Friday, August 13, 2010

1st Amendment under attack-Part2

This is absolutely insane. Left attacks freedom of speech again!


Here we have liberal progressives targeting (no pun intended) a company, Target Corp, for giving $150K to a GOP candidate to help them get elected.

As BowelMoveon.org puts it "Target is receiving criticism and frustration from their customers because they are doing something wrong, and that should serve absolutely as an example for other companies,"

BUT in the recent bailout bill that Congress just passed, which gives $26B to states and their AFT unions to keep some schools stay open, there is a stipulation within the bill that allows those unions to strip money off the top to finance political Ads in favor of DNC candidates against their GOP rivals.

The Progressive argument is that Corporations are not people, so they don’t have a right to freedom of speech, guaranteed by the US Constitution.

However, the 1st amendment clearly states “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”

Nowhere does it say abridging the freedom of speech of the “PEOPLE”
On top of it, the picture above shows those Progressives handing out lititure to 'KIDS'...Indoctrination?

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) -- Protesters have been rallying outside Target Corp. or its stores almost daily since the retailer angered gay rights supporters and progressives by giving money to help a conservative Republican gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota. Liberal groups are pushing to make an example of the company, hoping its woes will deter other businesses from putting their corporate funds into elections.


A national gay rights group is negotiating with Target officials, demanding that the firm balance the scale by making comparable donations to benefit candidates it favors. Meanwhile, the controversy is threatening to complicate Target's business plans in other urban markets. Several city officials in San Francisco, one of the cities where Target hopes to expand, have begun criticizing the company.


"Target is receiving criticism and frustration from their customers because they are doing something wrong, and that should serve absolutely as an example for other companies," said Ilyse Hogue, director of political advocacy for the liberal group MoveOn.org, which is pressing Target to formally renounce involvement in election campaigns.


But conservative organizations are likely to react harshly if Target makes significant concessions to the left-leaning groups.


The flap has revealed new implications of a recent Supreme Court ruling that appeared to benefit corporations by clearing the way for them to spend company funds directly in elections. Companies taking sides in political campaigns risk alienating customers who back other candidates.


Target's $150,000 donation to a business-oriented group supporting Republican Tom Emmer, an outspoken opponent of gay marriage, was one of the first big corporate contributions to become known after the U.S. Supreme Court threw out prohibitions on corporate spending in elections earlier this year.

14 comments:

Chris said...

Please post a link to this on my blog post. We have to get the word out about what they are doing. It's only a matter of time before they shut us all down at this rate. And the left think they are ammune to payback when the tide turns. I pray we don't end up in a country were we destroy their rights like they trampled ours.

Mark Adams said...

When they continue to do this, day after day, I am concerned for the nation as a whole. Most Americans will not stand quietly and let them trounce the rights of the American people. If we don't stop it, it could get very violent to the point we haven't seen in well over a century.

Chicago Ray said...

There's SO SO many of us and so so few of them I don't know why we let ourselves be fooled by one or two hired protesters.

All liberal protesters aren't even Astro turfers they're full time rabblerousers and the Gay Gestapo can kiss my hetero ass on each cheek as once again we're talking about 2 % of the human race. Piddle.

I say f em all and just vote the losers out, we'll have to deal with these leftover lefties who don't starve to death by enforcing treason laws with the new congress and president that's coming. These people are in for an avalanche in November like none before it. Then this:

No more rule by the minority anymore.

No more commies on the school campuses and shut down the liberal movement at whatever the cost socially and otherwise.

If communism isn't outlawed what should be?

JoeC said...

Mark, i disagree with your view on the Constitution and find it alarmingly activist. There is no doubt in my mind that the founders did not have corporations in mind when framing the Bill Of Rights and that the enumerated rights were given solely to individuals not companies.

in fact i think you should consider this...

"Madison’s version of the speech and press clauses, introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, provided: “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.”1 The special committee rewrote the language to some extent, adding other provisions from Madison’s draft, to make it read: “The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.”2 In this form it went to the Senate, which rewrote it to read: “That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”3 Subsequently, the religion clauses and these clauses were combined by the Senate.4 The final language was agreed upon in conference."

in the end i think the concept of applying to "the People" was simply accepted and not written because it didn't need to be so.

Mark Adams said...

Joe, so what you are saying is that corporations (business), be they with in the confines of our nation do not have a right to express themselves, collectively?
The simple fact is, Joe, the 1st amendment says this, word for word: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."

The United States Constitution and federal regulations are in place to protect the interest of businesses AND people working in the United States.
If business did not have the protection of the constitution, Government would not have the authority, by virtue of the 16th and article 1, section 8, to lay and collect tax from them.
Remember there can be no taxation without representation.
You can't hold business accountable for some parts of the constitution but deny them the rest.
As the Supreme Court just rules “Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity,”
In Decent it was written '“While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics"
Gives no conclusion as to why they don't have freedom of speech AND the nation is referred to as 'American democracy' by this justice.
It's NOT, it's a republic: "a state in which the supreme power rests with the body of citizens or body of persons" Body of persons is referred to as a collective body. Business is a collective body.
But, based on the 1st wording, in plan, simple logic "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."

Mark Adams said...

FYI Joe, I have no problem with unions having freedom of speech... They ARE a collective body.

Mark Adams said...

Ray "Gay Gestapo can kiss my hetero ass on each cheek as once again we're talking about 2 % of the human race. Piddle."

LMAO!! Classic statement!!!

And any one who holds a political ideology of Communism, Fascism and Socialism should be banned from holding public office!

JoeC said...

Mark, I don't believe that labor has the same rights as individuals despite more directly representing them than business. I agree with McCain-Feingold in limiting both.

johnsondavidl said...

@ JoeC, here is a definition of business:
Definitions of business (n)
busi·ness [ bíznəss ]
line of work: a particular trade or profession
commercial organization: a company or other organization that buys and sells goods, makes products, or provides services
commercial activity: commercial activity involving the exchange of money for goods or services

While originally developed as an organized labor movement to have a stronger voice within the business world, over the years the Unions have changed their purpose and activites to that of a business.

Take the UAW for instance. Have ownership in GM, so they are now a business owner, yet they have a strong relationship with the Federal Government, contribute enormous sums of money to the Democrats and organise (force) their labor members to vote Democratic.

Could the original framers of the Bill of Rights have forseen this corruption?

Perhaps they should have wrote into the Bill of Rights, "hey all you businessess and labor organizations stay the hell out of it"!

Mark Adams said...

Well then Joe, you don't believe in the 1st amendment, and thats why I will never consider you a traditional, real American.
You, I consider you a person "who seeks to fundamentally change our nation to an ideology that America was never meant to be."
You don't believe in the very document thats gives you and every person or 'body of persons' this right.

JoeC said...

Ohhh well there goes my REAL AMERICAN CARD.

Mark, your considerations about me don't bother me in the least. In fact i consider it a compliment that you would do something so astoundingly Un-American as to classify who you think is real and not real. Its a badge of honor to hold that place in your mind. Ohhh well there goes my REAL AMERICAN CARD.

To the extent that you hold my differing opinion to deny me the ability to attain "Real American" status, only proves the greatness of our country and the lacking of its inhabitants.

Mark Adams said...

Joe, what part of "traditional, real American." didn't you get. Oh that’s right, you forgot traditional.

Tell you what, you get behind the FULL US Constitution as written, personal liberties, free market/Capital ideas, less government intrusions in to American life, prosperity for ALL to seek and hold and denounce taking property from one and 'giving it to another as entitlement' you can have you founding fathers, real American card back.
Until then, you and your leadership will be labeled socialist from now until the end of time.

JoeC said...

Mark the greatness of our country is that i can believe that i am behind the constitution 100 percent as you can be believe you are. And that debate doesn't end with us, Scholars and constitutional wonks of all kinds have the same disagreements as we do, so there is no winning or losing only interpretation.

And i take the actions of the Supreme Court to be as solidly activist as any decision has ever been. That they violate the constitution and its intentions. You disagree, but your still a Real American to me, God love you.

Mark Adams said...

OK, Joe. Do you believe in the 2nd, the right to keep and bear Arms. According to 4 on the SC we don't.
Do you believe that free speech zones, where you can only voice your decent from certain areas but the rest don't have to follow such?

Is obvious you don't believe a body of persons has a right to freedom of speech.
And neither did 4 justices on the SC

Do you believe the Government has a right to levy a direct penalty for not doing something?

The real greatness of this country is that you can believe that you are behind the constitution 100%, but the action of your leadership shows quite to contrary.

56% of the American people believe putting a label of Socialist on Obama is fair.
I am certain that, that was not the intentions of our founding father.