The Democrats in the Senate moved this week to introduce a constitutional amendment for limiting the first amendment and the freedom of speech.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

At least they are finally being honest: The Democrats in the Senate moved this week to introduce a constitutional amendment for limiting the first amendment and the freedom of speech.

Share

14 comments

  • Cotour

    How about this one:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/18/targeted-gun-sellers-say-high-risk-label-from-feds/

    This being the mission statement it seems a most contradictory and duplicitous endeavor:

    ” A Justice Department representative said the agency is conducting several investigations that aim to hold accountable banks “who are knowingly assisting fraudulent merchants who harm consumers.” ”

    What do they consider the governments involvement in the cigarette, tobacco and alcohol industries is doing to consumers if that is the metric? (But the government does love those taxes.) Another BS attack on the Constitution by this government by selectively determining what is “harming” consumers?

    BS administration and BS policies and a BS president

  • Cotour

    I just received my healthcare renewal papers, two years ago there was a 34% increase, this year the increase is 42%. I am at the point now where I can not afford my insurance without trading something else for it. Quality of food, automobile insurance, new shoes, breakfast etc, etc.

    We will all be equal when we are all bankrupt. THAT is the model that is being followed by our country now. Marx you beautiful, sick bearded bastard and everyone moron that follows you, you win! (and from the grave to boot!)

  • Pzatchok

    I hope it passes and passes fast.

    Its everything the Democrats deserve. Its everything they need.

  • Jake

    How is it possible that your health care costs rose 34% last year and 42% this year?

    President Obama said three years ago the average American would save at least $2,000/year. And that it would be about as much as your cell phone plan. And Harry Reid said that anyone with such complaints was a liar.

  • wodun

    Don’t be so hard on Obama. He meant to say it would cost as much as rent. Can’t be too tough on the guy. It was a small error after all.

  • Cotour

    My policy is no longer in compliance with the ACA that’s how it has increased. $2000.00 a year? I don’t know what our president was talking about, it certainly was not about healthcare and insurance. Our country is now a country of false accomplishments and lies about everything else.

  • wodun

    The promise was actually a reduction of $2500 a year for a family.

  • LTCStein

    I would hope this proposal wouldn’t get past the states but will be a wake up call to the silent majority (elections matter. VOTE). If not, then it will take us one step further down the road to a 2nd American Revolution. Good thing the Liberals don’t like guns. It will be a short fight.

  • Cotour

    This really says it ALL. No further comment necessary.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ben-carson-defends-obamacare-slavery-comparison-go-look-at-neo-marxist-literature/

    B. Obama, the counter balance to G. Bush jr., Ben Carson, the counter balance to B. Obama.

  • Garry

    So, if their amendment goes through, incumbents can print and mail all the literature they want at government expense, in the guise of keeping their constituents informed, whereas for challengers, printing and mailing expenses would go towards the limits on what they can spend. Yes, I realize that it’s been a long time since print literature has been the primary medium for campaigns, but this still reeks of reinforcing the advantage of incumbency, which is the opposite of what we should be doing.

    I don’t agree much with my old man on politics, but I like his idea of requiring tv stations to give a certain amount of air time to candidates, as a condition of getting their FCC license. I have some philosophical objections to this idea, but as a practical matter, it might be a great way to give some good exposure to challengers.

  • Cotour

    Let me refine that statement to more accurately reflect what I believe must happen in our country, driven by the people themselves, not to be too simplistic and / or idealistic:

    Ben Carson is the American Constitutional counter balance to both G. Bush jr. and B. Obama and the American flavor of fascism that we find ourselves in the middle of at this moment in time.

    And if and when Ben Carson becomes empowered by the people then HE will have to be considered a threat to the peoples freedoms and watched and confronted on those subjects.

  • Pzatchok

    I do believe a rule similar to that is in effect.
    They are required to give equal time to each candidate who asks for it.

    The problem is they tend to give the best times to those they like and the worst times to those they do not like.

    And the rule only applies to broadcast stations. Not cable stations. And we all know how the viewership of broadcast stations is going. Right down the drain.

  • Pzatchok

    He meant you would save 2500 bucks vs. the worst estimates they could find.
    He never meant you would save anything from the costs you were already paying.

  • Garry

    As always, the devil is in the details. . .

Leave a Reply

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