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.”

Advertisements

Permalink Leave a Comment

Video: Democrat Talks About ‘Working Together’ and ‘Civility’, Promptly Shoves Camera in Reporter’s Face

November 4, 2012 at 11:51 am (Assault, Civility, Nancy Pelosi, New Tone, Nick Lampson, Randy Weber, Ron Paul, Texas)

This is Democrat Nick Lampson, currently running for a congressional seat in the 14th District of Texas.

Nick is vying to replace the retiring Ron Paul.

Nick is in a tight battle with Republican opponent, state Rep. Randy Weber.

Nick likes to speak about “civility” and “working together”, citing Nancy Pelosi as an example.

Nick lectures about civility, while shoving cameras in the face of a reporter who asks questions he doesn’t like.

Nick is not very civil, is he?

Don’t be a Nick…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Scandal: ‘Obama Campaign is Clearly Soliciting Donations From Foreign Nationals’

October 8, 2012 at 8:57 am (2012 Election, Daily Caller, Foreign Nationals, Government Accountability Institute, Harry Reid, Ken Sukhia, Nancy Pelosi, Obama Campaign, Obama Donor Scandal, Scandal)

Over the last few days, the internet has been abuzz with the possibility that the Obama campaign was about to be nailed with a major foreign donor scandal, with some even speculating that the President was so distracted by the pending story, that it contributed to his horrible debate performance.

Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner wrote:

President Obama’s reelection campaign, rattled by his Wednesday night debate performance, could be in for even worse news. According to knowledgeable sources, a national magazine and a national web site are preparing a blockbuster donor scandal story.

The campaign tried desperately to block the story, indicating its importance.

Now, the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) has released the report that shows the campaign has been using social media portals to solicit foreigners for donations, using data mining techniques to gain information about people who may not have actually visited the campaign site, and even operating a website for internet users outside the United States.

This, to put it mildly, would be a violation of federal election laws.

The Daily Caller reports (emphasis mine):

President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign has been soliciting foreigners for donations, an explosive report from the conservative Government Accountability Institute (GAI) shows. Those foreign donors are allegedly visiting the Obama campaign’s donation solicitation Web pages through a social media website the campaign controls, and through an outside website that serves mostly Internet users from outside the United States.

About 20 percent of visitors to the “my.barackobama.com” social media website “originated from foreign locations,” the report found. That Web address is owned and controlled by the Obama re-election campaign.

“At no point during the [website’s] subscription process is a visitor asked whether he or she can legally donate to a U.S. election,” GAI notes.

The report adds that once a visitor signs up for the website, they are immediately solicited for campaign donations.   “In fact, numerous foreign nationals report receiving solicitation letters and thank you emails from the campaign for their support.”

In a report accompanying the GAI report’s release, former U.S. Attorney Ken Sukhia concluded that the Obama campaign is clearly soliciting donations from foreign nationals.

They also add that the campaign site employs various techniques to mine e-mail and other data from “friends and associations” of members of the site.  An example:

Neither President Obama nor his campaign owns Obama.com. Sukhia said data show that 68 percent of traffic to that website comes from foreign users, all of whom are redirected to Obama fundraising Web pages.

Obama.com was registered in September 2008 to Robert Roche, an Obama campaign bundler living in Shanghai, China, according to GAI.

“By October 2, 2008, Obama.com began redirecting all visitors to specific content on my.barackobama.com,” GAI wrote. “Upon arrival to my.barackobama.com, visitors were asked for their name, email, and zip code and presumably were sent solicitation letters, like every other visitor who provides that information to the campaign.”

The report then goes on to demonstrate other tactics that the websites use to gather information, such as e-mail addresses, and continues to redirect viewers to the campaign donation web page.

The donation web page seems to be the crux of the foreign donations activity.

For instance, the campaign website has disabled industry standard credit card verification methods, eliminating the necessity to provide the Card Verification Value (CVV) code on the back of a credit card.  The Mental Recession reported on this several months ago, as conservative bloggers were easily demonstrating that the Obama campaign websites were allowing very real donations from some very fake names – Nidal Hasan and Hitler as an example.

Some in the media were pointing out this tactic all the way back to the 2008 presidential campaign, oddly enough spurred on similarly by a record breaking fundraising overhaul reported in September.  Back in 2008, Obama had raked in $150 million.  This September, $181 million, a massive increase from the donations submitted to his campaign the previous month.  The release raised eyebrows, as it was announced quietly via Twitter on a Saturday morning, when it clearly should have been touted as a news story to energize his base.

What’s more, a vast majority of those donations – 98% – are not required to be reported, leaving the door open to the possibility that multiple millions in donations were generated from illegal foreign entities.

An excerpt from U.S. election code reads:

It shall be unlawful for – 

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make – 

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other 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;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political

party; 

The President himself has griped about American elections being bankrolled by foreign entities.  Here is an excerpt from his 2010 State of the Union address (video below):

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”

Hypocrisy, thy name is Obama.

The media and the voters didn’t seem to care about these illegal tactics in 2008, will it matter this election?

Update:  Other high profile Democrats not using the CVV security measure on their campaign donation pages include House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin.

Update:  Download the full report here…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Democrat Who Compared Ryan to Nazis Abruptly Leaves DNC for "Root Canal"

September 4, 2012 at 9:34 am (California, Dentist, DNC, John Burton, Joseph Goebbels, Nancy Pelosi, Paul Ryan, Root Canal)

Apparently this is real.

California Democrat John Burton, who has recently come under fire for comparing Republicans in general, and Paul Ryan in particular, to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, has left the building at the Democrat National Convention.

Literally.

Pre-scheduled root canal?  If it was pre-scheduled, and such an absolute emergency that Burton needed to attend, then why head to Charlotte in the first place?
More like the Democrats told him to get out.  Which is far more than Nancy Pelosi did after hearing his ‘Republicans are Nazis’ diatribe.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Video: Nancy Pelosi Refuses to Condemn Democrat Who Compared Paul Ryan and Republicans to Nazis

September 3, 2012 at 4:15 pm (California, John Burton, Joseph Goebbels, Nancy Pelosi, Nazi, Nazis, New Tone, Paul Ryan)

Earlier this morning, we alerted you to a report that the Democrat Party Chair from California, John Burton, compared Paul Ryan and the GOP to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.

From the Chronicle (who will be posting audio shortly):

Greetings from the California delegation breakfast at the DNC where before he had a cup of coffee Democratic Party Chair John Burton – much like his ol’ pal Guv Jerry Brown once did – just compared the Republicans to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, for “telling the big lie,” a reference to several falsehoods GOP VP nominee Paul Ryan recently told.

“They lie and they don’t care if people think they lie… Joseph Goebbels – it’s the big lie, you keep repeating it,” Burton said Monday before the Blake Hotel breakfast. He said Ryan told “a bold-faced lie and he doesn’t care that it was a lie. That was Goebbels, the big lie.”

The San Francisco Chronicle of all places has done a very good job of covering the story.  And now they’ve included a new video update with Burton and Nancy Pelosi standing side by side, in which the reporter asks Pelosi flat-out if she agrees with the Nazi reference.

Pelosi then goes on a brief tap-dancing session in which she doesn’t disavow Burton’s comments, but reiterates the statement that led to the comparison – that essentially Paul Ryan is lying.  She calls them ‘factual misrepresentations’ and instead of condemning the Nazi rhetoric, she makes some absurd comment about Republicans having “endless money to sell any misrepresentation to the American people”.

Watch below…

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

Report: Obama Sacrificed the American Economy and Defense For a Better Chance at Reelection

August 20, 2012 at 11:58 am (2012 Election, Defense, e-Book, Economy, Gleen Thrush, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Politico, President Obama, Sequestration)

Glenn Thrush, writer for the Politico, has recently produced an e-book on the Obama campaign, and it’s causing quite a stir.  While many are focusing on the many conflicts the campaign is suffering this year – an issue with which they did not contend with as much in 2008 – there is another damning aspect of the book being vastly under-reported.

Essentially, the President was willing to place his reelection bid above the needs of our economy and our national defense.

Excerpts from the book claim that Obama rebuffed pleas from Nancy Pelosi of all people, to reconsider the sequestered defense cuts because doing so would make reelection more difficult.

Here are a couple of quotes from Thrush’s work that stand out:

“In mid-2012, the House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, requested a sit-down to ask Obama to reconsider the billions of defense cuts that would kick in automatically as part of the 2011 budget deal. The cuts included in ‘the sequester,’ she argued, would hurt Democratic House members with major defense contractors in their districts. They were asking for an alternative state of cuts, or any kind of plan that would keep local employers – and, by implication, local contributors – happy.” 

And…

“Obama told the former speaker what he had been saying for months – that he wasn’t budging on the defense cuts. Doing so would surrender his only leverage in forcing House Republicans to accept the expiration of tax cuts for the wealthy – the only weapon he had against their efforts ‘to delegitimize me,’ as he put it. Moreover, he bluntly called on Hill Democrats to reorient their priorities – from them to him. ‘Look, guys,’ he told Pelosi, Harry Reid, and several other congressional leaders, according to a person briefed in detail on the interaction. ‘I plan on winning this race. If I don’t win, then anything we say now doesn’t matter. I plan on winning this race. So let’s figure out how to win this race.’”

These are stunning claims that demonstrate a President willing to sacrifice the good of his own country, the good of the military men and women that he leads, for the good of his own political aspirations.

Please read the rest of the report…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Politifact Backs Up Priebus – Harry Reid IS a Dirty Liar

August 7, 2012 at 7:56 am (10 Years, 2012 Election, Didn't Pay Taxes, Economy, Harry Reid, Mitt Romney, Nancy Pelosi, Pants on Fire, Politifact, President Obama, Reince Priebus, Senate Majority Leader, Squirrel)

Earlier this week, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus repeated an assertion that Harry Reid is nothing more than a “dirty liar” publicly for a third time.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has upped the ante in his war of words with Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) over Mitt Romney’s tax returns.

In an interview with “Fox & Friends,” Priebus put all his cards on the table, continuing to hammer the Senate Majority Leader.

“There’s no triple down in blackjack, but I’ll triple down on my comments from yesterday,” Priebus said. “It’s just the truth. What else do you call somebody who goes onto the Senate floor and claims that someone hasn’t paid taxes in ten years, a complete lie, and uses his official office to do it?”

Priebus’ attacks stem from Reid’s interview with The Huffington Post on Tuesday, where the senator cited a Bain Capital source who claimed that Romney skirted past paying his taxes for 10 years. In a Sunday appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Priebus called it a “made-up issue,” refusing to “respond to a dirty liar” in reference to Reid.

“You just called him a dirty liar,” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked. “You stand by that — you think Harry Reid is a dirty liar?”

“I just said it,” Priebus said.

Not only does Priebus stand by the statement, so does fact-checking organization Politifact, who has given Reid’s claims that Romney didn’t pay taxes for 10 years a rating of “pants on fire”.

Reid has said Romney paid no taxes for 10 years. It was no slip of the tongue. He repeated the claim on at least two more occasions, at one point saying that “the word is out” when in fact it was only Reid who put that “word” out.

Reid has produced no evidence to back up his claim other than attribution to a shadowy anonymous source. Romney has denied the claim, and tax experts back him up, saying that the nature of Romney’s investments in Bain make it highly unlikely he would have been able to avoid paying taxes altogether — especially for 10 years.

Reid has made an extreme claim with nothing solid to back it up. Pants on Fire!

Seriously, who is actually dumb enough to fall for this tactic?   Aside from Nancy Pelosi of course.  This is nothing more than trying to divert attention away from President Obama’s record yet again.  It is simply Reid’s latest “Squirrel!” tactic.  Unemployment is above 8% again … uh … Squirrel!

The Senate Majority Leader has been reduced to grade school tactics in an effort to defend the worst President in this country’s history.  The man has no shame…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Chuck Schumer: There Ought to be Limits on the First Amendment

July 18, 2012 at 7:00 am (Chuck Schumer, Citizens United, Democrats, DISCLOSE Act, First Amendment, Free Speech, Nancy Pelosi, New York)

Despite more pressing and urgent business at hand for the Senate, Democrats have placed the DISCLOSE Act – a bill which requires disclosure of political activity by restricting the First Amendment – on the front burner.

The Act is sponsored by New York Senator Chuck Shumer, who recently blatantly admitted the need to curb freedoms assured by the First Amendment.

Schumer:

I believe there ought to be limits because the First Amendment is not absolute. No amendment is absolute. You can’t scream ‘fire’ falsely in a crowded theater. We have libel laws. We have anti-pornography laws. All of those are limits on the First Amendment. Well, what could be more important than the wellspring of our democracy? And certain limits on First Amendment rights that if left unfettered, destroy the equality — any semblance of equality in our democracy — of course would be allowed by the Constitution. And the new theorists on the Supreme Court who don’t believe that, I am not sure where their motivation comes from, but they are just so wrong. They are just so wrong.

Shumer isn’t the only Democrat who wants to re-write the First Amendment.  Nancy Pelosi previously stated her desire to amend the First Amendment using the same DISCLOSE Act.

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.”

JJFWFPER7HR6

Permalink Leave a Comment

In Response to Obamacare Sham, Congressman Introduces Constitutional Amendment to Stop Bait and Switch Practices

July 3, 2012 at 8:30 am (Arizona, Ben Quayle, Congress, Healthcare, Jack Lew, Jay Carney, Nancy Pelosi, Obamacare, President Obama)

Rep. Ben Quayle (R-AZ) introduced a constitutional amendment late last week, that would require Congress to clearly label new taxes in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling that Obamacare could be upheld based on it’s nature as a tax – something the President vehemently denied during the sales pitch.

In other words, he wants to eliminate a business tactic of bait-and-switch, which is typically referred to as fraud.
Quayle’s office sent this statement on the proposed amendment:

“Most Americans figured out long ago that President Obama had attempted to sell them a bill of goods with Obamacare.  Yesterday, the Supreme Court confirmed it.  The President stated clearly, and on multiple occasions that the individual mandate was not a tax as he sold it to Congress and the American people.  However, he was more than happy to see the Supreme Court uphold the law on the basis that it is in fact a tax.  

“My amendment requires that all taxes levied by Congress be labeled honestly and openly as taxes during the legislative process.  The American people deserve to know the full implications and consequences of legislation passed by Congress.  Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision illustrated plainly the dangers of deceptive labeling by our leaders.”

How the amendment would force governing bodies to actually tell the truth is unclear.

Since the Supreme Court ruling which clearly stated that Obamacare could only be upheld under Congress’s authority to tax, multiple members of the administration have continued to declare that it is still not a tax. Chief of Staff Jack Lew, Press Secretary Jay Carney, and Nancy Pelosi to name a few, have continued to lie to the public, essentially trying to convince Americans that the sky is not blue.

Bottom line – Obama argued that it is most definitely not a tax, then sent his lawyers in to argue that it was a tax, the Supreme Court agreed, calling it a tax, and now the President is back to insisting it is not a tax.

Followed that right?  It’s not easy to keep a web of lies from getting tangled.

Unless you’re the President.  Lying comes second-nature to this administration.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Next page »