Freedom Wins in case over Campaigning - Citizens United v. FEC

Thanks to the McCain–Feingold Act (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002), the established corporate news media can do something you cannot. They can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to communicate about politicians, campaigns, and issues. This gives the media an advantage when it comes to informing the public as to what your choices are when it comes to Public elections. They rarely include real people who are considered underdogs, in favor of the very career politicians that create these kinds of freedom limiting laws.

To gain an even better understanding of these kinds of campaign finance laws please watch the following 4-minute video:

Most cases against the campaign finance laws have focused on the freedom of speech, but these challenges have always been denied by the courts, under the perverse reasoning that "money isn't speech." However, a 2003 case, Ron Paul v. FEC, argued that the freedom of the press is a right that must be protected for all Americans, not only for those who run media businesses. The claim was denied, but that was only the beginning . . .

A co-plaintiff in the 2003 case, Citizens United, renewed the fight last year. They challenged campaign finance provisions that prohibited them from broadcasting a movie they had made about Hillary Clinton, who was then running for President.

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment freedom of speech guarantee prohibits the Government from enforcing any financial restrictions limiting core political speech involving elections based on a speaker’s corporate identity. The Supreme Court restored some of your ability to join with others in order to better exercise your freedoms of association, of speech, and of the press.

However, there are still many more media lies that need to be corrected, more taxpayers need to be educated about the true causes of government corruption, and why campaign finance laws like McCain-Feingold are not a cure, but a cause. There are still many other incumbent protection laws that make it difficult to fire members of Congress, and limit your rights of association, of speech, and of the press.

Oil Crisis? Why?

Ever Heard of the Bakken Formation? Well you have now.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

We actually have a great deal of oil reserves right here in the good old USA. So why aren't we using it? Could it be the same reason the democratically controlled congress has refused time and again to allow energy legislation in this country to even come to a vote?

"On the Senate floor Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) offered several Unanimous Consent requests to lift the ban on offshore drilling for oil. The Democrats objected. Senator McConnell continued to ask, "how much do American citizens have to pay for gas for the Congressional Democrats to change their mind? $4.50? $5.00? $7.50?" Finally Senator McConnell asked if the Democrats would allow a vote if gas prices were to reach $10 a gallon? The Democrats continuously objected and said no!" - https://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL08H01&f=AL08H01&t=e or https://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL08H01&f=WA08H11

No wonder there approval rating is now at an all time low. - http://www.gallup.com/poll/108856/Congressional-Approval-Hits-RecordLow-14.aspx

Maybe it's truly time for change as Barak Obama has been saying. But in this case, Barak is actually not in favor of change at all. - http://www.gop.com/news/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=24e094b9-da5e-4220-bd43-5c5adf0e2e27

Who is? Well McCain of course. And don't forget the Libertarians, and Constitutionalist; they are certainly for less government and a free market that is able to do its own oil exploration.

I though the Democrats were the party of the "little people", the poor, and the average hard working citizens that are hurting the most because of these high gas prices? Apparently they don't care about the overall inflation in prices we have seen this year especially not these higher gas prices. Do they think they are somehow helping the people by keeping prices high, or are they more concerned about the environmentalists? The same environmentalists that want $5 a gallon gas (can you say "Al").

Personally, I think we are fools to put so much reliance on any other countries for our most basic needs, including food, energy of any kind, and our ability to maintain our own infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities. We need to be more self sufficient, not only as a nation, but also as individuals.

On the other hand, what if oil is the life blood for our planet and we are slowly sucking the life out of it?

- Posted By Spaldam