he made multiple times that healthcare negotiations be public and broadcast on C-SPAN. The president’s broken promise indicates a lack of transparency in his administration and sends a clear signal that he is hiding details of the bill from the American people.”

The 24 leaders noted that Obama “made such a promise at least eight times, yet it was reported last Tuesday that the Democrat congressional leadership will bypass the traditional conference committee process.”

Wilson said the broken C-SPAN pledge was “just the tip of the iceberg,” and that “the American people need the time to weigh in on what is actually the eighth version of the government health care takeover.”

Wilson said the eight versions of what he dubbed “ObamaCare” were: 1-3) three House committee versions; 4) HR 3200, the House passed version of “public option”; 5) Baucus co-ops, the Senate Finance Committee version; 6) the Senate “public option,” which Senator Joe Lieberman and other lawmakers objected to; 7) the Reid substitute that the Senate passed, and 8 ) the current House-Senate version that Congressional Democrats are now meeting on to discuss.

“This is too much for the American people to keep up with,” Wilson explained. “The biggest advantage this bill presently has is its intentional ambiguity. Every time they create a new bill with new provisions, once the details get out, it proves unpopular, and so they go back to the drawing board with yet another bill.”

That is why Wilson said the final version should be posted on the Internet for two weeks prior to any votes. “With a sufficient period for comment by the American people, there will be no question as to where they stand on a bill that threatens to take over one-sixth of the American economy by government.”

Based on what they currently know, voters are opposed to the bill, according to Rasmussen Reports. In the organization’s latest poll, some 55 percent of likely voters are opposed to the legislation, which only 40 percent support.

Wilson said that a two-week comment period could actually help lawmakers to develop support for the measure, “if that were their goal.”

“National polls have shown overwhelming opposition to this legislation for months on end,” Wilson noted. “A major reason for that has been the lack of transparency: the secret deals for Nebraska and Louisiana; the fuzzy numbers used to manipulate CBO budget scoring to achieve a ‘deficit-neutral’ score; the use of the Medicare Independent ‘Advisory’ Board for health care rationing away from seniors; and the upward pressure the bill will place on health premiums that Congress does not want you to know about.”

“Overall, the public is getting the sense that Congress is trying to pull a fast one on the American people,” Wilson said, concluding, “Instead, here’s a novel idea: why not be transparent about what’s actually in the bill and let it pass or fail on its merits?”

###

In an ALG News exclusive video, Dr. Biden, while promoting a national education initiative on behalf of the Obama Administration at Benjamin Banneker Senior High School in Washington, D.C., said she had not “followed” the elimination of the popular program in 2009.

When asked if she supported the program’s elimination, Dr. Biden said, “You know, I really haven’t followed it.”

“I’ve been really busy,” she added.

Dr. Biden, a public school teacher and professor for more than 28 years and an adjunct professor of English at Northern Virginia Community College, has been a top spokesperson for the Obama Administration on education policy. It was the Obama Administration that abandoned the youth education program, despite polls showing that 75 percent of District residents supported it.

Wilson said it is “simply inexcusable that Dr. Biden, a prominent education policy spokesperson for the White House, is completely ignorant of the elimination of the D.C. school choice program. It was her boss who scuttled the program — while sending his own children to private schools, of course.”

Congress voted to eliminate funding for the program in 2009 in “The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009”, which was passed by the House on February 25th and by the Senate on March 10th, as reported by the Brookings Institution. Barack Obama actively supported the program’s elimination.

National Public Radio Senior Correspondent and Fox News commentator Juan Williams has called the elimination of the Opportunity Scholarship Program an “outrageous sin against our kids.”

“If there is one goal that deserves to be held above day-to-day partisanship and pettiness of ordinary politics it is the effort to end the scandalous poor level of academic achievement and abysmally high drop-out rates for America’s black and Hispanic students,” Williams wrote.

“By going along with Secretary Duncan’s plan to hollow out the D.C. voucher program this president, who has spoken so passionately about the importance of education, is playing rank politics with the education of poor children. It is an outrage,” Williams added.

The Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) was established by the U.S. Congress in 2003 with the “D.C. School Choice Incentive Act.” According to the OSP website, the five year pilot program provided “genuine school choice for low-income families in the form of scholarships for children to attend K-12 non-public schools within the District’s boundaries. The maximum annual scholarship amount of $7,500 per child is available for families at or below 185% of the federal poverty level ($39,220 for a family of four).”

Wilson said that D.C. students, who attend some of the lowest-ranked public schools in the nation, “have been cheated out of the opportunity to receive a better education simply because the public education unions demanded the elimination of a very popular program, and they donate almost exclusively to Democrats.”

According to a Braun Research poll, 75 percent of District residents support the city’s federally funded school voucher program.

“Parents have a right to choose which school they want to send their children to, and Dr. Biden, a prominent education policy spokesperson for the White House, has not even taken the time to follow the elimination of a program that helped needy D.C. students to get a better education,” Wilson concluded.

###