Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Clinton Inc. vs. Underfunded Middle Class

The case of Government United Clinton Inc. vs. Underfunded Middle Class, otherwise known as Citizens United vs.  Federal Election Commission is a case that touches upon the same matters at issue with campaign finance reform.  What are campaign finance reform law and Citizens United case really about?

I’ve given more to the overhyped windbag Michael Moore than Citizens United has ever gotten from me. Most people who have repeated the mantra about corporations not being people have never seen the video. Most in fact don’t seem to know what it was about. You would think that the straight-to-video documentary was some multi-billion-dollar effort, which is laughable. It is a very modest production, not nearly as elaborate as Fahrenheit 9/11 for which Miramax shelled out $6 million. Most people had never heard of the anti-Hillary video before the case. Back when HIllary became a senator to keep from standing on the corner of the street to beg for change, the Clintons had enough clout to halt tv companies from giving the facts about how Osama was almost caught before the Bush years.  

Something about this Citizens United video posed a similar threat.  Maybe instead of repeating the mantra, you should be interested in why the pro-regulation faction is so interested in finding out who their opposition is. Maybe you should be interested in why Clinton Inc. was so threatened by a little DVD, and why that led to the Executive Branch trying to intimidate a private company into violating the privacy of citizens.  Then maybe you might be interested in why the lead prosecutor on that case was Obama's first choice for the Supreme Court. Here’s a hint: It has nothing to do with “empathy” for the little guy, and everything to do with a fear of little guys (citizens) uniting their financial resources to criticize the government without fear of retribution from the government and from the "tolerance bullying" of the pro-statist mob.

Left-leaning people were alarmed to no end that the federal government was monitoring their library checkouts but they have no trouble with the government getting especially nosy about who is criticizing them.
  1. They don’t care about liberty (or the rule of law, clear principles of legal interpretation, etc.) when they consider the dictator benign, OR
  2. They do care but they hold their liberty cheap enough to sell it for wealth distribution and liberal cultural reforms.
If the Hollywood ideology machine was selling conservatism to people as aggressively as they are selling collectivism and progressivism, you can be sure that the ideological Left would be concerned with themselves as political underdogs, just as they cared about the Bill of Rights back in 2006, just as they protected the filibuster back in 2005. If the Citizens United case were in 1974, the Hunter S. Thompsons would be worried about Nixon adding people to his list of enemies. But all fears of growing government intrusion were drowned out in the applause of a new magic man who with his superior intellect and party aligned Congress would fix everything. (Perhaps George Lucas' "thunderous applause" was more prescient than he imagined.) Left-leaning people were newly baptized born again believers in powerful, omniscient, centralized government.

Of course, we live in an era in which you probably remember that Rubio drank a lot of water during his response to the State of the Union in which he clarified a great many things about the existing ideological conflict, but you have no memory of what Rubio actually said that day, and you may not have even wondered for a moment why the news outlets you watch (to objectively inform you about politics) showed Rubio reaching for water more than addressing what he said. Maybe you’ve never suspected once that you were being distracted. But shouldn’t you be curious now what he said?

No comments:

Post a Comment