harikari.com

While watching President Obama deliver his first State of the Union speech last night I was struck by how comfortable he was standing before Democrats, Republicans, Supreme Court justices, diplomats, and military leaders.  After one year in office, he appeared as though he owned the place.  He looked and sounded like he was meant to be there.  I never sensed that from Bush.  He always looked uncomfortable in those surroundings, and his speech delivery was, well… unnatural.  Perhaps even he realized he really didn’t belong there. 
 
President Obama easily moved from making serious points about jobs, national security, taxes, war, and healthcare reform, to humorous remarks about those same topics.  He also called out both parties in ways I wanted him to, but never expected to hear.  He even scolded the Supreme Court for last week’s ruling that allows corporations to fund political campaigns.

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen that done before, but there hasn’t been a ruling by the court as egregious as that one for quite some time. (For further reading and illustrations about how SCOTUS sold our country to the rich, go to Clowncrack.com.)
 
And while asking both parties to reach agreements to pass laws to help the American people, he called out the Democrats:

To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills.

…and the Republicans: 

And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town — a supermajority — then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well.  Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership.

And while speaking about the budget, the Republicans again:

From some on the right, I expect we’ll hear a different argument — that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away.  The problem is that’s what we did for eight years.  That’s what helped us into this crisis.  It’s what helped lead to these deficits. We can’t do it again.

Obama really is a great orator, and when he spoke about the importance of putting aside petty political games that only further divide us and prevent our nation from moving forward, you really believed him – if you were a Democrat anyway.  We’ll see how the Republicans respond.  I have a feeling that they will remain obstinate, because politics is the only game they know.

Statement of Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen.

In eviscerating longstanding rules prohibiting corporations from using their own monies to influence elections, the court invites giant corporations to open up their treasuries to buy election outcomes. Corporations are sure to accept the invitation.

…

We need a constitutional amendment specifying that for-profit corporations are not entitled to First Amendment protections, except for freedom of the press. A constitutional amendment is not a thing to throw around lightly. But today’s decision so imperils our democratic well-being, and so severely distorts the rightful purpose of the First Amendment, that a constitutional corrective is demanded.

Winning a constitutional amendment will be a long-term effort. The starting point is for the people to petition their government to demand action. Public Citizen with allies has launched such a petition effort. Got to www.dontgetrolled.org to sign the petition.

Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a way bigger deal than the outcome of the Massachusetts election. 

Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

…

Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, an author of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, called the ruling “a terrible mistake.”

“Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns,” said Mr. Feingold, a Democrat.

Giving corporations the right to fund election campaigns is an absurdity.  This kind of ruling is what I feared most following Bush’s Supreme Court appointments. 
 
Corporations have been around far longer than our country, and our founding fathers were very wary of extending privileges to economic entities.  They were way more concerned with living, breathing human beings.  The Bill of Rights was written for the benefit of people, not companies – and there lies the ultimate irony of this ruling. 
 
The driving force behind getting this case to the Supreme Court came from The Right, and they are the faction that, when it comes to appointing Supreme Court Justices, scream for “strict constructionists.”  Nowhere in the Constitution are there any rights granted to corporations.  Why?  Because corporations can amass huge quantities of money and they can live forever.  Our founders did not approve of giving such entities a voice in electing representatives of the people, because they knew that corporate contributors would fund campaigns of candidates that, once elected, would satisfy the wants and needs of business, not people.
 
Goldman Sachs is huge and they reported $13.4 billion in profits today.  They should not be allowed to fund the campaigns of congressmen because their interests and the interests of your average American are vastly different.  As a result of today’s ruling, one huge corporation like Goldman Sachs will be able to blast the grassroots campaigns of reform candidates clean out of the water. 
 
The Plutocracy just got way bigger today.  Say goodbye to the Republic, because it’s a thing of the past.  It’s a sad day in the history of our country.  A travesty.

Watch and learn…

These are the first twenty-five I could think of off the top of my head. My second exercise was to go down this list and quickly ascertain which of them, under certain circumstances, I would give up in order to protect my privacy, my autonomy, or simply because I appreciate the freedom more than I care to exercise it. The list shortened itself pretty damned fast.

What would you think if you had to show current, state-issued ID to do any of the following? By the logic of the Supremes, all of them are subject to fraud and therefore would benefit by requiring picture ID.

1. Entering a court of law
2. Moving to a different state
3. Participating in a political demonstration
4. Registering as a member of a political party
5. Signing a petition
6. Registering to vote
7. Attending public school
8. Borrowing from a public library
9. Attending religious services
10. Renting an apartment
11. Acquiring a defense lawyer 
12. Having a child
13. Exchanging foreign currency
14. Reporting a crime
15. Attending a political forum
16. Donating to a presidential campaign
17. Accessing the internet
18. Purchasing medication
19. Donating to a charity
20. Accepting charity
21. Exercising your constitutional rights
22. Spending federal currency
23. Purchasing controversial publications
24. Choosing a religion
25. Denying your religion 

If we allow the fascist, rule-mongering elitists of the republican party to require proof of ID in order to exercise our freedoms, what’s to stop them from making stricter the laws that govern the issuance of picture ID?

It cost me $50 to renew my driver license last month. A passport is just as much with 5 times the hassle. My own mother went years without a driver license and never applied for welfare because she didn’t want my father, who had threatened to kill her and steal her children, once he was released from prison, to find us. I can’t imagine how many other reasons people with serious reasons to have a say in local, state, and federal politics might simply choose to forgo their rights in order to maintain their own self-determination and autonomy. 

This supreme court is out of control.