Historic Day in the Fight for Freedom

Chapter 1.
For eight years I have been complaining about the unconstitutional nature of McCain-Feingold, to the extent that I was almost unable to support McCain for President. Today, the Supreme Court agrees with me, if only 5-4, but still a majority. The fatuousness of the minority opinion's argument that the federal election law banning corporations from advocating for or against a candidate within 30 days of the election is self evident. From Justice Stevens dissent:

It also could have spent unrestricted sums to broadcast Hillary at any time other than the 30 daysbefore the last primary election. Neither Citizens United’s nor any other corporation’s speech has been “banned,” ante, at 1.

So we have freedom of speech at the times allowed by government regulation? I'll let you decide. Meanwhile, The One's response?

We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.

So much for respect for the constitution, a cornerstone tirade of the left during the Bush presidency. True colors showing now.

Chapter 2.

Nancy Pelosi said today that she lacked the votes in the House to pass the execrable, pork-laden, discriminatory, deficit-expanding, freedom-killing, innovation-suffocating Senate health care financing "reform" bill. Drudge headlined it with the misleading title, The Day Health Care Died. Health Care did not die, but merely the execrable, ...you get the idea. I hope that the momentum is shattered.

Chapter 3.

Icing on the cake. Air America has declared bankruptcy.



Post Script.

To quote Legal Insurrection, "Could this week possibly get any better?"

Creeping Totalitarianism

No, I'm not going overboard. Dean and KT have posted on the folly of the White House attack on Fox News in declaring them not a news organization. This is more serious than just not talking to a particular network, the White House blatantly attempted to orchestrate a freeze out of Fox by other media outlets. Hugo would approve.

Jake Tapper of ABC sees the big flick and called out all around buffoon and Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs on the issue.

It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

Gibbs weak reply is that it's their opinion. What? Give me a break and think about the high office you represent and act like it. In the comments at Tapper's blog, the usual morons snipe about the unfairness and stupidity, etc. of Fox. I commented as follows:

The folks criticizing Fox News are missing Tapper's point. In a democracy governed by a Bill of Rights, how is it appropriate for the Executive Branch to brand an organization as illegitimate and to organize ostracism? What if the next Republican Administration takes similar action against MSNBC, which appears equally partisan? For most of the history of this Republic, news organizations have been political, that doesn't make them less legitimate or less worthy of the protections of the Constitution. The White House should respect the spirit of the First Amendment, not just the letter of the law.