Constitutional Courts Are A Threat To Liberalism
February 8, 2010
By Christopher G. Adamo, www.chrisadamo.com
The reverberations from Republican Senator Scott Brown's Massachusetts election had barely subsided when an even greater shockwave was sent throughout the liberal world. On Thursday January 21, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision that overturned major pillars of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance "reform" act, thereby reestablishing the ability of the people to express themselves freely during election time, and thus to publicly hold Washington accountable for its actions.
Of course such an outrage against the Ruling Class can never be allowed to stand, if its dreams of imposing the liberal agenda on the American people are ever to be realized. The most crucial component of any liberal program is a monopoly on the dissemination of information, and the success of every tinhorn dictator throughout history has hinged on controlling the voice of the opposition. So it comes as absolutely no surprise that Barack Obama is leading an attack against the Court, abetted by such leftists as Senator Charles Schumer (D.-NY).
High on the Democrat list of objectives in the wake of Obama's inauguration last January was a reinstatement of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," which would ultimately subjugate the entire radio broadcast spectrum to the biases of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as the final arbiter of who gets to say what over the "public" airwaves." It is not difficult to envision how this administration would wield such power against its critics in talk-radio. The ferocity of liberal reactions to the January 21 Court ruling tell the whole story.
Initially, the battle plan appears to be to discredit the Court's decision. During his State of the Union speech, Obama specifically attacked the decision, making alarmist claims that it would result in a great infusion of "corporate cash" to influence American elections. Not surprisingly, this charge has been echoed by Schumer, who hysterically asserted that the "floodgates of special interest money," meaning the unfettered voice of the conservative opposition, will henceforth "undermine our democracy."
Also, during his State of the Union speech, Obama stoked phony concerns over the threat of foreign cash subverting the American electoral process. If the liberals were to be believed, this single court ruling casts doubts on the entire future of the nation. Yet once again, even a cursory examination of the historical facts proves quite the opposite.
Throughout the 1990s, the Clinton Administration engaged in obscene fundraising activities in which corruption, even including the obvious influence of foreign dollars, was rampant. The names Johnnie Chung, John Huang, James Riady were regularly heard in relation to dubious White House "coffees," in which literal bags of laundered money were delivered in exchange for access to Bill Clinton.
During that same period, U.S. intelligence concluded that Chinese espionage had completely penetrated this nation's security. Yet the Justice Department, under Attorney General Janet Reno, was deliberately slow to respond, and by its indifference, clearly telegraphed that it had no intention of getting to the truth.
Barack Obama's shrill alarmism regarding the corrupting influence of corporate involvement in the electoral process would be comical, were his flagrant hypocrisy not so recognizable as evidence of complete contempt for the American people. Here is the man who, joined at the hip with ACORN, worked to construct a veritable revolving door for government funds to be amassed from taxpayer dollars and disseminated among the "community organizers" where they could yield the greatest advantage for Democrats.
The election season of 2008 was a time of relentless efforts by ACORN to work the streets and neighborhoods on behalf of liberal candidates, and 2009 was the payoff. Under the bogus premise of a "stimulus" to jump start the lagging economy, ACORN was slated to receive funding in excess of four billion dollars from the very political machine that now cries "foul" at the prospect of legitimate campaigning from the rest of America.
Given the fraudulent manner in which the left, led by Obama, is attempting to create panic over the decision, it is no wonder that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, when attending the State of the Union speech, silently annunciated the words "Not true" in response to Obama's accusations against the Court. Though Alito did not generate the disruption and controversy of South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson with his "You lie!" outburst during Obama's joint-session "healthcare" pitch, it was clear that his regard for Obama's integrity parallels that of Wilson.
In truth, America is never threatened by the proliferation of political speech from Americans, but from its selective suppression. Clearly Obama and his minions are not bothered by enormous infusions of cash from liberal banks and lending institutions, and are even willing to accept overtly dubious home financing deals in return for access to the seats of power. Nor will Eric Holder, the thoroughly corrupted Attorney General, be any more likely to root out malfeasance in this realm than he was predisposed to go after those Black Panthers who, in the 2008 election, prevented citizens from voting in Pennsylvania.
A Supreme Court decision that moves America in the direction of the constitutional principles on which it was founded will revive and invigorate political debate from a conservative opposition that has been hamstrung by disproportionate and unequal government regulation. As a result, barring more dirty liberal tricks, the upcoming campaign cycle can take place on a loud but level playing field.
The rules have changed. The Massachusetts elections proved the vulnerability of the liberal/Democrat political machine in the face of an informed and vocal public. And it is this possibility that the left finds wholly unacceptable.