Posted on 12/10/2003 11:36:32 PM PST by yonif
[Reading from an Associated Press wire story:] "A sharply divided..." There's nothing "sharply divided" about this. We got four liberals and we got two Republicans who read the editorial pages - or two conservatives who read the editorial pages - on the Supreme Court. Let me just stick with the details here, and then I will ad-lib my commentary and analysis after presenting to you the facts. "A sharply divided Supreme Court upheld key features of the nation's new law intended to lessen the influence of money in politics, ruling today that the government may ban unlimited donations to political parties, soft money."
Now, they did this - remember what started all this. This is a bunch of corrupt politicians saying that it was the money that corrupted them. "Too much money in politics, and it corrupts all of us," said Senator McCain. We're all corrupt here, a lot of us are, and we got to get the money out of this. And the Supreme Court agreed! The Supreme Court, they just took a knife to the First Amendment here. They just carved up the First Amendment, said, "Yep, because there might be corruption we are going to limit what can be said when and what can be spent by whom, where."
[AP:] "Supporters of the new law said the donations from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals capitalize on a loophole in the existing Watergate-era campaign money system. The court also upheld..." This is a biggie, too. This is. We're going to rue the day, folks, that this has happened. "The court also upheld restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television or radio ads often feature harsh attacks by..." Oh, how horrible! Really? Harsh attacks? Why, we can't have that in a country with free speech, can we? Certainly not in a political arena, where the free speech First Amendment that's written about political speech, we can't have harshness, can we?
Who gets to decide what's harsh, anyway? It doesn't matter anymore. You can't say anything, 60 days, 30 days before an election. "The television or radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates, so-called soft monies is a catchall term for money that is not subject to existing federal caps." Basically soft money is what you used to be able to give to the parties in unlimited amounts, and there's always been a limit on what you can give to a candidate. It used to be a thousand. Now it's two grand. Yip yip yip yip yahoo.
Now, "The court was divided on the complex issue. Five of the nine justices voted to substantially uphold the soft money ban and the ad restrictions, which are the most significant features of the new law. Here we go, justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer signed the main opinion barring candidates for federal office from raising soft money. The majority also barred the national political parties from raising this kind of money and said their affiliates in the individual states may not serve as conduits for soft money."
"The court has given government..." This is the last paragraph in the story by Anne Gearan at the Associated Press. By the way, AP has a reporter named Nedra Pickler, and we're concerned about her job here at the EIB Network. We're going to be taking steps here to save the job of Nedra - maybe it's NEE-dra, I'm not sure how you pronounce it - Pickler. She's a reporter of the Associated Press. She's actually pointed out errors, mistakes and lies that the Democrats are uttering in their debates. Now, she hasn't gotten the message or she slipped by them in the interview process or something, but if we don't take action fast here to save her job she's going to be toast.
So we're going to be doing that, folks. Just hang in there. It's a three-hour show for a reason. Here's the last paragraph of the story. "The court has given government..." This is amazing. I just don't believe it. I cannot believe - I really - I am not speech little because I'm speaking, but I am apoplectic. Do you know what this does? Let me read the paragraph to you. "The court has given government an extensive role in the area [TV commercials and so forth] on grounds that there is a fundamental national interest in rooting out corruption or even the appearance of it. That concern justifies limitations on the freedom of speech, the court has said."
Folks, it is almost over. Once the Supreme Court is going to give the government the power to determine whether or not something might cause corruption, or give the power to root out corruption, or even the appearance of it, that concern justifies limitations on the freedom of speech? Holy shmoly, Supreme Court! This is unbelievable! We're going to get to the point here we're going to have to ask a question: "Is your speech government approved?" And I don't mean the speech you're going to give, just whatever you're saying is what you're saying here government approved, because if it's not, I'm calling Senator McCain and Senator Feingold.
You may as well call Republicans, too. They supported this thing. The cowards. They supported this, and everybody thought Supreme Court would never do this. "Supreme Court? They're going to make sure. They can't! You can't abridge the First Amendment." They just did. They just did. That concern justifies limitations on the freedom of speech? This concern about corruption? Freedom of speech is not how you get to corruption! You get to corruption in court. Let me tell you who benefits from this. If you watch any mainstream news organ today or read any mainstream news organ, these people - it's going to be the greatest decision in the world. This is the greatest thing the Supreme Court's done. They're just going to be ecstatic; they're going to be happy.
I mean, this ruling today will serve almost as an Orgasmatron for these people because I'll tell you why. Not only, not only do they like it politically, but in terms of business, the mainstream press, anybody that's considered to be a news program will benefit tremendously from this because there are no bounds. You know, ABC, CBS, NBC, whoever, 30 or 60 days before an election can go get any guest they want to pummel any opponent they want. Go get some academic, pointy-headed political scientist from over there, or some liberal fruitcake from over there, and they bring them on for 20 minutes, half hour, ten minutes, whatever it is, and bash Bush or bash a Republican, bash a conservative.
You know they're not going to be bashing Democrats on these network news shows. Can't touch that because that's not a commercial, my friends. That's not a bought-and-paid-for commercial. So the media, newscasts are considered untouchable here. So you can look for all kinds of documentaries and special election hour specials in this period because this is the time when most people make up their minds who they're going to vote for. So what's happened now, the mainstream press, they'll go get whoever guests they want and they can trash whoever they want. That person who has been trashed cannot respond on television, can't buy a commercial, can't get a commercial run, can't do it. Got to be invited by the press to come on and counter.
That's the way this is going to shake out. And, you watch, this is going to go into effect. We're going to see it in the 2004 presidential election cycle - and we'll see if it doesn't just manifest itself this way. I don't know how else it can. That's another reason why these people are happy, because they're going to look at this as having immense power now with no competition. Let me read to you the dissent by the Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He said, or he wrote, "The court attempts to sidestep the unprecedented breadth of this regulation by stating that the close relationship between federal officeholders and the national parties make all donations to the national parties suspect. But a close association with others, especially in the realm of political speech is not a surrogate for corruption. It is one of our most treasured First Amendment rights. The court's willingness to impute corruption on the basis of a relationship greatly infringes associational rights and expands congress' ability to regulate political speech."
This is unheard of! You've heard the phrase the Founding Fathers are "rolling over in their graves." They're about to wake up from their graves here, folks. This is unbelievable, I'm telling you! To assume that a contributor and a recipient are colluding and engaged in corruption is what's at the root of it Supreme Court decision? "Yep, we have to consider that. Somebody giving money to a politician, yep, that could be corruption so we're going to limit the ability of that activity to take place." This is encapsulated now as constitutional law, the whole McCain theory that money corrupts politics. And, by the way, if you think this is going to keep money out of politics, they've already found ways around it. These little organizations calls 527s.
Ever heard of George Soros? How about campaign finance reform laws now encapsulated in the Constitution and Soros can give the Democrats $10 or $15 million to MoveOn.org, Americans Coming Together, whatever organization he wants. Pile on the money. There's no limit on it. How does this happen? How come that money isn't corrupting the Democrats? How come George Soros' money isn't corrupting the people that get it? Hmm? Now, ladies and gentlemen, excuse me. I think we have to be very afraid now when the Supreme Court takes up an important case because we have four liberal ideologues on the court. They're Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Those are the four liberal ideologues.
We have two judges, justices, that appear to be politicians, and that would be Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. And who is - I think it was Kennedy who said, "Yeah, we must look at international law." I'm not sure about Kennedy, but the Supreme Court recently has admitted it's looking at international law to decide U.S. cases as well. But apparently Sandra Day O'Connor, in this case, didn't much care what's in the Constitution when she reached her decision. It's apparent that they pay a lot of attention to the press. If they had struck down this law, if Kennedy or O'Connor - in this case O'Connor - had voted the other way, with the minority in this case and made it the majority, the editorial pages of America would have never forgiven her.
They would have been all over her like you can't believe. They would have been trashing her, "What's her corruption? What does she seek to...?" You can imagine they would have said, and she knows it. So a very clear and precise sentence in the Constitution preventing the federal government from restricting free speech has basically been read right out of it. The First Amendment. It's not number 10, number 7 - not number 19. It's #1! "Congress shall make no law abridging, among other things, free speech..." Just wrote it out!
But stop and think, my friends. What else has been going on during this Supreme Court term? Sodomy, my friends. Sodomy is a constitutionally protected right now. Free speech, political speech, is not constitutionally protected. I'm sure, I am confident that's what the Founding Fathers and the framers of the Constitution intended and had in mind, right? Sodomy protected by the Constitution, free speech not. So the question now is, you cannot run a commercial, a candidate cannot run commercials 60 or 30 days before a primary or general election, but sodomy is legal throughout the country. The question now is: "Can a candidate be sodomized 60 days before a general election."
If and when they declare the 2nd amd pertains today only to the national guard, or other such nonsense, they will learn that the Rule of Five is not the final rule, not the last trump card in the deck of liberty.
The founders put the 2nd amd into the BOR for a reason, and it had nothing to do with duck hunting.
The American people that love liberty are not going to take much more of this.
I wonder. If I knew for a certainty that muslum terrorists were going to crash an aircraft into the Supreme Court if I should do anything to bother to report it. It's beginning to appear that it would just be a case of one set of enemies of the American people doing battle with another competing batch of antiAmericans.
Maybe I'd send a letter. Sure hope our prompt and efficient postal service gets it delivered before the plane gets there.
I think we are past the point of no-return; all it will take to start citizen-against-citizen bloodshed is one overt act of Governmental tyranny: one radio talk-show host jailed for violating the CFR act; one citizen killed defending his/her 2nd amendment rights, etc. It is just a matter of time, IMHO.
If I knew for a certainty that muslim terrorists were going to crash an aircraft into the Supreme Court...
I was personally thinking that the next airliner hijack should crash into a joint session of Congress - in one fell swoop we rid ourselves of the Rats, the RINOs, the SCOTUS, and a whole pi$$pot full of career socialist bureaucrats.
He wimped out for political expediency and screwed the future of the entire nation.
But I better be careful now - such words might have the "appearance of corruption."
Absolutely correct. For what little it is worth, I was the originator of this, way back a year or more:
Silence, America!:
 Silence, America!: for Silence, America!. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
...tried to warn people; not enough were paying attention.
Now we'll all pay...
And usurpation has become more open, recently.
In the early 1990's, Rehnquist was in the minority when he supported Asset Forfeiture in a case. He was obviously upset by the court's ruling, because on national news that evening, he whined, "This law was not too unconstitutional!"
In that same decade, Justice Souter's opinion in a Pennsylvania teacher's union labor case, read something like this: "I know this is unconstitutional but I am voting this way for labor peace."
Lately we have open support favoring so-called "international law" over the Constitution; and, of course, yesterday's ruling. When Supreme Court members openly admit they are voting contrary to the constituion, we no longer have a constitution but a monarchy, or, in our case, an oligarchy of unelected idealogues. They get away with it because our entire national and state government system, and our press, is corrupt.
In his 1792 National Gazette editorial, "Rules for changing a limited republican government into an unlimited hereditary one", the real Philip Freneau wrote: ""As the novelty and bustle of inaugurating the government will for some time keep the public mind in a heedless and unsettled state, let the press during this period be busy in propagating the doctrines of monarchy and aristocracy. For this purpose it will be particularly useful to confound a mobbish democracy with a representative republic, that by exhibiting all the turbulent examples and enormities of the former, an odium may be thrown on the character of the latter . . . review all the civil contests, convulsions, factions, broils, squabbles, bickerings, black eyes, and bloody noses of ancient, middle and modern ages; caricature them into the most frightful forms and colors that can be imagined; and unfold one scene of the horrible tragedy after another till the people be made, if possible, to tremble at their own shadows . . . in order to render success the more certain, it will be of special moment to give the most plausible and popular name that can be found to the power that is to be usurped. It may be called, for example, a power for the common safety or the public good, or, "the general welfare" . . . If the people should not be too much enlightened, the name will have a most imposing effect. It will escape attention that it means, in fact, the same thing with a power to do anything the government pleases "in all cases whatsoever." To oppose the power may consequently seem to be ignorant, and be called by the artful, opposing the "general welfare," and may be cried down under that deception."
At least now you know why the government and press put so much time and resources into discrediting the militia movement during the 1990's. Even supposedly bright people, such as Rush Limbaugh, was in lockstep with the government and mainstream media on that one.
Gosh Rush! I can't believe you made such a dumb mistake. But you are in "good" company. Jane Pauley made an identical mistake several years ago on Dateline. You see, the amendment we normally call "the 1st Amendment" was actually the 3rd. The first two amendments failed ratification.
What I am trying to say is: "ALL 10 AMENDMENTS ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT. THE ORDER WAS, AND IS, IRREVELANT!
Geesh!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.