A Stunning Week For American Liberties

Yo, put on some clothes, there, Emperor.  This time it really is all about you.  Those last “eight years” you continue to casually toss around as your sole reason d’etre now includes the first year of what sensible Americans have been praying is your own lame-duck presidency.  What happened in Massachusetts is, indeed, the sensible reaction of a free people to your lies and your ideology.  We were angry at the growing deficits and intrusions of the federal government in 2008 and we’re angry at the Obama-led Democrats’ neck-break race to socialism that continues to increase them now.

 

“Now, we’ve gotten pretty far down the road, but I have to admit, we’ve run into a bit of a buzz saw along the way….”

“…I am not going to watch more people get crushed by costs, or denied the care they need by insurance company bureaucrats, or partisan politics, or special interest power in Washington.”

Astute observers will note that referring to a majority of the citizenry at large as a “buzz saw” when they disagree with him shows again this inexperienced bubble boy hasn’t a clue or, more likely based on other statements, just doesn’t care about the checks and balances foundation of government in this country that secures the power in the hands of the people.  And it is not only my jaded eyes that turn up at the corners from the humor of the blatant hypocrisy contained in his statements.  What we saw, particularly exposed during the month of December, made it quite clear that the Chicago machine of “partisan politics” and the “special interest power in Washington” was gunning at full throttle to create both the House and Senate versions of health care “reform”.  (Corn husk, anyone?)

 

This fighting stance continued as the ramifications of the Supreme Court decision on the upcoming 2010 Congressional mid-term elections quickly began to sink in.

 

Tip what?  Drown out what?  Certainly Massachusetts just proved the progressive liberal’s need to stifle free speech on behalf of those chosen to be their pet victim de jeur is not only wrong, but unnecessary.  Martha (“Curling Iron”) Coakley flew from Massachusetts to Washington, D.C. to attend a fundraiser for her Senate campaign, and both hosts and attendees included lobbyists for “Big Pharma” and the health care industry.  Monies raised were used for negative attack ads against Scott Brown, but we all know what happened next.  It didn’t work.  The American people knew what was at stake and threw their nickels and dimes at Scott Brown; and the good people of Massachusetts, equally tired of Washington’s special interests, raised their collective middle fingers and gave the Democrats and their lobbyists and their unions a loud and clear salute by sending Brown to Washington to kill the health care Senate bill.

 

It may be too difficult a concept for affirmatively-graduated Ivy League progressives, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that freedom of speech is our most powerful means of controlling special interests and bringing hidden agendas to light.  So what if corporations or the unions now no longer need a middle man (in the form of PACs) to donate to a candidate or a cause?  The Supreme Court did not strike down disclosure and therefore any business that decides to spend their profits on campaigns that go against America’s liberties or against Her best interests will soon find their profits gone MIA as the people cast their votes not only at the ballot box but with their dollars.  Those companies who decide to try and hide behind PACs will continue to be outed by an newly-awakened citizenry who is sick and tired of lies, no matter what the source.  Where the agenda of unions goes against America’s sensibilities, they will lose even more members than they have to date.  Frankly, those who would want to pursue campaign reform in light of this ruling would do better to simply put more transparency into the whole process. 

 

But in a free market economy, advertising can be a form of corporate suicide and where campaign financing is concerned the left believes that this a bad thing.  What they can’t accept, because it threatens their power, is that real equality means the freedom to fail as well as the freedom to succeed.  It is not up to the government to selectively and partisanly choose who may speak and when.  At least it is not up to the government in these United States.  It is the kind of activity belongs in despot regimes like Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran.  That the Obama administration and its progressive liberal supporters are already seeing how to write new laws to corral free speech yet again is yet more straightforward evidence they do not accept the Constitution as it was written and sets the stage for the 2010 mid-term elections to be a bloodbath, ending with Democrats picking up their teeth with the stubs of their elbows.