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 (“...free 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."

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/MarketTalk/story?id=3399837&page=1

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.”

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/wall-street-political-donations-flowing-to-democrats-coffers.html

OR THIS from The Business and Media Institute;

"According to the Center for Responsive Politics Web site OpenSecrets.org, 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."

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20081031114947.aspx

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

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/MarketTalk/story?id=3399837&page=1

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.