« In case you've forgotten that Chris Matthews is an idiot | Main | "Before I walked in the door" »

How Could He Be That Stupid?

The more I think about (and read over) President Obama's discussion of last week's Supreme Court ruling vis-a-vis campaign financing, the more dumbfounded I get. Let's recap:

It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress. And it's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

The sheer dumb of this is absolutely boggling. The provision struck down -- against corporations having indirect influence on elections -- is only about 20 years old. It did NOT affect foreign corporations in the least. And it meant that the Obama administration is more interested in securing rights for foreign-born terrorists attempting to kill Americans by the hundreds than in actual Americans who decide to put out a documentary film on a major political figure.

And he's calling on Congress to pass a law to overturn the Court's ruling. What a dumbass. Congress simply cannot do that. It's called "checks and balances." The Court can strike down laws considered unconstitutional. Congress' check on the Court is in approving and removing Justices, as well as having a part in amending the Constitution.

What Obama needs is someone with some Constitutional expertise to explain these very simple, very fundamental concepts to him. It doesn't even have to be a Constitutional scholar. I'm barely more than a layman, and I get it.

Oh, that's right. Obama IS a Constitutional scholar. He spent years teaching the Constitution. Apparently the dumbass never actually listened to himself.

As for the remainder of his argument, the bit about the corrosive influence of too much money and foreign interests... well, he oughta be an expert on that, too. In the general election where he won the presidency, he passed on public funding to raise his own campaign war chest -- and was "corroded" to the tune of most of a billion dollars. And quite a few donations came from abroad -- we know about two Palestinian brothers who sent in about $33,000, because that was caught and returned, but it's clear a lot slipped through the cracks. We might know more, but the Obama campaign deliberately disabled a lot of routine security features that would have verified donors' details.

So here we have Obama stating things that are provably false, in areas where he should have exceptional expertise. Is he lying, or is he really, really that stupid?

No, he isn't that stupid. But he thinks we are.

And in the case of a lot of his supporters, he's right.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/38061.

Comments (55)

Forget the birth certificat... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Forget the birth certificate. Maybe we should check on that claim of being a "Constitutional Law Professor". Just about everything else in his background is made-up. Why not that?

Even the local, liberal rag turned on Barry this morning. I was SHOCKED to see the editorial that said the SOTU was nothing but a rehash of all Barry's remarks over the last year. The question then was "Has he heard the messages from Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts? Evidently not."

Foreign donations? Well oth... (Below threshold)
OLDPUPPYMAX:

Foreign donations? Well other than being a fellow Muslim, why do you think Hussein BOWED to the King of Saudi Arabia!

Barry's a scholar of His ow... (Below threshold)
914:

Barry's a scholar of His own personal constitution where "I" and "Me" reign above all else..

I agree. Forget the birth ... (Below threshold)

I agree. Forget the birth certificate. Let us see Obama's college transcripts.

"The provision struck do... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

"The provision struck down -- against corporations having indirect influence on elections -- is only about 20 years old."

Yeah, and that pesky Constitution is a couple hundred years old - not sure the age of the provision has any relevance...

"And it meant that the Obama administration is more interested in securing rights for foreign-born terrorists attempting to kill Americans by the hundreds than in actual Americans who decide to put out a documentary film on a major political figure."

That's an amazing leap of asshattedness. The provision has nothing to do with "actual Americans" - it's about First Amendment rights for corporations.

Corporations aren't citizens - and right wingers want to give US and foreign based corporations the right to buy US elections.

That's mind-boggling, but not surprising. Conservatives would welcome bin Laden into the White House if it meant that Obama was gone.

So bin Laden sets up a Corporation offshore somewhere or even uses a US corporation for a front and starts influencing US elections - and you knuckleheads see nothing wrong with that?

As I said -- not surprising.

Congress does have one othe... (Below threshold)
wolfwalker:

Congress does have one other power that's relevant to the courts: it can deny the Supreme Court jurisdiction in certain cases. Article III, Section 2:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Congress has rarely used this particular power because it's political and legal dynamite, and would cause far more trouble than it could possibly solve, but it's still in there.

Hey Stevie, exercise your b... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Hey Stevie, exercise your brain. Go read George Will's column this morning. It will answer all your leftist bleatings, and we won't have to suffer your ignorant comments.

Steve Green wrote:<b... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

Steve Green wrote:

Yeah, and that pesky Constitution is a couple hundred years old - not sure the age of the provision has any relevance . . .

Corporations aren't citizens . . .

The problem with this claim is that corporations have been recognized as persons since 1886 in the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific case, and that it has been recognized as early as 1977 that corporations have First Amendment rights in the First National Bank of Boston case. So, if not campaign financing, what "century of law" was Obama referring to? The Citizens United case follows clearly established precedent.

The fact of the matter is that Obama is a complete dunce.

I know I'm wasting my time ... (Below threshold)
Hank:

I know I'm wasting my time but....

Steve Green, care to back this up?

"..and right wingers want to give US and foreign based corporations the right to buy US elections."

Greenie, Obama said that th... (Below threshold)

Greenie, Obama said that the law struck down was 100 years old. He was wrong. And, as I said, he of all people should know better. He's the one who brags about having been a professor of Constitutional law.

And the particular case was about Americans -- united as a corporation -- who had put together a film, and were told that it was illegal for them to advertise it.

And are you implying that Osama gave donations to Obama last time? I know he got a lot of money illegally from overseas, from some very shady characters, but from his almost-namesake as well? That's real news.

J.

can't everyone see stevie G... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

can't everyone see stevie G is crying out for help ...

how else to explain his transparently false assertions and attacks ?

lets help him in dealing with his obvious embarrassment at having been conned by Obama ...

iwogisdead (#8),We... (Below threshold)
SER:

iwogisdead (#8),

Well played, Sir! Well played!

Foreign contributions for m... (Below threshold)

Foreign contributions for me, but not for thee!

"The fact of the matter is ... (Below threshold)
zaugg:

"The fact of the matter is that Obama is a complete dunce."
+1
StevieG- as Zerobama is a dunce, what does that make you? Just asking a question.

"And the particular case... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

"And the particular case was about Americans -- united as a corporation -- who had put together a film, and were told that it was illegal for them to advertise it.

That's the case that the Supreme Court ruled on, but their ruling give First Amendment Rights to Osama bin Laden's corporation and all other corporations.

"And are you implying that Osama gave donations to Obama last time?"

Nice strawman - is the heat too high for you?

You clearly don't have a problem with Osama bin Laden and Castro, Lee and the rest of world's crackpots being able to buy their influence into US elections?

That's amazing, but not surprising - conservatives would do ANYTHING to get Obama out of office - including letting foreigners buy their way into US elections.

It's just an amazing bit of hypocrisy to whine about terrorists getting "mirandized" at the same time you folks defend a ruling which allows terrorists the opportunity to spend millions in US elections supporting candidates of their choice. Simple amazing.

But not surprising. The hatred for Obama is causing the right wing to spasm and do more knee-jerking than usual.

if you've ever spent time o... (Below threshold)

if you've ever spent time on a university campus (or in the home of a professor) you'd notice many of the professors are incapable of performing the common courtesies that show humility......washing their hair (Michele did joke about his body odor during the campaign), cleaning their kitchen floors twice a year, not blurting out offensive anti-Christian banalities at the college lunch cafe, etc.

Yeah, Barry attended and then taught at university (love to see those grades though) but I doubt he can change a tire, balance a checkbook (well that's obvious!) or boil water.

I say he's a dope when it comes to funtioning in the real world and at best a light weight when it comes to understanding his socialist view of governance.

"How Could He Be That St... (Below threshold)
914:

"How Could He Be That Stupid?"

He's had years of practice! And as we know, practice makes perfect!

"How Could He Be That St... (Below threshold)
Clancy:

"How Could He Be That Stupid?"

Perhaps he's taking advice from Steve Green.

"He's had years of practice... (Below threshold)
SShiell:

"He's had years of practice! And as we know, practice makes perfect!"

Yeah, just look at Greenie!

The Court held that 2 U.S.C... (Below threshold)
Hank:

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

From the corner.

I am starting to think I wa... (Below threshold)
klrtz1:

I am starting to think I was wrong about Obama. I have thought from the beginning that Obama is just an empty suit sock puppet for the corrupt Chicago pols who got him elected. I know he's not intelligent or well educated and he doesn't have any great skill at politics but I thought there were puppetmasters behind him that had some idea what they were doing. It seems not. Somehow, Barack Hussein Obama is actually the leader, the decider, the top dog in the Obama administration. There's no one who corrects errors in his speeches, there's no one who can point out turning his domestic agenda over to Nancy Pelosi was a hugh mistake, there's no one to tell him Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts doesn't mean what he thinks it means.

Yikes!!! We are screwed even worse than I thought we were.

A lot of Presidents choose ... (Below threshold)

A lot of Presidents choose to simply say they're going to do stuff in the SOTU speech that they really never plan on doing, but Obama takes it to the next step and says he's actually going to do things that are impossible to do. He's like Politician 2.0.

Greenie, thre things: ... (Below threshold)

Greenie, thre things:

1) the decision last week does NOT change things for foreign corporations. They still have to keep their hands off our elections.

2) Obama was wrong when he said that, and you're wrong when you repeat it.

3) Obama, as both a former Constitutional Law professor and a successful presidential candidate, can NOT be considered a layman. He is considered an "expert" in this field. Therefore, he can not plead ignorance on this matter. For him to get it wrong means he is LYING.

And you repeating his lies over and over don't change those facts.

Besides, it's established fact that Obama broke campaign laws and accepted quite a few foreign campaign donations last time around. Why are you so hysterical about it happening again? Because next time, it might not be a Democrat who benefits?

J.

As usual stieie greenie scu... (Below threshold)
Michael:

As usual stieie greenie scuttles back under his rock.

greenie, you stupid shill -... (Below threshold)
apb:

greenie, you stupid shill -

"It's just an amazing bit of hypocrisy to whine about terrorists getting "mirandized" at the same time you folks defend a ruling which allows terrorists the opportunity to spend millions in US elections supporting candidates of their choice. Simple amazing."

From today's "American Thinker" article by Pam Geller :

"Despite dropping the groundbreaking bombshell story of "Palestinian" brothers from the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza who donated $33,000 to Obama's campaign, no big media picked up the story. Jihadis donating to Obama from Gaza? "

Moron.

For your enjoyment, here's ... (Below threshold)
apb:

For your enjoyment, here's the link to the Geller article.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_donor_contributions_sil.html

Looks like our TOTUS is a bigger POS than I thought...

Stevie always proves the sh... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Stevie always proves the shallow depth of liberal thought. It is not based in reality but on emotion and feelings. ww

Steve Green knows he is lyi... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Steve Green knows he is lying about what the SC decision means for foreign-owned corporations. He knows that the SC ruling did not touch the prohibitions regarding foreign corporations involvement in US elections.

However, Steve Green knows that it's important for the left to keep repeating these lies as talking points in the hopes of confusing those who don't pay close attention to these matters and are inclined to believe, politically, as he does.

It's all about keeping the dwindling left-wing base agitated and motivated for the upcoming elections.

Steve Green wrote:<b... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

Steve Green wrote:

It's just an amazing bit of hypocrisy to whine about terrorists getting "mirandized" at the same time you folks defend a ruling which allows terrorists the opportunity to spend millions in US elections supporting candidates of their choice.

First of all, if terrorists are going to funnel money through domestic corporations to influence elections, they're going to figure out a way around the Campaign Reform Act anyway.

Second, Mirandizing terrorists is a policy decision which can be changed by Obama. There is no constitutional issue when it comes to enemy combatants. On the other hand, legislation which violates the First Amendment cannot stand, no matter how many times the Congess might "pass a bill" (despite what the Constitutional scholar Obama seems to think).

Third, the terrorists won't be giving their money to Republicans, so Steve Green should be happy about this.

Fourth, Steve Green has gotten whacked pretty good today, hasn't he?

"It's time to require lo... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress."

That's a terrific idea! How about we start with you?

1) How many times were you visited by SEIU reps last year and what deals were struck?
2) How many meetings have you held with auto union heads in the last year and what did they promise you in return for their share of control of the auto industry?

That's just for starters.

How can you be that stupid?... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

How can you be that stupid?

What's to stop Osama bin Laden from setting up a dummy US corporation and funneling millions into influencing US elections.

Nothing.

Republicans used to take precautions in the interest of national security - but national security flies out of the window when it comes to making more money for Rupert Murdoch.

The broadcast media are the big winners here. Lots more money will be spent on US election advertising.

Aside from the SCOTUS throwing a huge life preserver to the same MSM so hated by the right - they also opened the door for anyone to set up a US corporation and to funnel millions into US elections.

Even Osama bin Laden.

Nicely done, oh loyal hod carriers of the rich. What's your next trick?

What's to stop Geo... (Below threshold)
klrtz1:
What's to stop George Soros from setting up a dummy US corporation named ACORN and funneling 100s of millions into influencing US presidential elections?

FIFY

Steve Green: "Even Osama bi... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Steve Green: "Even Osama bin Laden."

How could Osama bin Laden possibly influence a US election when "Fightin' Joe Biden" told us during the campaign that he knew where OBL was located and that He and noted warrior "Even more fightin'-ny Barrack "the shiv" Obama" would put an end to him?

Has something changed?

BTW, how does "Li'l Stevie" explain how all the commie Chinese cash flooded the Clinton campaign in 1996? We will probably never get to the bottom of that since so many of Clinton's campaign "helpers" fled the country to avoid testifying.

Still waiting to hear from Stevie how Clinton was able to avoid all those pesky campaign finance laws. Also still waiting to hear some outrage from Stevie regarding all those millions raised from pre-paid credit cards from overseas that flooded the Obama campaign.

Further, what about the CC check features that were disabled by the Obama campaign that allowed millions more of anonymous cash (names without addresses/phone numbers needed to verify the card owner) to flow into Obama's campaign from domestic sources?

Yep. We really enjoy being lectured by little Stevie about campaign finance "integrity"!

Stevie is probably still upset about Ted Kennedy's letter to the Soviet leadership in the '80s asking them to work with him to undermine Reagan.

Yep. Thats some powerful "campaign finance" and "national security" street cred that the Dems have.

Oyster:3) Obama ta... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Oyster:

3) Obama taking MILLIONS in 'donations' from Big Pharma for an ad campaign to push ObamaCare.

4) Sweetheart UAW deal on GM Stock - that VIOLATED years of past precedent on treatment of bond holders.

Yeah, Barry is against "lobbyists'. What was it, TWELVE 'waivers' issued to get them into the White House as 'advisers'?

Want to see a liberals head... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Want to see a liberals head explode?

Ask them to define a "saved job" and show us the formulas utilized to determine if a job was "saved".

Steve Green, you up for the task?

Feel free to reference Fed Gov't websites.

But remember, you are not allowed to link to make-believe sites (Media Matters comes to mind). Nope. You must go right to the source.

Good luck lefties!

"It's time to require lobby... (Below threshold)
Joe:

"It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress." - SOTU

Wouldn't the act of contacting the administration be the same thing as notifying the administration that it has been contacted? Does the WH classify it's visitor lists "Top Secret" and lock them in a vault without reading them?

I'm still waiting for Steve... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

I'm still waiting for Steve Green to answer my question about the "century of law" nobama was talking about. He ignores my posts, though.

s green... [no quote needed... (Below threshold)
Marc:

s green... [no quote needed] You, without doubt are the "usefulist" of all useful tools.

To continually maintain your position on the Supreme Court decision in the face of it being demonstrably false is astounding.

Wizbang has had its fair share of tools/moonbats/trolls over the last 7/8 years but you... YOU surpass them all.

You should be so "proud."

P.S. Shawn has a post up directed at you and only you, been up for 3 hours, we all await your discombobulated response.

Joe "Does the WH clas... (Below threshold)
Marc:

Joe "Does the WH classify it's visitor lists "Top Secret" and lock them in a vault without reading them?"

What, you didn't see obama speak to that issue in his latest nonsense... er, I mean speech.

He said his was the most transparent ever and had published a list of WH visitors.

What he didn't say he was FORCED by a court decision in response to a lawsuit.


In short, he was full of shit.

I'd welcome Bin Laden setti... (Below threshold)

I'd welcome Bin Laden setting up a corporation to influence our election.

For one, it'd improve our chances of catching him.

For another, it'd keep him from causing worse mischief.

For a third, it'd be funny as hell to see what kind of candidate he'd be trying to buy.

I think we need a "Godwin" type rule to cover Bin Laden, though...

J.

If a company is considered ... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

If a company is considered to be a person than why not consider dogs to be people. After all a dog is closer to being human than a company.

The supremes courts ruling is just as ludicrous as saying that a dog should be entitled to pell grants for obedience school or other benefits such as food stamps. Or I should be able to claim my dog as a dependent on my taxes. Or people that slaughter animals for food are commiting murder.

If a company is co... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
If a company is considered to be a person than why not consider dogs to be people.

Not "a company," honey; it is a corporation which is considered a person. Although the ad hominem remarks coming from the steel trap minds of folks like you and Steve Green are, like, really, really, important, I prefer the decision of the Supreme Court in Covington v. Lexington Turnpike :


"It is now settled that corporations are persons within the meaning of the constitutional provisions forbidding the deprivation of property without due process of law, as well as a denial of the equal protection of the laws. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway Co., 118 U.S. 394; Pembina Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U.S. 181, 189; Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26; Charlotte &c. Railroad v. Gibbes, 142 U.S. 386, 391."

Not that the Supreme Court Justices were as smart as you, but, still . . .

Obama was right... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Obama was right

1. You don't have to be a U.S. citizen to buy U.S. stocks. If a foreigner owns a majority of stock in a U.S. company than they have a controling interest. It would be very easy for foreigners to buy up stock in a company just so they can affect the outcome of a U.S. election.

2. Based on the supreme courts ruling, U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies would also be considered people.

Not "a company," honey; ... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Not "a company," honey; it is a corporation which is considered a person.

OK I misspoke. Dogs are more like people than corporations are like people.

Obama was right</b... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
Obama was right

I'm still waiting for an explanation of the "century of law" that nobama was talking about. Perhaps you'd like to offer your opinion on this.

Obama was right</b... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
Obama was right

Oh, and since you've gone out on this limb, perhaps you'd like to comment on nobama's claim that the Congress can "pass a bill" to overturn a SCOTUS decision on the First Amendment. Why don't you start off with your view on how the Constitution can be amended, and the applicability of Marbury v. Madison.

Hint: Madison was one of our Presidents

1. You don't have ... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:
1. You don't have to be a U.S. citizen to buy U.S. stocks. If a foreigner owns a majority of stock in a U.S. [corporation] than they have a controlling interest. It would be very easy for foreigners to buy up stock in a company just so they can affect the outcome of a U.S. election.

Terrorists wouldn't even have to go that far. A few thousands dollars can get anyone incorporated, and if you prop up some phony directors they can hide behind that corporation and do all the damage they want to US elections.

This has to be one of the stupidest moves the right has ever made - but they don't care about national security - that's obvious.

Steve Green talks like he d... (Below threshold)
klrtz1:

Steve Green talks like he doesn't like foreigners when in fact he likes most of them better than middle class Americans.

What a hypocrite.

s green "This has to be... (Below threshold)
Marc:

s green "This has to be one of the stupidest moves the right has ever made - but they don't care about national security - that's obvious."

Well maybe, but puzzle me this nitwit:

In the 2008 election cycle, nearly $6 billion was spent on all federal campaigns, including more than $1 billion from corporate political action committees, trade associations, executives and lobbyists.

So, what's changed?

If they spent a billion when they were allegedly "restricted" what now?

And BTW how do you explain how the SEIU spent 29 million on obama's election if so many "restrictions" were in place.

Steve Green (He Who Refuses... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

Steve Green (He Who Refuses to Respond to Posts He Doesn't Like) wrote:

This has to be one of the stupidest moves the right has ever made

Are you talking about upholding the Constitution? Upholding the Constitution is now "stupid" in the liberal world?

This isn't a "move" you dumbass. It's a decision by the US Supreme Court. Here's some news, dipshit: The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution. If you don't like it, move to Cuba.

The Citizens United opinion is a very precise, well-reasoned decision. It says:

(1.) Corporations are recognized as persons under the Constitution, and have been for nearly 130 years;

(2.) Persons are entitled to Free Speech under the First Amendment, which is part of the Constitution;

(3.) 2 U.S.C.S. § 441b, which impacts a corporation's right to Free Speech, violates the First Amendment. Therefore, it goes bye-bye, just like all of Dumbass Steve Green's idiotic statements.

Steve Green, get bright for once. You are an idiot. You are in way, way over your head. Stop smoking Steve Green.

I didn't graduate Harvard L... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

I didn't graduate Harvard Law, but as a garden variety lawyer, I must say that it would have not been too difficult for The 0 to determine the facts about the opinion, and refrain from misrepresenting them.

It's almost as if he has some degree of trouble with the truth, you know? Hmmmm. He can always throw his speech writer under the bus, a la Grandma/RevWright/Dunn/Typical white persons/Bill Ayer/Van Jones/Gov. Patterson/his flag lapel pin/closure of Gitmo, etc.

"The supremes courts rul... (Below threshold)
914:

"The supremes courts ruling is just as ludicrous as saying that a dog should be entitled to pell grants for obedience school or other benefits such as food stamps. Or I should be able to claim my dog as a dependent on my taxes. Or people that slaughter animals for food are commiting murder"


They are...


Not "a company," honey; it is a corporation which is considered a person.

"OK I misspoke. Dogs are more like people than corporations are like people. "

OK, Your so right.

""Is he lying or is he real... (Below threshold)

""Is he lying or is he really, really, that stupid?""

Yes he is lying and he really, really is that stupid -- and thinks America's voters are, too.

And in the case of the 85% of his supporters who are too damned stupid to know when they're lied to and/or who are dead and/or are too damned mean-spirited and/or who are criminal aliens and/or are too greedy to enjoy the fruits of others' labors to care?

He's right.

And in the case of the other fifteen per cent of his supporters -- the fascists and the crypto-fascists?

He's right about them, too!

"OK I misspoke. Dogs are... (Below threshold)
914:

"OK I misspoke. Dogs are more like people than corporations are like people."

And Obama's more like Hugo than Hugo is like Mussolini!

For your consideration:... (Below threshold)
gonzo 22:

For your consideration:

"Two legal perversions are at work here. First, the Court has equated the freedom to spend money with the freedom of speech. But if money is speech, those with the most money get the most speech. That's plutocracy, not democracy, and it's totally alien to our Constitution, as well as a gross distortion of the crucial principle of one person-one vote.

"Second, a corporation literally cannot speak. It has no lips, tongue, breath or brain. Far from being a "person," a corporation is nothing but a piece of paper -- a legal construct created by the state as a mechanism for its owners to make money.

"Actual people in the mechanism (shareholders, executives, workers, retirees, lenders, et al.) can and do speak politically -- in many diverse voices that express very different viewpoints. But the corporate entity, which the court cabal is trying to turn into a Frankenstein monster, is inanimate, incapable of thought, inherently mute and, in itself, no more deserving of human rights than a trash can would be."

Jim Hightower --




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy