The President has had what many might refer to as an "interesting week," while the Democrats continue along in a gaggle of extreme confusion.  Nancy Pelosi has made it very clear that she would perform any number of  Triathlon-type of events including "parachuting in" to make healthcare legislation a reality (we might recommend she pack her own chute in that case).  This while other members of her party seem recalcitrant about continuing their healthcare bill efforts--and for a good reason.  The prospects for the Democrats in the upcoming November election seem ever-more dire if not bleak, much like the economy, in a sole but welcome fit of  poetic justice.  The Democrats have now become the Party of Responsibility, whether they admit it or not.

Meanwhile Obama has come out yet again in another attack on Las Vegas, Toyota and heaven knows whom else; it is becoming difficult to track at this point.  Also in the media this week, we have seen Rahm Emanuel call a group of liberal activists a bunch of  F...ing retards.  This did not exactly endear Emanuel to those persons who have a mentally challenged individual in their family.  Emanuel, who is well-known for his usage of  "colorful metaphors," was forced to apologize due to pressure put on by Sarah Palin and others.  Further, we now understand that the White House intends to invite some of these same "insulted innocents" over to the White House to have a summit for the mentally-challenged.  To which we can only say--they should fit right in....

Talk about Strange Bedfellows.....

Terrorist Osama Bin Laden has also now weighed in to the Global Warming argument on Al Gore's side, stating that "the United States is responsible for Global Warming" and that we should be punished by breaking our economy in the form of boycotting US goods and stopping the use of the dollar.  Someone needs to point out to Bin Laden that some few have already beaten him to it.  However, based upon the President's statements with regard to the climate during his "State Of The Union" address, we found it fascinating that murderous Bin Laden, a majority of the Democratic Legislators, Obama, and even a few Republicans seem to be  in complete agreement on this one issue, while a vast majority of Americans and the world are unconvinced and for good cause.  As pointed out in an earlier article, certain bored Scientists, along with the media, seem to be in perpetual need of some terrible cataclysm in order to capture both their imaginations and future earnings, while certain politicians are adept at capitalizing on both.

The President emphatically noted in his State of The Union speech that Americans should be convinced by now of man-made Global Warming based upon the "overwhelming evidence."  We wondered if at first Obama was actually joking regarding all of the information coming out--what with the rampantly fraudulent emails, hidden decline in temperatures, jumpy Chinese monitoring stations that can't seem to stay in one place, disappearing and reappearing stealth glaciers, and on and on--not to mention the constant parade of near zero temperatures and winter storms that have pounded much of the US and the world this year--and last.

You Are All Wrong! (But Can You Leave the Light on?)

Obama, whose rampant, pedantic, televised attempts at lecturing and proselytizing to pretty much everybody anywhere has made it clear that all who disagree with him are wrong and he is indeed right, which takes many of us back to those wonderful days of raising toddlers in their rigid understanding of actionable items.  No matter how many times the President is both told and presented with ample  facts counter to his immediate agenda, the President stubbornly persists in his estranged proclamations of erroneous certitude.  In other words, despite all evidence to the contrary, Obama, much like a youth possessed of only budding knowledge, is convinced of "facts" that are easily subject to knowledgeable ridicule.  We sometimes feel that at any moment the President might let slip his true conviction that there is an ugly monster lying in wait under his bed, and if given ample face time, he will convince us all of this fact.

His appearance in front of the Nation, and later the GOP, was, indeed, equilaterally exasperating at best.  During his State of The Union Speech, the President lambasted pretty much every person in the Hall.  He then noted that the Republicans seemed to be the party of NO, and that blocking legislation just for the sake of blocking it was not good for the American people, while blaming the Democratic Legislators for their attempts at actually legislating--good or bad.  Ironically, the President went on to chide the Republicans for being "partisan" while he, Pelosi and Reid have been noted for locking Republicans out of virtually everything going on, if not totally ignoring them.

We should point out that the President has had for the entire year, democratic super-majorities in both the Senate and the House.  This having been the case, how is it that the Republicans can be blamed for blocking anything?  The President has also chided Government monetary decisions of late when he indicated that the Government acts as if it is spending "Monopoly money," and cannot continue spending in this manner.  Comically making his own point, he then promptly shocked us all by presenting a mammoth 2010 budget totaling $3.7 Trillion dollars.

Go Ahead and Spend It! --We'll Make More

The size of this budget is, easily, a post World War II record and makes the President's strident complaints of monetary irresponsibility laughable, if not ridiculous, at this point.  The President has presented his budget to Congress, and we  find it difficult to believe that even this Democratic Congress would consider passing this particular budgetary economic wrecking ball.

The simple fact is that the Democratic Majority in Congress has been going along with the President's self-defeating, America-remaking zeitgeist for far too long.  The President has constantly harangued the Republicans for being too partisan--except that it is also true then that the Democrats have also been far too blindly partisan with their President, rubber-stamping or earmarking-up everything that comes their way if given enough time.  Regardless, the budget as presented has been called by many as unworkable and unsustainable.  The Government needs to totally reassess its budget outlays and freeze any further spending of stimulus money.  The financial crisis is not yet over, and this on-going spending spree could certainly make it far worse.  The experts note that Government attempts at spending  the country out of a recession will not work without private sector growth; it will only fuel future deficits and higher taxes with no gain.

We also noted Obama's rather tardy decision to finally meet and actually communicate with Republican party members during a GOP meeting.  Should not this make inquiring minds wish to know more?  Why now?  Could this perhaps have anything to do with the sudden loss of a Senate super-majority?  Are the repeated failures by a numerical majority of Democratic Congress Persons (since 2007) finally taking their legislative toll on the country?  Alas..none of the above--according to Obama --but rather it is actually that he is quite pissed and has had enough of those pesky GOP members and their constant efforts to keep the Republic intact.  How dare they not go along with his ideology, and how dare they presume to think that all 251 (House and Senate) Republicans might collectively know better than he with his long resume of...umm...really cool stuff!

Free Speech and the Supreme Court Decision

The reverse heckling of the Supreme Court Justices by The "Messianic Mandragore" only showed the President's continually increasing oafishness with regard to his efforts at the dissembling of repetitive failure.  When Judge Alito silently mouthed "that's not true," the Press went ape against Alito's silent outburst--nevermind the President's just having excoriated the Supreme Court Justices with what can be termed as nothing other than a Mistruth in front of the entire nation.  The judgment by the Justices had nothing to do with foreign contributions to Corporations--as so stated by the President--since any foreign contributions are still outlawed.  The case in question at the Supreme Court that incited Obama's contempt contained a surprising if not ironic twist as to its origins.

In the latter part of 2007, a movie which had been released under the title Hillary was being readied for free commercial release on a pay- per-view channel.  The distributors of this movie were fearful that the FEC (Federal Elections Commission) might consider the movie to be in conflict with current election laws.  They, therefore, requested a summary judgment from a Federal Court on the matter and were eventually turned down on the basis that the movie would have violated campaign laws regarding corporate/political advertisements during the time period that coincides with an election.

The matter was appealed and eventually made its way to the Supreme Court where the First Amendment right of Free Speech came into stark and menacing question.  The movie was plainly quite pejorative in its portrayal of Senator Clinton and its free release on pay-per-view by a corporation within an election time-frame (with regard to Senator Clinton) was one of the main issues at play.

If You Can Ban a Movie then You Can Ban a Book

Ted Olson, the attorney who argued for the movie plaintiffs, cleverly pointed up an extreme Constitutional problem concerning the outlawing of a movie during a campaign time-frame.  During the course of the proceedings, the question eventually surfaced that if the movie were a book would the government ban publishing the book within an election?  The FEC's government lawyer indicated, having been painted into a proverbial corner, that he would have to ban a book on the same basis on which the movie was being banned, as well, based upon the fact that a candidate's name might also be included within a book.  This (correctly) caused many of the Supreme Court Justices to shake with outrage that a representing member of the Government had  explained that banning any book on this particular basis was a Government Imperative.

Bill of Rights, Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The question as we all now understand it seems to beg for our review as to the varied implications--but also as to why the Liberals found the reversal so threatening?  Where in the above amendment does it state that the Government can ban Free Speech on a particular basis? Further, where does one see, in the above amendment, an explanation that this does not apply to a corporation?  Could not "the right of the people to peaceably assemble" in fact define of a corporation of individuals?  How can the extension of Freedom of Speech be a true point of threat?  Or does this simply level the playing field with the left-leaning Media?

Some within the media, and especially on the left, have feigned outrage and indicated that a corporation is a construct of the State and therefore has no such individual rights.  However, as was  noted in one of the concurring opinions, Media Corporations own newspapers, radio stations, broadcasters, publishers and so on, so they therefore have Freedom of Speech built-in on a corporate basis as enumerated in the Bill of Rights within the Freedom of the Press affirmation.

In essence then, should a Corporation's free speech be denied on the basis that it does not own a media outlet?  This seems to be what the "progressives" and other Media members are arguing.  We Conservatives would find it difficult to believe that the Constitution would be disdainful of any free speech regardless of the various Founder's prohibitive  animosities towards business interests.  In addition, the statement that a corporation is a construct of the State is simply not true.  A State has no need of a corporation, as a State is a People's corporation unto itself, in essence.  A Corporation is technically a construct of individuals merging in common interest for the primary purpose of commerce--but also for various other pursuits as well.

A Chilling Effect on Free Speech

A Corporation is a legal entity that is designed for various purposes--one of the main ones being that it provides an incorporeal framework of libel and taxation structure for the owners and officers--they being individuals.  In fact, the definition of  incorporate is "to embody or make whole."   In this way commerce is allowed to flow freely via Capitalism rather than being staunched by the various threats that a business enterprise can bring into an individual's life with regard to financial and legal matters.  In effect, a Corporation, once formed, is in many ways an entity much like an individual.

As stated nearly perpetually with regard to the current administration's stance on all things "corporate," it becomes a little easier to see why the President took extreme issue with the Supreme Court's findings both for free speech and, indeed, for the rights of the incorporated outside of the influence-peddling Media.

In fact, the Civil Society's property that is the Nations Corporations have been, at least as it regards Free Speech, strengthened on behalf of this nation.  The one central issue that seemed to continually appear throughout the Court's decision was a reverential regard for Free Speech and what the Court appeared determined to defeat--that being any law that has a chilling effect on Free Speech, regardless of corporate fetters.  Obama has stated that he will try to correct the decision.

Battered, Bruised and Broke But Still Free

Regarding the President's both public and vitriolic outburst at the Supreme Court Justices, could or would anyone actually maintain that the collective judgment, wisdom and veracity of the Supreme Court is of a secondary nature as to the primacy of this or any President?

The President's blunt if not shocking criticism of the Supreme Court, Corporations, members of opposing Media, cities and even private citizens of this nation bespeak of an ever-more disturbing and unpresidential mindset.  When, during the course of this past year, the Nation's citizens were battered and bruised from the authoritarian overreach of the Liberals, many of us became distressed to the point of being morose about what our Country was becoming.  Many of us felt as if we were sleepwalking much of the time--such was the state of our confusion, if not depression, at what was happening.

But as with all things, at a human's point-of-loss, we then come to a true understanding of how much the Nation, its freedoms, its people and its tireless history of liberty truly means to us, and that it is something which is, indeed, worth fighting for.

The power and responsibility that comes with a population's Freedom of Speech is a force far greater than any seat of authority and will not be overcome by a State's contrivances.

Barry Secrest