Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Foreigner Fears and Liberal Loathings

Liberal anger reached a frothy, eye-bulging, screaming crescendo last week when the Supreme Court stood up for the First Amendment.  Remember when liberals used to at least give lip service to The Bill of Rights?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...
 The recent Supreme Court decision that unmuzzles political speech has spawned a plethora of deranged leftoid rants.  Brian Dickerson at Detroit Free Press, gets my vote for the golden nutball award. 
"a divided court authorized a global corporate auction for the services of elected officials."
He then becomes completely unhinged trying to explain why we need to be protected from big corporations who spend billions lying to us:
So instead of learning that the Amalgamated Food Adulteration Corp. is pleased with the job state Sen. X has been doing, we learn that a group known only as Americans for the Eradication of Child Pornography has been shocked to discover that a man whose name sounds awfully like that of state Sen. X's opponent was recently charged with soliciting a prostitute.
First off, we have defamation laws to handle libel and slander, so nobody can just lie and get away with it.

Secondly, we can't violate people's God-given rights just because someone thinks we're all too stupid to recognize Plouffian-style mind-control propaganda for what it is and resist it. 

Finally, if the fleck-spittle lefty ranters would actually move beyond the MSNBC propaganda, they'd find foreigners still may not contribute to US political campaigns
Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or other 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." (Bradley A. Smith, Professor of Law)
Not to worry, BBC and every other Euro Leftist rag can still continue to to endorse their fellow travelers in the Democratic party and their grab bag of nutty ideas.  

For a refreshing antidote to this madness, read Thomas Mitchell's A Few Reminders For The Constitutionally Challenged.


Christopher - Conservative Perspective said...

Great commentary! I do not know how you could stand to read Dickerson (Detroit area here), I will not even pick up that liberal rag that he writes known as the Freep here.

Another point is that libs push the line of the SP over-turning out a "century of law". Half is true,but that is their job if a case before them is deemed unconstitutional. The false part is the length. The law over-turned was (Citizens United v. FEC) which is only 20 years old.

Silverfiddle said...

Unlike the libs who rely on mis-quotes from media matters, I go to the source, no matter how repellent!

LSP said...

The leftists are very cross about this...

Grung_e_Gene said...

Halliburton has foreign offices and derives income from foreign sources including opening an office in Commie Central. From Halliburton: The company opened a branch office in Moscow in 1991. And moving their Corporate HQ to Dubai, UAE.

Is Halliburton a Foreign or Domestic Corporation?

Silverfiddle said...

How should I know? Do they have foreign ownership? That seems to be the standard according to US code.

Post a Comment