Why I support the recent Supreme Court decision.

In last night's State of the Union address, President Obama took the opportunity to publicly berate the justices of the Supreme Court on national television because of their recent decision in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The case centered around a law passed in 1907 that made corporate contributions to political campaigns illegal. While the law itself was not overturned because of this case, the decision rendered by the court pertained to an aspect of McCain-Feingold that prevented unions, corporations and similar entities from funding advertisements for or against candidates within a specified time frame prior to an election. McCain-Feingold did nothing to prevent the flow of money, as it only gave rise to 527 groups designed to circumvent the restrictions on money it claimed to limit. Instead, McCain-Feingold was designed around the idea of making it easier for incumbent, entrenched, career politicians to defend themselves in elections by making it more difficult for vested opponents to directly challenge their re-election through targeted commercial advertisements. This specific law is what was overturned.

The Constitution protects the individual right of free speech. Just like unions, corporations are owned by, invested in and directed by individual investors. While they are individuals, they are a collective of people with a shared purpose.

Corporations were designed around the individual - to legally protect them from unlimited liability and protect personal assets. That is why a single individual can form a corporation for precisely those reasons.

The Supreme Court had to decide if the government had the right to hinder the free speech of corporations and other businesses while simultaneously exempting other businesses entities from those very same laws. Now, there is no more giving free speech to some while denying it to others. They're all the same.

Here is why I favor this decision: Over the years I have watched smarmy, self-indulgent, race-baiting Marxist reprobates worm their way into political power and influence by attacking companies and the private sector through stereotypical blanket attacks. This company is racist. This company is sexist. This company makes too much money. This company's employees won't unionize. This company sells fattening food. This company uses too much energy. This company doesn't do enough for the environment. Does this sound at all familiar? It should, because you could spend all day going through the entire list of legitimate businesses in the US, and in some form or fashion - most will fall into that list of criteria in one way or the other. That is by design.

Somehow, liberals are under the impression that they are entitled to attack perfectly legal companies selling or offering perfectly legal products and services....hassle them in court, publicly protest them, smear their employees and attempt in as many ways possible to hurt the company's bottom line....but simultaneously say that the companies under such assaults are not entitled to fully defend themselves and stand up for themselves through whatever legal means they have at their disposal. Liberal politicians have repeatedly engaged in systematic attacks on the private sector by leveraging the power and unlimited financial resources of the government in an effort to hobble the ability of privately owned corporations to operate unhindered within the US.

A prime example:

Years ago, banks were allowed to individually set personal criteria as to who qualified for personal loans. Banks had a simple rule founded on thousands of years of common sense - If you didn't earn enough money or possess sufficient assets to offset the risk of a loan - you're weren't going to get it.

When liberal politicians in Washington started going after banks, the first thing the banks lost was their right to maintain the privacy over their loan criteria. Naturally, when they were forced to open their books - people gasped with faux shock at the obvious...poor people with low-paying jobs living in poor neighborhoods were unable to qualify for loans. That was common sense, but common sense meant nothing the moment the sharks smelled blood in the water.

Suddenly, banks were no longer lending institutions - they were merely racist institutions that needed to have more government regulation thrown at them. Banks were accused of denying loans to poor people because they were black, not because they were bad loan risks. Under increased regulation and constant public scrutiny and broad accusations of racism, banks and lending institutions buckled.

The result? The same filthy, greasy, race-baiting politicians used race as a wedge issue to win votes by channeling people's frustration about their economic plight...abetting in the creation of a flawed financial system designed around giving more loans to people who in any sane economic environment would have been told to go pound sand. Subsequently, these same vermin in Washington had the nerve to act surprised when these people defaulted on their loans en masse and was the core foundation of the recent loan scandal and financial collapse, as the loan-based securities that failed became worthless because the loans backing them became worthless.

Banks, like any other company, exist to remain in business by making a profit. No sane lending institution would ever knowingly give loans to people who cannot pay them back, and that is precisely what they were forced to do because of unethical political pressure brought to bear against them by reprobates like Barney Frank.

Consider the following alternative scenario: If the previous political speech-limiting laws for businesses enacted in 1907 not been in place, banks and every other manner of lending institution would have been capable of defending themselves, their business practices and taken on every single individual and organization who portrayed them as racists entities. They would have been able to take on every politician who also accused them of racism, and in turn would have been able to take out as much political commercial time as they could afford, and defend themselves even further by more funding of candidates who would not have enacted such economically stupid ideas.

Within the past year, President Obama and the rest of the liberals in the House and Senate have engaged in what I cannot describe as anything else but a full fledged, no-holds-barred attack on the entire private sector of the country. He has deliberately spent hundreds and hundreds of billions of yet-to-be-earned tax dollars growing the government run public sector and doing virtually nothing to encourage private sector growth. He is doing this because he believed that the huge budget deficits, loss of jobs and loss of job supplied medical benefits would force people to embrace government run healthcare and give up their liberties in exchange. All of this has been intentional.

As conservatives and Republicans currently do not have sufficient votes to ultimately stop anything the liberals in Washington hope to enact, this ruling was a God-send. People who are unemployed are powerless, with little opportunity on the horizon. People who are still working are bringing home less, paying more and are thoroughly disgusted that their tax burden is certain to increase because of the Presidents economic lunacy. They have little to spare in both financial and economic capital to fight anything, and Washington has made it all too clear that they aren't listening to our anger.

This ruling heralds the beginning of a crack in a door that liberals never wanted reopened. Imagine oil companies, publicly defiled for providing and refining a product we all use and need - taking out huge commercial time pointing the finger at every politician who used public sentiment to attack their business, or Walmart standing up for themselves during an election year by painting political detractors as uncaring criminals out to hurt the company providing good-paying jobs and affordable products to struggling families. Even cooler, imagine the entertainment industry in Las Vegas mobilizing a huge ad blitz against President Obama and Harry Reid as payback for their lost revenue from disparaging remarks made by the duo earlier last year against companies seeking to conduct business there. Those commercials would be priceless.

I don't support this ruling because I think that the business sector is perfect, far from it. I support it because the private sector needs to mobilize against the statists in power who are eager to make the ruination of capitalism another notch on their bedposts. It is worth the risk, because we already know that we don't want the alternative.