Right-Wingers Don't Understand the First Amendment

[Corporations] are not the same as us. They do not have the same rights as all of us. And that decision is wrong on the law, and wrong for America, and an enormous danger for the political process as we go forward ~ Russ Feingold (b. 3/2/1953) an American politician from Wisconsin who served as a Democratic party member of the U.S. Senate from 1993 to 2011, in a speech on the Citizens United Case delivered at the Fighting Bob Fest on 9/10/2010.

The First Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Move to Amend says: On 1/21/2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.

Dervish Sanders says: I agree with the folks at "Move to Amend". Clearly the Founders did not intended for corporations to be considered people. Just as Thomas Jefferson warned us that inherited wealth is incompatible with democracy, he also warned us of the dangers of allowing corporations to become too powerful. Now I'd wager that most people believe one of the functions of the The Supreme Court is to determine if laws are Constitutional (if there is a question). It's one of the checks and balances set up by the Founders, right?

Actually the power to rule laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the president "unconstitutional" is NOT a power granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. The SCOTUS granted itself this power with the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision. A horrified Thomas Jefferson declared that the ruling by the Marshall court paved the way for Judicial tyranny. Specifically Jefferson said...

If ... the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government ... then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so (suicide pact). ...The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819).

This is exactly what the Roberts Court did on 1/21/2010 when they ruled in favor of "Citizens United" (a conservative political organization). The Conservatives on the court molded the First Amendment - exactly as if it were a mere thing of wax - changing it's meaning so that it pleased them (and the corporations they serve). This act, as predicted by Jefferson, edged our nation closer to plutocracy. It seems conservatives have no problem what-so-ever with judicial activism when the Conservative judges rule to further empower the wealthy elites.

What the Supreme Court did, specifically, was to strike down "a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting electioneering communications". McCain–Feingold said that "broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election" are prohibited. Citizens United thought they could bypass McCain–Feingold with a "documentary" trashing Hillary Clinton. Hillary the Movie was set to air on cable TV as an on-demand movie when the FEC objected and filed a lawsuit. The airing of the documentary was stopped when a lower court ruled that, under McCain–Feingold, Citizens United could not broadcast their film 30 days before a primary election.

But the douches at Citizens United insisted that their film wasn't electioneering (and thus exempt from McCain-Feingold) because, "the movie did not say explicitly that people should vote for or against Clinton". When the CU a-holes decided to petition the SCOTUS - Judge Roberts and his Right-wing buddies agreed to hear the case (instead of laughing and turning them down as they should have). Not only that, but Judge Roberts said, "I'll do you one better". Instead of ruling on whether or not the Hillary-bashing movie was OK to air whenever (because it didn't tell people who to vote for and was thus not a political ad), Roberts decided the court should decide if corporations should be able to air any political ad, anytime, and spend as much money as they liked on them.

What Roberts proposed what that his court should overturn decades of settled case law, something he specifically promised he would not do during his confirmation hearings. Former "Law & Order" actor, TN Senator, and failed 2008 presidential contender Fred Thompson thinks Roberts, "was very forthright in explaining that he would not tell the senators how he was going to vote but that he would follow the law and the intent of the framers". Fred believes Roberts has done just that, but Fred is wrong. Roberts lied in his Senate confirmation hearings and should be impeached.

Justice Scalia, another corporate fascist like his buddy Roberts, authored a concurrence in which he states that the First Amendment, "never shows why the freedom of speech that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form". Scalia also "argued that the first amendment was written in terms of speech, not speakers", and that "it's text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker".

Both Roberts and Scalia are members of the Federalist Society, which is "an organization of conservatives and libertarians seeking reform of the current American legal system in accordance with a textualist and/or originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution". The stated goals of this organization are, of course, total bullshit. Their real goal is to reinterpret the Constitution so that the law favors the wealthy elites (even more so than it currently does).

Justice Thomas also concurred, even though the hypocrite supposedly believes "America was founded on a philosophy of individual rights, not group rights". But he was talking about his opposition to Affirmative action. So, when the government grants additional rights of groups of individuals it is WRONG if the purpose is to promote equal opportunity and address existing discrimination, but when it does the same in regard to groups of individuals who get together to form a corporation - it's the bee's knees?

Conservatives claim that the considerations afforded by Affirmative action amount to special privileges, while people who get together to form a corporation are not asking for anything special, only that they not be stripped of their first amendment rights. But the fact is, they are not. These people retain their individual right to free speech, but do not gain the special privilege of a free speech group right. Clarence Thomas may be a hypocritical dipsh*t, but he's right (even if he conveniently forgot when he wrote his Citizens United concurrence), that the Bill of the Bill of Rights affirms individual rights, not group rights. There is ONLY ONE group that the First Amendment mentions, and that is The Press. All other groups can suck it.

Individuals have the right to associate with other individuals, but they do not then gain additional rights to speak as a group under the First Amendment. Only the Press does, which is why the Founders specifically mention it. Seeing as any specific press organization is also a corporation, why would the Framers single out the press if they were already covered (by virtue of being a corporation)? Clearly the Bill of Rights was intended to apply to individuals and not groups. Neither did the Framers intend for corporations to be able to spend unlimited amounts of money influencing elections or buying off politicians. Congress is within it's rights to pass laws restricting campaign spending by these entities.

I agree that "judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules. They apply them". John Roberts said this during his confirmation hearing. Then he did the exact opposite when he ruled in favor of Citizens United, changing the meaning and intent of the First Amendment. Both of the justices appointed by President doofus made similar statements before Congress, and because fibbing to Congress is illegal, both should be impeached. Alito, in his confirmation hearing said, "courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions", but when Roberts said prior judicial decisions (regarding this issue) were a "mistake" and that he was obligated not to repeat them, Alito concurred.

In elections whichever candidate outspends the other generally wins. This is according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a non-profit, nonpartisan research group that tracks money in politics and their effect on elections. In a 11/5/2008 article examining the 2008 election, CRP reports that "Money Wins Presidency and 9 of 10 Congressional Races in Priciest U.S. Election Ever". Their research shows that "in 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races... the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning".

According to the 2/17/2011 broadcast of the Rachel Maddow Show, "In 2010, post-Citizens United, 7 of the 10 top outside spending groups in the election were all Right-wing. The Chamber of Commerce, both the Karl Rove groups, the American Future Fund, Americans for Job Security - all of these Right-wing groups. The only non-conservative groups that cracked the top 10 were the public employees union, the SEIU, and the teachers union. That's it".

The Sunlight Foundation confirms that spending on the Republican side outpaces spending on the Democratic side. Their 2010 report says, "the big change... is that independent groups are now spending more money on influencing the election than political parties", pointing out that "the outside groups are supplanting traditional party spending largely on the Republican side of the aisle. There are currently eight outside groups that have each spent at least $2 million exclusively on aiding Republican candidates. These groups are American Crossroads, American Crossroads GPS, American Future Fund, The 60 Plus Association, Americans for Job Security, Club for Growth Action Fund, Club for Growth and Tea Party Express".

I say you are naive in the extreme if you think this ruling will not allow corporations to get the politicians THEY WANT elected. Corporations will run adds FOR the politicians who dance to their tune and AGAINST those who do not. Obviously Righties believe that "free speech" is dependant on how much money you have. The more money you have, the more FREE speech you can buy. Those of us who don't adhere to corporatism recognize that this ruling is straight up fascism. Most people don't even bother voting. Of those that do vote, some of them will vote for the politicians the ads tell them to vote for. Outside groups wouldn't be spending these huge sums of money if this were not true.

My conclusion is that money is corrosive to the political process. We need to reduce the amount of money spent on elections, not increase it. Money is not speech, corporations are not people, and the first amendment only applies to individuals (and the press). For this reason we must re-elect Barack Obama so that he can appoint the next one or two Supreme Court Judges and move the court away from the radical Right. Hopefully then this very bad ruling can be overturned.

Conservative Q&A Re: The Citizens United Decision

The following questions and assertions were made during a heated debate I engaged in with a Conservative on another blog. This debate was what prompted me to compose this blog post. I've written on the topic before, but this commentary greatly expands on my prior posts...

Conservative position: A law requiring shareholders in a corporation be allowed to vote before any corporate money is spent supporting a political candidate would be wrong because shareholders all CHOOSE to invest on a corporation. Their choice to invest means they approve of the company's policies (including it's political support).

My response: This claim is utter nonsense. The primary reason people invest in corporations is to make money, not political statements. In deciding whether or not to invest an individual usually looks into past performance of the corporation, they usually do not investigate the political positions of the corporation, which are not a part of the company's prospectus. A law requiring a vote by stockholders (the OWNERS of the corporation) before any money is spend for political reasons is completely reasonable. If everyone who buys stock is assumed to agree with the CEO politically, then what is the harm in holding a vote? The only reason anyone would oppose such a law is because they want corporate CEOs to be able to spend corporate money for political reasons - even if such expenditures would be OPPOSED by their stockholders.

Conservative position: The New York Times is a corporation. Putting in the censorship regime you favor would gag any political opinions from being expressed in it.

My response: The First Amendment says that no laws shall be passed abridging the freedom of the press. the New York Times is a press organization and thus political opinions expressed in it can not legally be gagged. Furthermore, I do not favor a "censorship regime"; I favor adherence to the First Amendment as written. The First Amendment guarantees individual rights. It does not guarantee group rights for corporations or any other entity (with the exception of the press).

Conservative position: Do you honestly support the idea that caused the court decision in the first place... the government gag on a film [Hillary: the movie] people made that was critical of a US senator?

My response: I fully support reasonable laws governing how our elections are conducted. Citizens United was not "gagged" in regards to Hillary: The Movie. They were only prohibited from airing their "documentary" during a certain period of time. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as McCain-Feingold) said that "broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election" are prohibited. They were free to air their "documentary" any other time.

Conservative position: What ever happened to, if you don't like what someone says, ignore it? We need to stop looking for excuses to censor and to bar people from the political process.

My response: I am not looking to censor or bar any individual person from the political process. I simply believe we should follow the First Amendment as written. The First Amendment protects individual rights, not group rights. Corporations (aside from press corporations) do not have rights under the First Amendment.

As for your argument that political ads can be ignored... this clearly does not happen. Why else would politicians spend so damn much to get elected? Why do they hire slick PR firms to carefully craft their message? Money has a HUGE impact on elections. This is a FACT that cannot be denied. Politically informed individuals may ignore political commercials they know are pure spin, but the average citizen is most often not informed enough to be able to identify what is true and what is spin (or an outright lie).

If you agree with the Citizens United decision it is my opinion that you do not believe in democracy. Only a supporter of plutocracy would say our election results should be determined by who spends the most.

SWTD #82

Conservatives Pushing For BP Bailout

...I think it's part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it's always got to be somebody's fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen ~ Rand Paul, referring to BP's underwater Gulf of Mexico oil geyser on ABC's Good Morning America (5/21/2010).

As I've alluded to in previous posts, I am no fan of Ayn Rand, Objectivism, or Libertarians. Objectifiers of greed and selfishness, is more like it. Let us pray that Kentuckian voters send this fool packing. The record clearly shows that Randal Paul (his actual name) was dead wrong to suggest that this was an accident.

Gulf Oil Disaster Not An Accident

According to an oil industry whistleblower, "BP had been aware for years that tests of blowout prevention devices were being falsified". During Congressional hearings it was revealed that the blowout preventer attached to the well that the Deepwater Horizon was in the final stages of completing, "had a leak in a crucial hydraulic system and had failed a negative pressure test just hours before the April 20 explosion".

A recent ProPublica investigation revealed that "Years of Internal BP Probes Warned That Neglect Could Lead to Accidents", and that BP had "systemically ignored its own safety policies across its North American operations".

Finally, let's not forget that the CEO of BP, Tony Hayward recently admitted, "We did not have the tools you would want in your toolkit". Which, even though he probably did not realize it at the time, is an admission that BP lied when it stated, in their drilling application to the Minerals Management Service, it could "handle a spill involving as much as 12.6 million gallons of oil per day, a number 60 times higher than its current estimate of the ongoing Gulf disaster".

Criminal Negligence

Legally, when you cut this many corners in complete disregard for even your own safety protocols, you can no longer claim that the resulting disaster is an "accident". This is, without a doubt, a brazen case of criminal negligence. (For the record, BP has yet to be convicted of criminal negligence in the case of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, although AG Eric Holder is investigating).

So when Mr. Paul feigned outrage at Obama administration's declaration to keep its "boot heel on the throat of BP", saying, "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business", I do not believe he was being sincere. This reminds me of Sarah Palin praising the "pro-America" parts of the country during the Presidential campaign. Obviously the "pro-American" parts of the country are were the majority of the voters fall for Conservative chicanery and put the interests of the wealthy and corporations above their own by electing Republicans.

Of course, to a Conservative, saying anything in support of the Average Joe and against the wealthy and corporations would be grounds for being accused of "un-American activities". Strike that, DOING anything in support of the average Joe. Conservatives routinely lie about their policies being good for everyone.

For instance, on the oil spill, Randal Paul also said that, "he had heard nothing from BP indicating it wouldn't pay for the spill". This is a completely ridiculous thing for Mr. Paul to say. Under President Doofus our government routinely let oil companies off the hook in regards to paying for the accidents their reckless disregard for safety caused. (In fact, "Bush's DOJ Killed a Criminal Probe Into BP That Threatened to Net Top Officials".)

Final Price For Disaster Could Be Beyond Astronomical

Apparently BP doesn't even intend on paying for all the immediate costs of the cleanup, which, according to a current estimate will total approximately 12.5 billion. If they were, why would Tony Hayward, in an attempt to reassure the financial industry, say "BP can escape this disaster paying no more than $3 billion in costs and damages"?

But 12.5 Billion for the clean up is just an initial estimate - the final cost may be several hundred billion. Although, as far as economic damages go, Congress capped those at 75 million after the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

In regards to the issue of "liability caps", Senator Patrick Leahy has stated, "It reduce[s] the consequences of [any] misconduct to a discounted cost of doing business. That's almost like saying, 'We're giving you a green light to do whatever you want to do'. I can't imagine why anyone would be surprised that... oil companies cut corners and compromised safety".

The liability cap, however, only applies to economic damages. There is no cap so far as the cleanup costs. There is also no cap on fines that may be imposed. An EPA imposed per-barrel "spilled" fine under the Clean Water Act could amount to as much as $10.7 billion (estimated by Rachel Maddow on her 6/1/2010 broadcast). Rachel went on to say, "That would be $10.7 billion on top of all of the other cleanup costs, all of the economic injury claims from local businessmen, all of the liability to states for tourism lost and whatever criminal charges the Justice Department turns up".

Criminal charges will most certainly result in criminal fines, and BP has a long history of convictions. In 2005 BP was cited for "willful negligence" and paid two of the largest fines in OSHA history. Including these two citations, BP's fines since 2005 total more than $730 million. In regards to this latest disaster, one expert says the case against BP is a "slam dunk".

Also, if the criminal proceedings determine that BP was "grossly negligent or... engaged in willful misconduct or conduct in violation of federal regulations", the $75 million economic liability cap is nullified. So, despite their horrendous track record, Randal Paul thinks we should take BP at their word. Like when we trusted BP employees to fill out their own inspection reports honestly and accurately.

There is also the issue of the 18.75% royality BP agreed to pay when they signed the lease. Although there is a question regarding whether or not this royalty should be applied to the oil "recovered", or all the oil removed from the ground. A 6/4/2010 Politico story reports that the Democratic Representative from West Virginia, Nick Rahall says that "the Minerals Management Service, the agency that oversees offshore drilling, has been unclear whether BP would be required to pay royalties on any oil captured from the Deepwater Horizon spill".

Why only assess royalties on the captured oil? I believe BP should pay royalties on ALL the oil that escapes from the well, whether they capture it or it escapes into the gulf - plus the per-barrel fine.

Finally, NOLA.com reports that the White House has suggested that BP reimburse "offshore oil rig workers who lose wages as a result of the administration's moratorium on deep water oil and gas exploration". This would cost BP an additional $150 million to $300 million a month.

Incredibly Unlikely That BP Will Pay "Every Cent"

I would have guessed that a Libertarian would believe in the old axiom, "trust must be earned". BP has clearly not earned our trust. That, plus the rumor I've heard is that BP may file for bankruptcy protection to avoid paying. An ABC news story states that "respected oil industry analyst Matt Simmons told Fortune Magazine that a bankruptcy filing was likely within a month". According to Mr. Simmons, "They're going to run out of cash from lawsuits, cleanup and other expenses", because "there isn't enough money in the world to clean up the Gulf of Mexico".

By the way, Wikpedia, in discussing "bankruptcy" says that "The principal focus of modern insolvency legislation and business debt restructuring practices no longer rests on the elimination of insolvent entities but on the remodeling of the financial and organizational structure of debtors experiencing financial distress so as to permit the rehabilitation and continuation of their business". In other words bankruptcy would not put BP out of business, leaving it's creditors to divvy up it's assets.

Also according to Wikipedia, "a strategic bankruptcy may occur when an otherwise solvent company makes use of the bankruptcy laws for some specific business purpose" In this case the "specific business purpose" would be to discharge it's obligations to pay a majority of the Gulf oil spill bill.

During a 6/11/2010 interview, Louisiana State Treasurer John Kennedy conjectured, "I know BP said they won't go into bankruptcy. I hope they're telling the truth. They weren't truthful about the extent of the spill". He is urging Governor Bobby Jindal to "devise a plan to deal with the oil spill cleanup and response efforts in the event of a BP bankruptcy".

It is also possible that BP may be deemed "to big to fail" and rescued by an American and/or British bailout. Apparently a lot of British pensioners hold shares of BP, and recent suggestions that BP delay or cancel it's dividend payment have raised the ire of the British politicians who represent them. A Labour Party member by the name of Tom Watson cried foul, stating that, "you attack the dividend and you are attacking millions of British pensioners".

Finally, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue threw his support behind a taxpayer funded BP bailout, declaring, "...everybody is going to contribute to this clean up. We are going to have to get the money from the government and from the companies". Obviously money from "the government" is taxpayer money. He also stated his opposition to Senate efforts to raise the cap on economic damages, whining, "It is generally not the practice of this country to change the laws after the game".

And, as a 6/10/2010 Huffington Post article points out, House Minority Leader John Boehner agrees! This is no surprise since the Chamber is an anti-middle class pro-big business organization that solely represents the interests of the wealthy and, in furtherance of that goal, primarily funds Republicans.

Exxon Mobil Did Not Pay "Every Cent" For Valdez Alaska Spill, Nor Were All The Injured Parties "Made Whole"

I believe that what this all indicates, beyond any doubt, is that this was not an accident - and that BP isn't going to pay the full cost of the environmental and economic disaster their reckless greed caused. Even so, at this point, my conclusions are simply speculation. However, what we do know for sure is that Exxon did not pay the full cost of their 1989 spill, instead they fought the punitive damage award levied against them for 20 years.

Damages were eventually reduced from 5 Billion to paltry 500 million by the Right-leaning Supreme Court.

A 2/2/2009 CBS News story reminds, "Back in 1989, Exxon executives promised to take care of everyone affected by the spill". Exxon's manager of Alaska operations promised, "You have my word we will make you whole again". I seriously doubt that the any of the 32,000 original plaintiffs in the Exxon lawsuit feel they have been "made whole" - those that are still alive, that is. "At least 6,000 of the original plaintiffs died" during the 20 years Exxon battled the original judgment in court.

Tony Hayward has made similar statements claiming BP will "stand with Gulf Coast residents until they are made whole". If that is the case, then why, in the lawsuits which are already pending against BP, does it appear as though they intend to fight them in court the same way Exxon did - for decades, filing appeal after appeal until the judgment against them is reduced as much as possible? Or, preferably, get all the cases heard in front of a judge who is friendly to the industry.

Can The Conservative BP Bailout Be Stopped?

Randal Paul, Libertarian running for the Senate in Kentucky is attempting to paint BP's criminal negligence as an "accident" and thinks we should back off and allow BP to do what they think is right. Former Alaskan Republican half-Governor Sarah Palin agrees, proclaiming, "I want our country to be able to trust the oil industry".

Texas' Republican Governor Rick Perry claims the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon was "just an act of God". Mississippi Republican Haley Barbour thinks the oil washing up on shore is "non-toxic", and, after visiting Petit Bois Island off Mississippi's coast, alleged he did not think it "was hurt one iota".

The Conservative "Blue Dog" Democratic Representative from Mississippi Gene Taylor remarked, "I would remind people that the oil is twenty miles from any marsh. ...That chocolate milk looking spill starts breaking up in smaller pieces ...It is tending to break up naturally". And Conservative propagandist Rush Limbaugh insists "the ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there [because] it's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is".

Also, don't forget about the Conservatives in Congress who are blocking Democratic efforts to remove the 75 million dollar economic liability cap. The first attempt was blocked by Republican Senator from Alaska Lisa Murkowski, and the second attempt was blocked by the Global Climate Change denier from Oklahoma, Republican Senator James Mountain "Jim" Inhofe. A disappointed President Obama responded with a statement that read, "This maneuver threatens to leave taxpayers, rather than the oil companies, on the hook for future disasters like the BP oil spill".

Why do all these conservatives want us to believe that this disaster is an accident, not that big a deal, or (if it does turn out to be serious) the fault of the Federal Government and that we should leave the liability cap in place? Because they think the taxpayers should pay. Who the hell else is going to pay if not BP? And, as I pointed out earlier, U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue and House Minority Leader John Boehner have come right out and suggested the US taxpayer should be on the hook.

Boehner later "clarified" his statement, insisting he's always said BP should pay, even though the person asking the question specifically inquired as to whether or not Boehner thought "taxpayers should pitch in to clean up the oil spill". Boehner clearly indicated that he thought they should. Silly Boehner, you are supposed to keep pro-bailout thoughts on the down low by using language which does not directly support a bailout, but can lead to nowhere but a bailout... like your fellow Conservatives are doing.

So, can this bailout be stopped? I doubt it. Despite the fact that oil companies are among the most profitable corporations in the world the US government still grants them subsidies of 2.7 billion a year.

In my opinion, the only way we could guarantee that BP pay the maximum amount it is able would be to follow Robert Reich's advice and place BP under temporary receivership. In a 5/31/2010 blog post Mr. Reich wrote, "it's time for the federal government to put BP under temporary receivership, which gives the government authority to take over BP's operations in the Gulf of Mexico until the gusher is stopped".

Taking Mr. Reich's idea one step further, the ANSWER Coalition's "Sieze BP" website advocates the Federal Government seize BP's assets (or as many of their assets that it can, seeing as BP is a British Corporation). I urge you to consider signing the petition, even though it is most likely pointless. The influence of corporate money on our political system is such that what we have, in essence, is two conservative parties.

The Republican Party which is 100 percent Conservative, and the Democratic Party which, in addition to the so-called "blue dogs", consists of quite a few DLC "New Democrats" (whose sellout "Third Way" means they aggressively pursue corporate money to win elections). Liberals are a minority, with only 82 out of 312 Congressional Democrats belonging to the Progressive Caucus.

On the 6/10/2010 episode of the "Daily Show", Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, in response to a question by Jon Stewart, explained, "I'm a Republican, so of course I'm conservative". You'll never hear a Democrat assert, "I'm a Democrat, so of course I'm liberal". Much to my disappointment, Barack Obama has shown himself to be a Bill Clinton Third Way Democrat. One of his first appointments was Third Way DLC Clintonite Rham Emmanuel to White House Chief of Staff. This is the guy who thinks that Liberals are "retarded".

Not to mention the other Clinton era advisers President Obama has surrounded himself with. Which is why Republican Politicians and Commentators calling him a "Socialist" are such liars. Their brainwashed minions may be buying this nonsense, but they know better. Crying "Communism" or "Socialism" is simply a diversionary tactic they use to push us further towards corporatism. The BP bailout is a done deal. Unfortunately, just like the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem and Gulf State economies, the American taxpayer never stood a chance.

SWTD #41

Racism is Patriotic And Other Right Wing Delusions

Racism isn't born, folks, it's taught. I have a two-year-old son. You know what he hates? Naps! End of list ~ Denis Leary, American Actor (DOB 8/18/1957).

This commentary is in response to a blog post from "The Oracular Opinion", a right-leaning site I visit infrequently. I say my visits are infrequent because, as of late, I have given up blogging and the reading of other's blogs. I decided to check in today, however, and after composing a reply, decided to turn my comments there into a post for my blog.

The issue the proprietor of "The Oracular Opinion" was concerned about was that five students at the Live Oak High School (in California) who wore T-shirts with the America flag on them (on Cinco de Mayo) had their free speech right violated when the Principal sent them home. The Principal determined that wearing the flag T-shirts on that particular day was incendiary.

"The Oracular Opinion" called for it's readers to show their support for the students who organized the "display of patriotism", by reposting Chris W's (a Libertarian blogger) thoughts (from his blog) on their blog. I agree with the sentiment. Which is why I've decided to post my support for the wronged party - the students who were celebrating Cinco de Mayo and subjected to an ugly display of racism in the process! As a frequent poster to "The Oracular Opinion" pointed out - the wearing of the T-shirts on that particular day could certainly be interpreted as a big "up yours" to the Hispanic students.

Other ethnicities have days on which they celebrate their heritage, such as St. Patrick's Day (Irish), Oktoberfest (German) and others. It seems to me that nobody has a problem with anybody who wishes to honor their heritage by celebrating one of these ethnic holidays. The only ethnic holidays some people seem to have a problem with are those celebrated by individuals with brown skin.

The Principal who decided to send the students home was later pressured into apologizing. Perhaps he was being overly PC, but I do not believe he was wrong for taking the feelings of the Hispanic students into consideration. If he felt that they had worn the T-shirts on purpose to make a statement against the celebration of Cinco de Mayo I believe he was correct to send them home. And he should have stuck to his guns and stood by his original condemnation of the American flag T-shirt wearing student's ugly display of racism.

Or not. After reading the actual news story, I think what really happened was that the students just acted insensitively. They saw the Hispanic students celebrating Cinco de Mayo during previous years and thought that they'd counter their fellow student's enthusiasm with a "patriotic" display of their own. When it was pointed out that they were being insensitive and perhaps they should apologize, their response was "fat chance".

Since insensitivity to the ethnic background of anyone whose heritage is different than yours is a vital component of being a patriotic American (or so the Right-wing would have you believe), I've concluded that this really isn't that big a deal. We just need to get these kids (and their parents) some diversity training.

Who we really should be condemning here are people like Chris W who use opportunities like this to spread their lies about America being under attack. Specifically he said that "our history, our culture and our way of life has been assailed by forces from within to the point to where if you celebrate America and what it stands for, you are called a racist, a Nazi or a tea-bagger".

He concluded by urging his readers to "band together to show the anti-America crowd that we will not accept these assaults on free speech and patriotism". This is all complete nonsense of course. It is, however, in line with the "culture warrior" BS perpetrated by the likes of Bill O'Reilly.

As for Chris W's claim that these student's free speech rights were infringed upon - in "Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District", the Supreme Court ruled that students do not "shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door". But the ruling also said that schools do have the ability to restrict the free speech rights of students if it is "necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others".

So the students acted insensitively and perhaps the Principal overreacted. In the end, I don't really care. What I do care about is posts like Chris W's. My conclusion, based on his blog post, is that those on the Right (Republicans and Libertarians) believe that racism is patriotic. Perhaps you've heard that Libertarians support open borders? The Libertarian party platform states that they believe "economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders", and they "condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant".

However, "freedom" and "liberty" demand that individuals be free to practice racism if they so desire. Rand Paul and John Stossel have been in the news recently voicing their support for the right of private businesses to ban anyone from their property they want to. Of course Mr. Paul and Mr. Stossel both droned on regarding how abhorrent they would deem such a decision to be. And they claim that they would not patronize such a business. I find their protests unconvincing.

In my opinion these arguments are simply a smokescreen used to enable racism. Why else would this Libertarian blogger be so eager to use this story to perpetuate the myth about America being "under attack"? (which plays into the Right-wing meme that we should blame the brown people for our problems).

The effect of Arizona's recent anti-immigrant laws has been to drive Hispanics away from the Republican party. Hopefully this law never is prevented from going into effect, although I have heard that people are presently being stopped and asked to present their papers proving citizenship or lawful right to be in the country. However, regardless of what happens, at least the Republican Party has been exposed for the bigots they are.

Or, at least to the majority of Hispanics. Otherwise it seems that these laws are receiving (unbelievably) broad support. How long will people continue to buy into these Right-wing delusions? We do not need a border fence. I am in support of protecting the wages of our workforce from being driven down by an influx of cheap labor, but the way to do this is through programs like E-Verify. Republicans going after the victims (Hispanics fleeing poverty and enticed to cross our borders by corporations offering them employment) is not the answer.

Republicans claim we need to close the border first for a reason. Because they don't really want to cut off the source of cheap labor their corporate donors crave. What they really want is to keep the "illegals" afraid. So afraid that when their employers force them to work "off the clock" or under hazardous conditions - they don't complain.

And the Republicans (and Libertarians) want us to know whom to blame for our declining wages - the brown people. This is why they encourage racism with preposterous claims of America being "under attack". This is why they have countered "diversity training" with the term "politically correct".

This is also why they attack the Left. Because the Left rejects the notion that we should blame the victims - the "illegal" aliens fleeing poverty who would not be coming here if nobody would hire them once they arrived - for our immigration problems. And because we support a "path to citizenship". Not because it's an ideal solution, but, again, because we do not believe in punishing the victim.

In conclusion I urge you not to fall for arguments like Chris W's. "America" (Loony Libertarians and far-right tea-bagger types) is not "under attack". They claim they are victims when, in actuality, they're attempting to stir up anti-immigrant sentiment. Because this is what the wealthy fascists who fund their astroturf organizations want you to believe. It's simple misdirection. Blame the "brown people" and not the wealthy corporatists who actually are to blame for the decline of the Middle Class.

SWTD #40

Republican's Anti Middle Class Sentiment on Display During State of the Union

A conservative is someone who demands a square deal for the rich ~ David Frost (DOB 4/7/1939), a British journalist, comedian, writer and media personality, best known as a pioneer of political satire on television and for his serious interviews with various political figures, the most notable being Richard Nixon.

The party that represents the wealthy and corporations could hardly contain their disdain for the "lower classes" whenever initiatives aimed at helping anyone else were mentioned by the President during his State of the Union Address last Wednesday evening (1/27/2010). When President Obama said, "we all hated the bank bailout", the Democrats applauded in agreement. The Republicans also applauded, but their cheers were in approval for rewarding the Banksters who almost crashed our economy.

Yes, they speak out loudly against it, and attempt to lay the blame for the reviled action at the feet of President Obama and the Democrats, but it was their beloved President Doofus who actually signed the legislation. I say "beloved" because when President Obama truthfully pointed out that Bill Clinton left us with a budget surplus of over $200 billion, while George W. bush gifted us with a one year budget deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade - McCain could be seen whispering to Lindsey Graham (R-SC) "Blame it on Bush". Then they both laughed.

So while the Republicans may claim they were against the bank bailout, and even though some of them voted against it, secretly they supported it. Because the Banksters are the crème de la crème of the "have mores" that make up the Republican base. And, while the average Joe Republican voter may be oblivious to the Republican's support for the bank bailout, it was hardly something they did a good job concealing Wednesday night.

When President Obama mentioned the Bankster's big bonuses and claimed that "they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need", the Democrats cheered while the Republicans remained seated. President Obama was referring to a proposed 0.25 percent per transaction tax. A quarter of one percent tax would not be noticed by your average Joe investor, but Wall Street speculators who use computer programs to buy and sell thousands of shares per second? It's easy to understand why they would be opposed to such a tax. It's Main Street versus Wall Street, and the Republicans remaining seated while the Democrats stood and applauded clearly illustrated whose interests they (the Republicans) represent.

When President Obama pointed out that, thanks to the stimulus bill, "there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed" - the Democrats applauded while the Republicans remained seated. Despite the fact that "Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster".

When President Obama proclaimed "it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America" - the Democrats applauded while the Republicans remained seated. Because outsourcing is good business as far as the multi-national corporations are concerned. Former head of Hewlett-Packard, and former McCain campaign advisor, Carly Fiorina referring to the practice as "right-sourcing" said, "there is no job that is America's God-given right anymore".

This is where the right-wing plutocrats reveal their extreme hubris - Corporations do business in the United States with the permission of it's citizens. We have the right to demand (or encourage through our government's tax policies) that, if they want to incorporate in the US, they must employ us - and pay decent wages. I say that it's a privilege to do business in the United States, and not a God-given right. If the corporatists don't like our rules they can get the hell out (instead of buying off our politicians which should be illegal).

Most perplexing of all, when President Obama said, "Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college", the Republicans remained seated while the Democrats stood and cheered. I say "perplexing" because, as everyone knows, the Republicans are all about cutting taxes. Except that Obama's tax cuts were targeted at the middle class (rich people were excluded).

This is why Republicans always talk about "across the board" tax cuts - they only really give a damn about cutting the taxes of the rich. Cutting taxes for anyone else is simply to maintain the illusion that they aren't only representing the wealthy. Which of course they are.

Clearly the Republicans only give a damn about BIG business and BIG banks (cutting the taxes of, and leaving unregulated, respectively), because, when President Obama said, "I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit", the Republicans again remained seated while the Democrats stood and cheered.

And, finally, was anyone else as outraged as I was when Justice Alito shouted "you lie" (a-la Joe Wilson during the President's speech on health care to joint session of Congress on 9/8/2009), when President Obama said, "...last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests... to spend without limit in our elections. 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"?

OK, so Alito actually just mouthed the words "not true", but I was still outraged, given the fact that President Obama's remarks regarding the SCOTUS decision were 100 percent accurate. In 2003 and 1990 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of upholding restrictions on campaign spending by corporations.

This, by the way, means that both Alito and Roberts lied (while under oath) during their Senate confirmation hearings. Alito said that the Supreme Court "has to be equally vigilant about not stepping over its bounds and invading the authority of Congress", and Roberts said that he would "decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law".

Invalidating campaign finance laws is invading the authority of Congress and overstepping your bounds, Alito. And overturning previous SCOTUS decisions is not deciding every case based on the record, Roberts. These lying fascists should be impeached, IMO. Their ruling in the Citizens United case, in addition to being fascist, is unconstitutional. The free speech protection, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, refers to individual rights not group rights. Free speech does not apply to groups! The only group whose right to free speech is protected in the Constitution is the press.

The SCOTUS ruling further shows that Republicans believe that our country should not be ruled by "we the people" but by the wealthy and corporations. As Keith Olbermann correctly noted on the 1/28/2010 episode of "Countdown", the Republicans remaining seated telegraphed to the President "all he needed to know about the opposition's willingness to work with him on the issues that really matter to most Americans". They are not willing to. So why the hell does anyone who makes under $250,000 a year vote Republican?

Image Description: President Obama gives the 2010 SOTU address (1/27/2010).

SWTD #39

George W. Bush's Activist Supreme Court Rules For Fascism

I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country ~ Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States (3/4/1801 to 3/4/1809), in a letter to George Logan (11/12/1816)

On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule (From the "Motion to Amend" website).

In an email dated 1/21/2010, author and political commentator David Sirota writes...

DS: By now I'm sure you've heard that the Supreme Court today not only reaffirmed that corporations are people, but that corporations may spend an unlimited amount of money to tilt election campaigns. This is a radical ruling that threatens the most basic fundamentals of American democracy. That's why I'm asking you to sign this petition for a Constitutional amendment that would declare that corporations are NOT people. Sign the petition [here], and then send this [link] on to as many people as you know. We are living in a nation that, as I said in my first book, is the victim of a hostile takeover by Big Money interests. This Supreme Court ruling today will complete that hostile takeover and shred the last remnants of democracy. In short, we will become a complete corporatocracy. Corporations are not people - they live forever and they can commit crime and cannot be put in jail. Moreover, the rights of personhood are not merely being extended to American corporations - this ruling means that foreign multinational corporations that operate in the United States will have more power over our election system than American citizens themselves. So again, I implore you to sign this petition and forward it on to as many people as you can. These are dark times - but we cannot give up. Rock the boat.

From the Move to Amend website...

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to... Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights. Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our vote and participation count. Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.

In my strong opinion the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling is straight up facism. The Right says it is against activist judges and in favor of original intent. These are both lies. Chief Justice John Roberts, a member of the fascist Federalist Society, has argued in favor of corporate personhood his entire career.

This is the reason Preznit bush appointed him. Specifically he chose John Roberts to reward him for his help in stealing the 2000 election.

Further Reading
[1] Right-wing media absurdly declare Obama admin acted in "illegal" and "unconstitutional" manner by "forcing" BP to create escrow account 1/23/2010.
[2] Supreme Court ruling denounced as disastrous, shameful, a mockery, by Steven C. Day. Buzz Flash 1/22/2010.
[3] Useful Idiots of the Coup, by Madeleine Lee. United for Peace 1/22/2010.
[4] Citizens United decision is Terrifying, by Jason Linkins. The Huffington Post 1/21/2010.
[5] With no limits on campaign financing, corporations will take over the government: A special comment (Transcript), Countdown with Keith Olbermann 1/21/2010.

SWTD #38