I’m so glad the president and his minions have spoken. It gives me such a warm and fuzzy feeling to know they are looking after my best interests. In view of the recent Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to finance political campaigns the Democrats have once again proven their unwavering bias.

Yesterday the president opined that … ‘We don’t need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” In other words, he was going to make certain that new pieces of legislation would be introduced in the coming weeks that would blunt the impact of the courts ruling. Doesn’t this lead us to a sort of Catch 22 situation’A law suit forces the court to rule …the court rules..and a new piece of legislation is proposed which might get passed which will result in another law suit resulting in another ruling resulting in another piece of legislation’How many can be attempted before there is a time out’Perhaps the question should be…is there ever a time out’Another brilliant suggestion was voiced in this manner: Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., went even further. She suggested a constitutional amendment to strip a corporation’s “personhood” for First Amendment purposes. What a can of worms this would open up, obviously Ms. Edwards has no idea about the purpose and concept of a corporate entity. I guess she was absent from law school the day this was discussed.

Several legal scholars have voiced their concerns that trying to repeal this decision or to introduce legislation to regulate it once more places restrictions on the first amendment right of free speech. Of course, the current administration and its lockstep followers see it as an opportunity for big business to have more clout (read vote getting possibilities) in upcoming elections. I’m certain that the fact that most big businesses, as well as businesses in general, are owned and controlled by Republicans may have played into this analysis of the courts ruling. This follows the ‘fair play’ philosophy of the Democrats who believe if it is good for someone other than themselves it must be bad and done away with at all possible costs.

I find the words of the president to be especially curious when he says that he is concerned that the … ‘powerful interests may drown out the voices of everyday Americans.’ I may be old and more forgetful than perhaps twenty years ago, but didn’t the President of United States…a few weeks ago…jump on board of a sweet heart deal for the labor unions of this country in regards to taxation on healthcare’Maybe I missed something, but aren’t labor unions a ‘special interest’ group or are they exempt from criticism and inspection like …Acorn’As I recall, the IRS and the FBI were going to actively investigate the books at Acorn, but I haven’t heard anything recently about their progress. I looked up the words…’special interests’ in the dictionary and a picture of the logo for Acorn popped up….but what do I know…I’m just a citizen.

No, it seems to me that if something seems ok and for the benefit of those on the left, then heaven help anyone who might be looking to see if it is fair for all of us. They seem to labor under the impression that whatever is good for them is good for the rest of us as well. No one on our side should be expressing any views or comments contrary to those coming out of the beltway and to do so would be tantamount to being a traitor. I’m surprised we haven’t heard some left wing nut case to call for the reinstatement of the alien and sedition act. There seems to be no shortage of democratic zombies out there who would do any and everything possible to garner some form of adoration and largesse from the benevolent chief of state.

On second thought, give ‘em time…they’ll figure out a way to shovel it onto the pile