Star One Smart Blog's

Since the original intent of McCain - Feingold was to silence groups like the NRA, the decision overturning one of the left's primary tools fueling it's own takeover of government and it's unchallenged expansion is a victory for American citizens and gunowners that's especially sweet.

Here's the NRA-ILA's formal response...

"NRA praised the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that removed unconstitutional restrictions on NRA’s ability to speak freely at election time.

"The late Sen. Paul Wellstone had said during the original debate over this legislation that it was his intention to silence groups like NRA.  While the author of this measure had singled out NRA, this law delivered a clear message to all American citizens: “Keep your mouths shut and stay out of our political debates.”

"NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, said, “This ruling is a victory for anyone who believes that the First Amendment applies to each and every one of us.  The majesty of free speech is that any American can roll out of bed and speak as freely as The New York Times, NBC or politicians.  This is a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us; and for those who believed that speech had a dollar value and should be treated and regulated like currency, and not a freedom.  Today’s decision reaffirms that the Bill of Rights was written for every American and it will amplify the voice of average citizens who want their voices heard.”

"The case originally centered on the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) denial of Citizens United’s attempt to broadcast a film about Hillary Clinton through on-demand cable services in January 2008, but had broader implications in protecting the First Amendment rights of organizations like NRA during elections.

"NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox, said, “This decision today returns sanity to our political system.  The First Amendment does not allow Congress to make laws denying Americans the right to speak out on issues, the right to assemble or organize on public policy issues, or the right to petition our government for redress of grievances.”

"NRA-ILA has been in the forefront of defending the First Amendment so we can protect the Second Amendment.  This ruling is clearly a victory for our continuing efforts to educate voters on where politicians stand on our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms." [emboldenings mine -ed.]

Yes we can. Yes we have.

Enjoy! The cryings from the (lefty) politicians and the wailings from the (lefty) bloggers, and their wholly-owned denizens in the media! You'd think they'd taken a second body-blow this week. You'd think they were despondent, and that Obama feels this loss quite personally.

Oh, but he does...

Well, the Obama administration actually argued for these regulations before the Supreme Court in defending campaign finance regulations. Actually, they went even further and said that such regulations were essential to limiting how much money is spent on political campaigns.

Read About It: Fox News

...when President Obama's Deputy Solicitor General, Malcolm Stewart, first argued the case "Hillary: The Movie" before the Supreme Court last March, Justice Samuel Alito asked him if the government could prohibit companies from publishing books. Stewart said that was indeed possible. "That's pretty incredible," Alito responded, and then he pointed out that most book publishers are corporations.

"If [the book] has one name, one use of a candidate’s name, it could be covered?” Chief Justice John Roberts then asked. And Stewart replied: “That’s correct.” “It’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, so vote for X. The government could ban that?” Roberts asked. Again, Stewart said yes.

When the case was reargued before the Supreme Court in September, Stewart was replaced by Solicitor General Elena Kagan. Kagan, realizing that the court was shocked by Stewart's statements, said that pamphlets, not books, could be banned.

When Chief Justice John Roberts asked her about pamphlets, here's what she said: "A pamphlet would be different. A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering." But Kagan's answer is hardly comforting. Is the government going to have a word limit that lets bureaucrats decide when something goes from being a "pamphlet" to a book? How long would that last?

And what else is a blog post, if it were printed on paper, other than a pamphlet? Obama would be happy to silence all dissent. He's not liking these repeated face-slaps. Without the bothersome dissenters, the 'phampleteers', he wouldn't have to parade about the nation with such a long, defeated face.


Oh, and especially sweet is the furor of SEIU (one of the Unions that now have some needed competition in the political arena of words).  Anna Burger, SEIU Secretary and Treasurer...

"Our democratic process was meant to protect the people not profit margins and today's decision makes the need for an effective system for public funding, effective disclosure regulations, and other reforms of federal elections all the more pressing.

"We look forward to working with concerned individuals, officials and groups to remedy to the greatest degree possible the unfortunate consequences of this Supreme Court decision, through legislation and other appropriate means."

Suck it, SEIU.

Yes, I am celebrating this weekend. Both victories: the fall of "Ted Kennedy's Seat" and the fall of "McCain - Feingold". Both slaps in the face to leftists; both victories for the little people.

We needs keep the momentum strong throughout the entire year, 2010, to the November elections. And strong to 2012, to throw the primary bum out.

Time to throw all the bums out. All of 'em, including that McCain fellow, who helped author this crap in the first place.

---