Dems Want New Constitutional Amendment to Curb Rights Guaranteed by the First Amendment

November 30, 2012 at 6:58 pm (Citizens United, Constitution, First Amendment, Georgia, Guam, Hank Johnson, Nancy Pelosi)

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), previously best known for his belief that the island of Guam could somehow tip over, is seeking an interesting way to fight what he considers an unfair ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling.

He wants an amendment to the Constitution that would control speech – a fundamental right guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Suddenly, the thought of Guam tipping over seems reasonable.

Via CBS Atlanta:

A Democratic representative is calling for an amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow for some legislative restriction of freedom of speech.

“We need a constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations,” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) was quoted as saying by CNS News.

He reportedly made these comments while speaking at the Annesbrooks HOA candidate Forum held last month.

This isn’t the first time we’ve heard this out of Democrats.  Nancy Pelosi made similar comments back in April.

From CNSNews.com:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday endorsed a movement announced by other congressional Democrats on Wednesday to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow Congress to regulate political speech when it is engaged in by corporations as opposed to individuals.
The First Amendment says in part: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . .”
Television networks, newspapers, publishing houses, movie studios and think tanks, as well as political action committees, are usually organized as, or elements of, corporations.
Pelosi said the Democrats’ effort to amend the Constitution is part of a three-pronged strategy that also includes promoting the DISCLOSE Act, which would increase disclosure requirements for organizations running political ads, and “reducing the roll of money in campaigns” (which some Democrats have said can be done through taxpayer funding of campaigns).
The constitutional amendment the Democrats seek would reverse the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In that decision the court said that the First Amendment protects a right of free speech for corporations as well as for individuals, and that corporations (including those that produce newspapers, films and books) have a right to speak about politicians and their records just as individuals do.

If you’re wondering how this would lead to censorship of everyday things like books, papers, or the internet, Chief Justice Roberts can explain.

The case in question led to this opinion written by Roberts:

“The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech,” wrote Roberts. “It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concerns.”

So we’re looking for a 28th Amendment to say, “You know that First Amendment … Just kidding!”

Confusing.  Makes you just want to throw up your arms and say, “Whatever it is, I’m with the Constitution of the United States.”

Permalink Leave a Comment

NY GOP: Kathy Hochul No Profile in Courage

August 20, 2012 at 3:55 pm (Balanced Budget, Chris Collins, Constitution, Contraception, Kathy Hochul, Kirsten Gillibrand, Medicare, Nancy Pelosi, New York, NY GOP, NY-26, Obamacare, President Obama, Tax Code, Tough Choices)

Kathy Hochul (D-NY) is running for reelection in New York’s 26th congressional district.  In her first ad this season called “Tough Choices”, Hochul claims that Washington is broken because, unlike her, they aren’t willing to make those tough choices.

“Washington extremists, Super PACs, and specials interest groups are already planning their own negative television commercials to distort my record, and we need to have the resources to fight back,” Hochul said in an email appeal for donations that accompanies a clip of the ad, which began airing in the WNY where she faces a neck-and-neck race with Republican Chris Collins — and a reported onslaught of NRCC cash to bolster his challenge.

The NY GOP however, is out with a statement questioning exactly how tough is it to be a rubber stamp for the Obama/Pelosi agenda. 

Kathy Hochul’s claims of bipartisanship and ‘bucking her own party’ would be admirable, if they didn’t require the willing suspension of disbelief. 

Congresswoman Hochul’s new ad touting her “tough choices,” by voting for the balanced budget amendment and for cutting foreign aid to Pakistan are nothing more than window dressing.  

If she was serious about addressing these issues in a bipartisan manner, Congresswoman Hochul would be calling on Senator Gillibrand and her colleagues in the Democrat controlled Senate to pass the balanced budget amendment, reign in out-of-control Government spending, and reduced the tax and regulatory burdens facing our job creators and small business owners.

Like we said, it would require the willing suspension of disbelief. 

Since going to Washington in 2011, Kathy Hochul has been a consistent rubberstamp for the Obama-Pelosi agenda, voting six times against a repeal of Obamacare, which continues to raise taxes on the middle class, raids $741 Billion from Medicare – leaving our seniors at risk – and has led to trillion dollar budget deficits. 

New Yorkers deserve better, and come November, voters in the 27th Congressional District will elect Chris Collins, a proven job creator and government reformer who will balance our budget, grow our economy, and reform our tax code.

Hochul is most famous on this blog because of a very telling moment at a townhall meeting in February. Hochul, in the following video, explained that she wasn’t concerned about the constitutionality of the HHS contraception mandate because “we’re not looking at the Constitution”.

Would it be too much to ask if we started making the “tough choice” to actually start looking at the Constitution?

Permalink Leave a Comment

Video: Muslims Filmed Stoning Christians … in the United States of America

June 26, 2012 at 6:43 pm (Arab Festival, Christians, Constitution, Dearborn, First Amendment, Michigan, Muslims, Radical Islam, Sharia, United States)

The video below, courtesy of United West, is stunning…

It appears as though a group of Christians staged a protest outside the 2012 Dearborn Arab Festival, and that protest turned ugly.  Those holding signs are seen being physically assaulted with bottles, eggs, stones, crates and several other objects.  The police, rather than diffusing the situation, turned the other way as things escalated.

The video is over 22 minutes long, and a majority of the swearing and violence seems to come from younger American Muslims.  While the video is shorter, the editors claim the assault took roughly 30 minutes before the police stepped in – to exchange words with the Christian group.  After the exchange, the hostile group continued their assault.

After the second barrage, the police instruct the Christian group to leave despite their assertion that they have a right to be there.

First Amendment anyone?  What is the police and media reaction if this were a group of Occupiers being assaulted?

Here is a YouTube description (h/t FTR Radio):

If this extremely disturbing video does not result in a Federal investigation into the human rights violations of those Christians physically attacked at the 2012 Dearborn Arab Festival then we are watching the beginning of a new America, a MUSLIM AMERICA.

In this new America, a MUSLIM AMERICA, shariah-compliant Muslims have succeeded in striking fear into the hearts of the infidels. In the case of the Dearborn Arab Festival, you will see that the infidels are NOT the few, brave Christians who withstood the physical attacks by the blood-thirsty Muslims, but the fearful are those who have taken an oath to protect Americans. The fearful, are the Dearborn Sheriff and Police. Sadly, you will see the Police fearful of confronting the criminals and enforcing the law as they stand by watching “Muslims Gone Wild,” attack the helpless Christians.

The United West predicts that success of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt combined with the mounting fury of the “Arab Spring,” coupled with the support of President Obama will result in an expansive, “strong-horse” onslaught of Muslim physical aggression, similar to this Dearborn disaster, all across the new, MUSLIM AMERICA.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Islamic Organization With Terror Ties Complains About – and Successfully Shuts Down – Event Celebrating the U.S. Constitution

April 30, 2012 at 3:11 pm (Ann Arbor, CAIR, Constitution, Hamas, Holy Land Foundation, Islam, Michigan, Muslim Brotherhood, Radical, Terror, Thomas More Law Center)

This is beyond outrageous.  Could somebody please explain to the officials running Michiganistan that they still live in America? … for the time being anyway.

Via Christian Newswire:

In the middle of an event to extol the virtues of the U.S. Constitution and “American Laws For American Courts,” the audience learned first-hand how easy it is to lose their freedom of Speech and Assembly.

Amid shouts of “What about free speech?” from the audience, the Allegan Police Department ordered the event shut-down. School officials notified police that they had received a letter complaining about the event from Dawud Walid, Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI). The letter asked the school to disallow the event despite an existing contract. CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism funding trial in U. S. history, U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation.

As a result, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR- MI), its Executive Director, the City of Allegan, the Allegan Police Department and the School District were named as defendants in a thirty-four page civil rights lawsuit filed in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Michigan, this morning. The claims included constitutional and contract violations. Click here for copy of federal complaint.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center commented, “It’s amazing how much clout CAIR has with the political establishment of both parties in Lansing and throughout Michigan and the nation. This, despite the fact that CAIR has its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood, was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, and the FBI’s former chief of counterterrorism, noted that CAIR, its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.”

This isn’t some paranoid right-wing entity that ties every Islamic organization to terrorism.  CAIR’s ties to terrorist organizations are real and tangible.

Here is an excerpt from my report on the New York Times and the wrongfully discredited film, the Third Jihad.

Oddly enough, the strongest opposition has been from groups such as CAIR, a prime example of the organizations that are actually exposed in the film. Ryan Mauro points out that the ones trying to silence the film and who oppose its use as training material in law enforcement are the same ones who stand to lose the most from the films portrayal of radical Islam.

“What amazes me is how The New York Times and other outlets seem to treat CAIR as an objective source,” Mauro said. “We expose how CAIR and its allies grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood and the federal government has provided evidence tying them to Hamas—of course they are going to try to discredit us.”

Indeed, CAIR was one of three prominent Islamic organizations that were named as an ‘unindicted co-conspirator’ in a case alleging criminal conspiracy to support the Palestinian Arab terrorist group, Hamas. A report in The New York Sun documented this, while including the following statement:

“CAIR, in particular, has faced persistent claims that it is soft on terrorism. Critics note that several former CAIR officials have been convicted or deported after being charged with fraud, embargo violations, or aiding terrorist training. Spokesmen for the group have also raised eyebrows for offering generic denunciations of terrorism but refusing to condemn by name specific Islamic terrorist groups such as Hamas or Hezbollah.”

Yet the group had little trouble calling out the New York Police Department, their commissioner Ray Kelly, the mayor of New York, and the filmmakers specifically by name when denouncing something critical of CAIR itself.

That same Sun report, however, featured FBI officials that still felt the designation of co-conspirator was not warranted. A mere two years later though, they had come to the realization that CAIR’s relationship to Hamas was real, severing its once-close ties to the organization, and labeling them as nothing more than a front for the terrorist group. Executive Director of CAIR, Nihad Awad, was shown to have participated in planning meetings with the Holy Land Foundation, five officials of which were convicted in December of funneling $12.4 million to Hamas. Not only is Hamas an official U.S.-designated terrorist group, according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, but it is illegal to provide support for it within the United States.

The rest of the report can be read here…

Ironically, the opening to that report seems appropriate for this new situation in Michigan.

Imagine a nation bound so tightly to the throws of the politically correct, that it can no longer defend itself. A nation so overcome with fear, that the common sense act of targeting the most likely terrorists is no longer considered an acceptable practice. Imagine an entire nation transformed from the basic understanding that it is at war with radicals willing to launch themselves as missiles into twin towers, to having the discussion turned completely on its head, to the point where even talking about that enemy is deemed taboo.

Thanks to the … brazen demands of terror-linked groups, America no longer has to imagine. We’re living it.

We’re living it indeed.  The Constitution takes second place to the demands of a terror-linked Islamic organization.  How easily we have forgotten that America comes first, and CAIR does not represent America’s best interests – they represent their own.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Nancy Pelosi Wants to Amend the First Amendment

April 20, 2012 at 9:10 am (Citizens United, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, First Amendment, Free Speech, Nancy Pelosi)

Zip it!

Since when is adhering to the Constitution a concern for Pelosi anyway?

From CNSNews.com:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday endorsed a movement announced by other congressional Democrats on Wednesday to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow Congress to regulate political speech when it is engaged in by corporations as opposed to individuals.
The First Amendment says in part: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . .”
Television networks, newspapers, publishing houses, movie studios and think tanks, as well as political action committees, are usually organized as, or elements of, corporations.
Pelosi said the Democrats’ effort to amend the Constitution is part of a three-pronged strategy that also includes promoting the DISCLOSE Act, which would increase disclosure requirements for organizations running political ads, and “reducing the roll of money in campaigns” (which some Democrats have said can be done through taxpayer funding of campaigns).
The constitutional amendment the Democrats seek would reverse the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In that decision the court said that the First Amendment protects a right of free speech for corporations as well as for individuals, and that corporations (including those that produce newspapers, films and books) have a right to speak about politicians and their records just as individuals do.

If you’re wondering how this would lead to censorship of everyday things like books, papers, or the internet, Chief Justice Roberts can explain…

The case in question led to this opinion written by Roberts:

“The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech,” wrote Roberts. “It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concerns.”

Permalink Leave a Comment

Appeals Court Angrily Challenges Obama on His Stance Regarding Judicial Review

April 3, 2012 at 9:48 pm (5th Circuit, Constitution, Court of Appeals, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, Federal Law, Healthcare, Jerry Smith, Obamacare, President Obama, Supreme Court)

As was reported here earlier, President Obama has gone out of his way in an attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court, flat-out lying about the “unprecedented” possibility of his healthcare law being ruled unconstitutional.  Apparently, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals didn’t take kindly to that characterization, and has issued a direct challenge to the administration, daring them to say they don’t believe that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law.


From CBS News:

In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was “confident” the Court would not “take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

The Law Blog provides the specific comments that sparked the challenge…

Judge Jerry Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a Reagan appointee, hears arguments in another Affordable Care Act case on Tuesday and asks Justice Department lawyer Dana Lydia Kaersvang whether the agency believes that the judiciary can knock down unconstitutional laws. You can find the link to the audio (start at around 18:00) here, and below is the key exchange.
Smith: Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?
Kaersvang: Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.
Smith: I’m referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect…that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed “unelected” judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed — he was referring, of course, to Obamacare — what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.
That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you’re telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.
KaersvangMarbury v. Madison is the law, your honor, but it would not make sense in this circumstance to strike down this statute, because there’s no –
Smith: I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday…a letter stating what is the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letter needs to be at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president’s statements and again to the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice.

The PJ Tatler response:

The only thing that’s unprecedented is the ObamaCare mandate forcing Americans to purchase a product approved by the government as the price of citizenship. Judicial review is just about as old as the nation itself. Well, the HHS mandate that kicks an executive branch jackboot through the First Amendment is unprecedented, too. I’ll grant that.

The President has embarrassed himself in a major way here, and there doesn’t appear to be any way to walk it back, though he has tried.

The ‘constitutional scholar’ has proven to be a constitutional illiterate.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Obama Threatens Supreme Court Not to Take ‘Unprecedented’ Step of Overturning His Healthcare Law

April 3, 2012 at 9:00 am (Constitution, Healthcare, Law, Mitt Romney, Obamacare, President Obama, Supreme Court, Unprecedented)

There are so many lies packed into his statement that it’s difficult to figure out where to begin.

Via Fox News:

President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law — while repeatedly saying he’s “confident” it will be upheld. 
The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress. 
“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said. 

Lie #1:  Obama doesn’t understand how an ‘unelected group of people’ could overturn a law.

Obama is a media-framed Constitutional expert, so his not understanding the basic system of checks and balances seems unlikely.  Just in case he’s a little foggy on the topic (after all, he hasn’t exactly attempted to heed the Constitution much since his days at Harvard), Mitt Romney explains:

“What the president’s complaining about, however, is that the Supreme Court might actually apply the Constitution to the bill that he passed! And the whole purpose of the Supreme Court is to make sure that Congress does not pass laws that are in violation of the Constitution.”

Lie #2:  The healthcare law was passed by a strong majority.

Even the Atlanta Journal Constitution is calling BS on this claim.  The healthcare bill had to be passed using trickery such as reconciliation and backroom deals. In the end, it still only passed the House by a vote of 219-212, and had to be rammed through Congress using a budget reconciliation maneuver that allowed it to bypass a Senate filibuster with just 51 votes.

Lie #3:  Overturning the law would be ‘extraordinary’ and ‘unprecedented’.

Doug Ross explains that this has only happened, well… over 1,300 times.

If find it curious that a self-professed Constitutional scholar doesn’t know that the Supreme Court has struck down more than 1,300 laws since the founding of the Republic.
• Unprecedented step of overturning a law? Oh, gee, Mr. Constitutional Scholar, as of 2002, the Supreme Court had only struck 1,315 laws down as unconstitutional, the first in 1803.

Does the arrogance of this President know no bounds?

For you drones and irregular Americans following along, that’s a rhetorical question.

So the smartest man in the room doesn’t understand basic laws, and the definition of the words ‘unprecedented’, and ‘majority’.

Not to mention the word ‘Constitution’.

Alexa Shrugged adds:

As many have pointed out, this is a laughably unprecedented and extraordinary definition of the words “unprecedented” and “extraordinary.”  It’s as if President Obama thinks the Supreme Court has never struck down a law before!  Or that Congress has never passed an unconstitutional law in its history! 

After his Solicitor General got terrible reviews for his oral arguments, which some think put the case in jeopardy, Obama is trying to reframe the debate in case he loses.  If Obamacare goes down, Obama wants you to think it is because of an activist, extreme Supreme Court – not because the law itself is an unconstitutional federal intrusion into your life.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Video: Dem Rep On Contraception Mandate, "We’re Not Looking at the Constitution"

February 28, 2012 at 8:28 am (Abortion, Catholic Church, Constitution, Contraception, Democrats, Freedom, HHS Mandate, Kathy Hochul, New York, NY-26, Religious Freedom, Sterilization)

Politicians hadn’t been looking at the Constitution for some time, until the Tea Party came along, and even then the Democrats have continued to willfully ignore it.

Via Hot Air (h/t Brian):

This moment in constitutional cluelessness comes to us from the same townhall meeting Rep. Kathy Hochul held with her NY-26 constituents that we featured on Saturday.  The local media missed this moment in their report, however, and it was even more telling than the chorus of boos that greeted Hochul when she attempted to defend the HHS mandate on contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients.  When challenged by a reader of Freedom’s Lighthouse on the constitutionality of the mandate, Hochul’s response was rather telling:

Permalink Leave a Comment

Juan Williams Explains the GOP Racist Code

January 30, 2012 at 4:41 pm (Constitution, Entitlement, Food Stamps, GOP, Juan Williams, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Racist)

For a guy who was fired from NPR for allegedly making bigoted comments, you’d think Juan Williams would learn his lesson that not everything on this planet can be viewed as racist.  Yet he still doubled down by trying to explain a supposed racist code being used by GOP candidates.  One of those codes, ‘Food Stamp President’ makes little sense as a racist comment, as a majority of those on food stamps are white.

Liberals such as this simply cannot accept the fact that a majority of Americans would like to see a society in which people are rewarded for hard work, and are not rewarded for staying home by collecting 99 weeks worth of unemployment benefits.

When the left doesn’t agree, then it has to be racism.

Williams is a smart guy, but this is dumb enough to not even warrant a response.

Via his op-ed at The Hill:

Two weeks ago at the Fox News/Wall Street Journal debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., I asked each GOP presidential candidate some pointed questions about the racial politics that will play a big role in the presidential campaign.
Race is always a trigger in politics, but now a third of the nation are people of color — and their numbers are growing. With those minorities solidly in the Democratic camp and behind the first black president, the scene is set for a bonanza of racial politics.
The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message. The code words in this game are “entitlement society” — as used by Mitt Romney — and “poor work ethic” and “food stamp president” — as used by Newt Gingrich. References to a lack of respect for the “Founding Fathers” and the “Constitution” also make certain ears perk up by demonizing anyone supposedly threatening core “old-fashioned American values.”

Actually come to think of it, this sounds more like a guy who had his ass handed to him at the Fox News debate by Newt Gingrich, and simply has to keep justifying his point of view.

Get over it, Juan.

Permalink Leave a Comment