Saturday, January 23, 2010

The Typical Liberal Reaction to Free Speech - Citizens United v. FEC...

WoW! The far-Left is positively apoplectic over Citizens United V FEC!

Take Keith Olbermann’s reaction; “Today, the Supreme Court, of Chief Justice John Roberts, in a decision that might actually have more dire implications than "Dred Scott v Sandford," declared that because of the alchemy of its 19th Century predecessors in deciding that corporations had all the rights of people....In short, the first amendment — free speech for persons — which went into affect in 1791, applies to corporations, which were not recognized as the equivalents of persons until 1886.”

What a perversely illogical stance!

What’s that last phrase (“ speech for persons — which went into affect in 1791, applies to corporations, which were not recognized as the equivalents of persons until 1886”) even mean?

Is Old Keith (Red Bell Bottoms) Olbermann actually saying that because “corporations weren’t recognized as the equivalents of persons until 1886,” that means that because of that, they, apparently like any PERSON whose family came here AFTER 1886, shouldn’t have their 1st Amendment rights upheld?!

That’s what that seems to imply.

According to old “Red Bell Bottoms,” (1) the 1st Amendment went into effect in 1791, (2) corporations were recognized as the equivalents of persons in 1886...ergo, because corporations were recognized or (came here) AFTER 1791, the Constitution does not apply to them.

OK, Keithy, then riddle me this...“If those who were 'recognized as the equivalent of a person,' OR came here after 1791 don’t have Constitutional Rights, then how can jihadists, who aren’t even citizens here TODAY, have any of the Constitutionally protected civil rights that you’ve claimed they have, since...around 2003?

How perversely illogical is that Olby statement?

For starters, among those the 1st Amendment protects are Corporations like the one Keith Olbermann himself works for (NBC...which until recently was owned by GE, now by ComCast Cable). Moreover, one of the many things the 1st Amendment protects is “freedom of the press.” If Corporations DON’T have any 1st Amendment protections, that means that it would follow that neither do the likes of Keith Olbermann, Rush Limbaugh, Ted Rall, Bill O'Reilly, Ed Schultz, etc. have those protections either, since the corporate entities they all work for(Corporations like the New York Times Company, Fox News Corp, the Washington Post Company, etc.) don't have such protections and can be censored or even silenced by government at any time.

Is that really where Keith Olbermann stands on this vital issue?!

If those 1st Amendment protections enumerated in the Constitution (N.B. the Constitution merely enumerates our innate, inalienable, “God-given” rights, it DOES NOT grant/give any rights) don’t apply to their employers, then they don’t protect the speech that folks like Olby offer as employees of those corporations. Following that line of "reasoning", the government can simply outlaw or regulate any publication, broadcast or activity by any Corporate entity.

If so, it’s not merely illogical, it’s, like most liberal positions, incredibly hypocritical as well.

After all, the Democrats in general and President Obama in particular were the biggest recipients of Wall Street cash in 2008!

I mean for God's sake!

Are the Dems now going to act like Wall Street hasn't been their best friend...and benefactor?!

Anyone believing that, is as dumb as a pet rock...try getting one of those stones to roll over some time.

Don’t believe me?

Then, as those TV pitchmen always say, "Don’t take my word for it," check out this report from ABC News;

"As campaign contributions pour in to the 2008 presidential race, employees at some of the nation's largest banks and investment firms are deciding more often than not to write out big checks to Democratic candidates.

"Workers at Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers and elsewhere are putting their cash behind Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards over the Republican front-runners, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings by ABC News.

"At Goldman Sachs, the largest of the firms, employees donated $542,000 to the top three Democrats and the top three Republicans from Jan. 1 through June 30.

"More than 63 percent of those dollars went to Democrats, with Obama getting the bulk of that cash with $184,750, according to the ABC analysis."

OR THIS from Buzzle;

“Wall Street has contributed $10.6 million to U.S. Senators this year, with a staggering $1.65 million going to Chuck Schumer, D-NY, alone. That’s good for 15% of the entire sum that the princes of finance have coughed up, and $7.7 million (or appx. 73%) of the total contributed has gone to Democratic senators.”

OR THIS from The Business and Media Institute;

"According to the Center for Responsive Politics Web site, out the top 25 political contributors for the 2008 election cycle, nine were Wall Street banking or investment firms, including the now defunct firm Lehman Brothers. Employees at eight of those nine firms gave more money to Democratic candidates – nearly $17 million to Democratic candidates versus only $11 million to their Republican counterparts. That’s slightly OVER 60 percent for Democrats to just under 40 percent for Republicans."

AND again, courtesy of ABC News, just take a look at which Wall Street firms leaned Democrat and which leaned Republican;

Democratic-Leaning Companies

UBS: 72.7 percent to Democrats
Citigroup: 66.6 percent to Democrats
Goldman Sachs: 63.4 percent to Democrats
Lehman Brothers: 63 percent to Democrats
Morgan Stanley: 54 percent to Democrats

Republican-Leaning Companies

Bear Sterns: 87.6 percent to Republicans
Merrill Lynch: 66.7 percent to Republicans
Deutsche Bank: 62.2 percent to Republicans
Credit Suisse: 57.5 percent to Republicans

Then recall what happened to those firms in the wake of the mortgage meltdown and subsequent global credit crisis in late 2008. Hmmmm, Merrill Lynch (out - takeover), Bear Stearns (out - takeover), Deutsche Bank (being sued), Credit Suisse (being sued), while Citi Group, UBS and Goldman Sachs are all doing swell.

Please! When you look at those stats and all those billions in bank bailouts, then that federal deluge of cash to Wall Street, seems to follow an earlier deluge of Wall Street cash to the Democrats...and it all starts making a LOT more sense.


Roadhouse said...

Well stated as usual. I wrote a little piece about this myself. I think I may have overcome my first real bout with writer's block...finally.

WomanHonorThyself said...

perverse is an understatement! they will stablilize nothing and justify their bad loans and all their fellow Alinskyites will deny!
Ahhh Happy Sunday my friend!:)

JMK said...

This is an especially easy time to get writer's block, Roady.....we seem headed for an abyss and the government's Left seems happy, even gleefully so, to be heading there.

The first elections post-2008 have been heartening. They seem to show that more Americans are now "paying attention."

Virginia's first top three spot sweep in over 25 years was pretty much expected, New Jersey's shocking GOP pick-up, the first Republican Governor there in 12 years was surprising and Massachusetts' Senate race (for a seat that's been in Democratic hands since 1962!) was shocking and electrifying.

With more bad news on the economic horizon no matter what's done....November 2010 looks like it's going to be a banner yer for Republicans....lets hope that most, if not all of them are committed Conservatives.

What ever happened to the "GOP being consigned to the political wilderness for a generation," talk now?

The pundits are wrong AGAIN.

Obama ran a moderate, Clinonesque - center-right campaign and has governed domstically to the left of Jimmy Carter....and as a result, Americans are re-learning how much they hate liberalism and why they despise liberals so much.

Let's hope Conservatives can forge a lasting alliance with Libertarians because this mess is going to take a good deal of time to fix!

JMK said...

Well, in thise case, it's not just bad's the Constitutional principle of "freedom of speech" that's at stake.

Apparently, some liberals don't want corporations, unions and other organizations to be able to donate money to campaigns.

Why not?

Those organizations are comprised of PEOPLE. People like the quoted Keith Olbermann speak through the auspices of corporate entities like MSNBC (owned by GE until it was recently purchased by ComCast...both are Corporations).

If liberals didn't think this would harm them, they wouldn't oppose it.....that's the true and very real extent of their principles.

But that's an odd view, considering that Wall Street has been donateing far more to the Dems than to the GOP lately.

American Ideas Click Here!