Senate Democrats plan a vote to amend the First Amendment to curtail criticism.

Fascists: Senate Democrats plan a vote to amend the First Amendment to curtail criticism.

Think of the big issues facing the American public. We now routinely borrow about 40 cents on the dollar for our federal budget, our entitlement programs are heading for a fiscal collapse in the hundreds of trillions of dollars, and our economy has stagnated through nearly five years of Democratic-run economic policy in the “recovery.” What do Senate Democrats plan to do about this? Make it harder for us to complain about it.

The text of the amendment specifically gives Congress the power to limit the right of citizens to support the candidates of their choice. Who thinks they won’t abuse that power, should they get it?

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

4 comments

  • Cotour

    A desperate move by desperate people, despicable! They, like Obama are less than Americans.

    I however like this legislative suggestion:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/30/bundy-aftermath-utah-lawmaker-moves-to-disarm-blm-/

    And in addition to create a new non threatening tax system and the elimination of the IRS. I can dream.

  • Pzatchok

    I love reading the comments under the article.

    Those people are idiots.

    The biggest one said something like “A lot of commentators are missing how vague an amendment MUST be in order to appeal broadly and be able to be interpreted differently as times change. Once the power is enabled, the details are in (the) legislation. ”

    He actually thinks that a vague law is a good law. Does he not think that eventually the “other side” will gain power and change it to suite themselves?

    The constitution is not vague at all. It is NOT a changing and ‘living’ document. It can not change because if it does all laws built on it will change or be rendered useless.

    Granted some subjects were intentionally left out. But addressing them latter did not alter the framework that was established.

    They are forgetting that if they intentionally limit free speech, I.E. political spending, by one group they stand a very good chance of eventually limiting other groups free speech.
    If they limit corporate spending and specific types of speech then the SC could also rule that all groups be limited the very same way. Both candidate and issue groups and profit and non profit all treated the same.

    They will them have to limit individual spending so that the rich can not just buy the ad time and make their own political points.
    But that would then leave all the power in the hands of TV personalities who have the air time and will to make their personal points heard. Using billion dollar networks and million dollar shows they do not own but have control over.
    Thus their voices would be the only ones heard. In volume far exceeding that of the average citizen.

    Vague and changeable laws are exactly how dictators gain, conglomerate and keep power. Just as many “democracies” have fallen to dictators using the democratic way to gain power and them using it again to change laws and concentrate all power in their hands than any other system.

    If the core laws that created that democracy are not vigorously defended by the people then that democracy will eventually fall into a dictators hands.

    • Cotour

      Good points, the Constitution is an objective document designed to set the boundaries of government and not based in the emotion of the moment. Educated people who argue that the Constitution is a “living” document misinterpret it. All of the mechanisms for change are contained within the document if and when it is determined that change is necessary. It is a distraction to characterize it as “living”. Another tool of distraction that improperly ties personal subjective emotion with the objective, justice becomes social justice for example.

      These techniques are used to draw lines of battle between two sides and tends to make an individual become the arbiter of what is just and unjust, fair and unfair and to choose a side (in order to be manipulated). All enemy’s of the Constitution, manipulative attempts to distract, rewrite and reinterpret the Constitution. Something that needs no rewriting or the reinterpreting of its intent.

  • Cotour

    More BULL SHT by a professional BULL SHTR. Did anyone in the sycophantic audience ask Mr. Clinton why he took down Glass / Steigle? Or why he put the Neighborhood Reinvestment Act on steroids and what were the results of that action? Or how he allowed the Chinese to acquire our missile technology? Or about all of those nice Chinese dollars that flooded into his campaign? Now those are good questions, not this BS about how he and his wife love to pay more taxes.

    The guy (and his wife) sickens me. I guess that would indicate that she will be the next president if my record on predicting political wins and the direction that America needs to take remains in tact.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/30/Bill-Clinton-I-Thank-God-Every-Year-That-I-Get-To-Pay-More-Taxes

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *