[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income

Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place?

"Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil"

"New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris"

"Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony"

Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX)

Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’

‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber

Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist'

Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away.

No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say !

"Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ "

"Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate"

"The Teleprompter Campaign"

Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh

"Pagans in Paris"

"Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election".

"Enter Harris, Stage Lef"t

Official describes the moment a Butler officer confronted the Trump shooter

Jesse Watters: Don’t buy this excuse from the Secret Service

Video shows Trump shooter crawling into position while folks point him out to law enforcement

Eyewitness believes there was a 'noticeable' difference in security at Trump's rally

Trump Assassination Attempt

We screamed for 3 minutes at police and Secret Service. They couldn’t see him, so they did nothing. EYEWITNESS SPEAKS OUT — I SAW THE ASSASSIN CRAWLING ACROSS THE ROOF.

Video showing the Trump Rally shooter dead on the rooftop

Court Just Nailed Hillary in $6 Million FEC Violation Case, 45x Bigger Than Trump's $130k So-Called Violation

2024 Republican Platform Drops Gun-Rights Promises

Why will Kamala Harris resign from her occupancy of the Office of Vice President of the USA? Scroll down for records/details

Secret Negotiations! Jill Biden’s Demands for $2B Library, Legal Immunity, and $100M Book Deal to Protect Biden Family Before Joe’s Exit

AI is exhausting the power grid. Tech firms are seeking a miracle solution.

If you need a Good Opening for black, use this.

"Arrogant Hunter Biden has never been held accountable — until now"

How Republicans in Key Senate Races Are Flip-Flopping on Abortion

Idaho bar sparks fury for declaring June 'Heterosexual Awesomeness Month' and giving free beers and 15% discounts to straight men

Son of Buc-ee’s co-owner indicted for filming guests in the shower and having sex. He says the law makes it OK.

South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel

Today I turned 50!

San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee

Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas

Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport!

Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park

Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next'

Will it ever end?

Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar?

Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version

There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

International News
See other International News Articles

Title: Obama lied about the Supreme Court's ruling
Source: corner.nationalreview.com
URL Source: http://corner.nationalreview.com/po ... EzOGQ3MTMwYzgzYjNmODBiMzQzZjk=
Published: Jan 28, 2010
Author: Bradley A. Smith
Post Date: 2010-01-28 12:45:27 by dont eat that
Keywords: None
Views: 1096
Comments: 9

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: dont eat that (#0)

Its demogoguery. Even the Left's Constitutional Scholars are saying so.

If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo....

Badeye  posted on  2010-01-28   12:54:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: All (#0) (Edited)

ABBEY NATL N AMERICA LLC - US incorporated subsidiary of Abbey National Bank PLC

Panasonic Finance America - US incorporated subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation, Japan

Nestle Capital Corp - US incorporated subsidiary Nestle VX, Switzerland

Cadbury Schwepps Finance - US incorporated subisidary of Cadbury Schwepps PLC England

Lukoil US Funding - US incorporated subisidary of Lukoil Russis....

~~~~~

Each of the above is a 100% US corporation.

war  posted on  2010-01-28   13:04:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: war (#2)

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind.

If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo....

Badeye  posted on  2010-01-28   13:09:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Badeye, war (#3)

The court specifically did "NOT" decide on whether foreign owned companies with U.S. subsidiaries are still subject to contribution limits, however it looks like there is no way to limit their activities under this ruling. (see: www.scotusblog.com/2010/0...en-questions/#more-15341)

Folks need to remember that Obama was a constitutional law professor at one time, he knows this stuff. It still seems as if it is difficult for folks to realize that we now have an intelligent President.

go65  posted on  2010-01-28   13:43:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: go65 (#4)

Obama Makes Bush Look Like a Genius

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article16710.html

dont eat that  posted on  2010-01-28   13:48:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: go65 (#4)

Folks need to remember that Obama was a constitutional law professor

False.

If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo....

Badeye  posted on  2010-01-28   13:52:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: go65 (#4)

Q: Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor? When I was in law school, I addressed all of my course instructors as "professors," regardless of their rank or formal position in the school academic hierarchy (tenured professor, assistant professor, adjunct professor, lecturer, etc.). Was Obama exaggerating or factually wrong in referring to himself as a "constitutional law professor" at the University of Chicago Law School even though his official title was lecturer? A: His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor. Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."

Recently, Hillary Clinton's campaign has picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:

Singer (March 27): Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response.

The campaign also sent out an e-mail quoting an Aug. 8, 2004, column in the Chicago Sun-Times that criticized Obama for calling himself a professor when, in fact, the University of Chicago faculty page listed him as “a senior lecturer (now on leave)." The Sun-Times said, "In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." The Clinton campaign added that the difference between senior lecturers and professors is that "professors have tenure while lecturers do not."

If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo....

Badeye  posted on  2010-01-28   13:54:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Badeye (#6)

False.

True:

www.factcheck.org/askfact...a_constitutional_law.html

go65  posted on  2010-01-28   14:06:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: go65 (#8)

(laughing) Uh huh, bout as legitimate as the 'professor' on Gilligan's Island. But whatever...

If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo....

Badeye  posted on  2010-01-28   14:10:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com