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.

Benafiting from Hard Work...

Who wants to work hard to earn a living and build up wealth in today's work of government taxing the rich more heavily, and giving bailouts to anyone who fails or can't make it on their own?

---

Maybe instead we should force people into our way of thinking with ideas of extremists:



Or just rush head on into socialism and let the government do everything for us and to us:

Spaldam's critique on Obama's Speach to the Kids

I personally don't remember a president addressing my while I was in school, but apparently it has happened a few times before.

Regardless, Obama's speech was very inspirational, though it did seem to have some undertones of his Liberal agenda in it.

Anyway, here it is:



I've actually enjoyed hearing Obama's speeches for one main reason. He is saying something I think the nation desperately needs to hear. Too many of us have expected too much for too long while putting in too little of our own efforts to achieve our goals. It truly does take hard work and perseverance to make something of one's self, and it also takes the hard work of many good individuals to make a nation truly great.

This same speech coming from a conservative president probably wouldn't have gotten any concern or scrutiny from all the concerned parents we keep hearing about, and most of that concern was centered around the questionnaire that was to be given to students after the speech; especially the one question that was thankfully removed which asked kids what they could do for President Obama. After all, a nation that is of the people, certainly isn't their to server their President; in fact it's quite the opposite in that the President, along with other elected officials, are there to server the people of this country.

I sincerely Hope his speech was inspirational and motivational to many kids that might otherwise not have been motivated. However, when you start to add it to many of Obama's agendas on "Green Jobs" that's was being lead by a self proclaimed communist, emergency powers to do unprecedented things during crises like pandemics, or knowing that socialized governments tend to bread lazy people, and you start to wonder if his speech was more of a conditioning of the upcoming generations to accept his "Fundamental Transformation of America".

Of course a single inspirational speech of this kind isn't going to brainwash anyone's kid, but from what I'm hearing, it's obvious that depending on the person's point of view and beliefs, his speech is and will continue to be interpreted in many different ways.