Constitutional Sneaks

[Flanders]

Democrats have always been filthy lying sneaks determined to change the Constitution without troubling the American people with pesky amendments; so this came as a complete surprise to me:

“This year, I’m sorry to tell you, the United States Senate is going to be voting on a constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment.”

XXXXX​

“Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has announced the Senate Democrats are scheduling a vote on a constitutional amendment to give Congress the authority to regulate political speech, because elected officials have decided they don’t like it when the citizenry has the temerity to criticize what they’ve done,” he said.

Ted Cruz: Democratic Senators Want to ‘Repeal the First Amendment’
May 22, 2014 - 4:08 PM
By Penny Starr

Ted Cruz: Democratic Senators Want to ?Repeal the First Amendment? | CNS News​

Even when Democrats call for a constitutional amendment they are still up to their sneaky tricks:

What is it with Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and his obsession with the Koch brothers? Reid’s obsession has infiltrated Senate Democrats to the point Democrats announced they would take steps in the next month in order to change the First Amendment’s free speech protection. The rationale for this step to overturn the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedence is to give Congress the authority to “limit who can spend money in elections and how much they are allowed to spend.”

XXXXX​

Meanwhile, Reid accuses Republicans of stalling and blocking the Senate in order to reward the Koch brothers.

Reid stated, “Amending our Constitution is not something any of us should take lightly, but the flood of special interest money in our American Democracy is one of the glaring threats our system of government has ever faced.”

Continuing his rant and obvious obsession, Reid stated, “There is absolutely no question the Koch brothers are in a category of their own. No one else is pumping money into the shadowy campaign organizations and campaigns like they are. There isn’t even a close second. They are doing this to promote issues that make themselves richer.”

Reid contends that his hand was forced in this manner by “heavy spending, reportedly more than $100 million planned, by Koch-related organizations this year.

Harry Reid & Democrats Seek to Alter First Amendment?s Free Speech Protection​

Reid’s “obsession” with the Koch Brothers is misdirection. He is laying down the parameters for the debates that are sure to come over altering the First Amendment. It’s not about “heavy spending” as Sneaky Harry claims. The Koch Brothers are paupers when compared to all of the individual Democrat millionaires/billionaires and labor union coffers. The Koch Brothers would go broke in a year if they had to pay for Hollywood’s propaganda, or pay for the help Democrats get from the TAX DOLLAR FUNDED education industry alone.

Altering the First Amendment is about abolishing FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON THE INTERNET. Eliminating freedom of speech on the Internet has been the goal since then-First Lady Hillary Clinton called for an Internet gatekeeper.

FLASHBACK: HILLARY CLINTON SAYS INTERNET NEWS NEEDS 'RETHINK'

Cass Sunstein called for even more:

Just prior to his appointment as President Obama’s so-called regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein wrote a lengthy academic paper suggesting the government should “infiltrate” social network websites, chat rooms and message boards. Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”

Obama czar proposed government ‘infiltrate’ social network sites
Sunstein wants agents to 'undermine' talk in chat rooms, message boards
by Aaron Klein

Obama czar proposed government ?infiltrate? social network sites​

And let’s not forget Senator Feinstein’s sidewinder approach to abolishing Internet free speech:

Feinstein voiced her concern “that the current version of the bill would grant a special privilege to people who aren’t really reporters at all, who have no professional qualifications,” like bloggers and citizen journalists.

Feinstein: You’re Not a Real Journalist Unless You Draw a Salary
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 9, 2013
» Feinstein: You?re Not a Real Journalist Unless You Draw a Salary Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!​

Di Fi enhanced freedom of the press which is not altered in the Democrat amendment as Senator Cruz noted in the first linked article:

“And I’ll note this amendment, which has 41 Democratic senators as co-sponsors – 41 Democrats have signed on to repealing the First Amendment,” Cruz said. “It explicitly says nothing in this new amendment shall abridge the freedom of the press.

“So the New York Times is protected, but it doesn’t say the same thing about the freedom of speech,” Cruz said. “It doesn’t say the same thing about religious liberty.”

There is no way in hell Democrats will limit a ‘free press’ they control. Indeed, Democrats and press barons are equally contemptible of free speech on the Internet.

Incidentally, if Democrats want to alter the First Amendment I suggest eliminating these four words ——“or of the press” —— so it reads:

First Amendment​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Under my suggested change the press would still enjoy freedom of speech like the rest of us. More to the point, the press would have to defend freedom of speech as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending press protection while feeding everybody else to Democrat wolves.

As I’ve said many times, Democrats had nothing to fear so long as freedom of speech was limited to soapbox orators and barroom pundits. Freedom of speech on the Internet is exposing Democrat ideology to more Americans than Democrats can live with. That’s a new fear for Democrats; hence, they are reacting like cornered rats.

Finally, Harry Reid can, and did, change Senate rules. He should NOT get away with making rules governing the dialogue surrounding the proposed Democrat amendment. Most Americans already know that Reid’s attacks on the Koch Brothers are absurd; so every time he opens his foul mouth a Constitution-loving senator should ask him about freedom of speech on the Internet. That is what the debate should be about.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, freedom of the press is an inalienable right.

If you want to alter your interpretation of the First Amendment to leave this out, that's fine.
But I respect all people's right to retain the original.

by Freedom of the Press and the right to write it out in full and keep it as is.

I am sick of people trying to change the law for all other people,
just because of what they believe. If people don't consent, how can you
rewrite a contract and sign OTHER people's names to it? No,
you can only rewrite contracts for yourself and other people who AGREE.

Why can't people get this straight?

People get it with religion, you can't force your beliefs on others.
Why don't all people get this with politics and political beliefs?

????

Democrats have always been filthy lying sneaks determined to change the Constitution without troubling the American people with pesky amendments; so this came as a complete surprise to me:

“This year, I’m sorry to tell you, the United States Senate is going to be voting on a constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment.”

XXXXX​

“Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has announced the Senate Democrats are scheduling a vote on a constitutional amendment to give Congress the authority to regulate political speech, because elected officials have decided they don’t like it when the citizenry has the temerity to criticize what they’ve done,” he said.

Ted Cruz: Democratic Senators Want to ‘Repeal the First Amendment’
May 22, 2014 - 4:08 PM
By Penny Starr

Ted Cruz: Democratic Senators Want to ?Repeal the First Amendment? | CNS News​

Even when Democrats call for a constitutional amendment they are still up to their sneaky tricks:

What is it with Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and his obsession with the Koch brothers? Reid’s obsession has infiltrated Senate Democrats to the point Democrats announced they would take steps in the next month in order to change the First Amendment’s free speech protection. The rationale for this step to overturn the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedence is to give Congress the authority to “limit who can spend money in elections and how much they are allowed to spend.”

XXXXX​

Meanwhile, Reid accuses Republicans of stalling and blocking the Senate in order to reward the Koch brothers.

Reid stated, “Amending our Constitution is not something any of us should take lightly, but the flood of special interest money in our American Democracy is one of the glaring threats our system of government has ever faced.”

Continuing his rant and obvious obsession, Reid stated, “There is absolutely no question the Koch brothers are in a category of their own. No one else is pumping money into the shadowy campaign organizations and campaigns like they are. There isn’t even a close second. They are doing this to promote issues that make themselves richer.”

Reid contends that his hand was forced in this manner by “heavy spending, reportedly more than $100 million planned, by Koch-related organizations this year.

Harry Reid & Democrats Seek to Alter First Amendment?s Free Speech Protection​

Reid’s “obsession” with the Koch Brothers is misdirection. He is laying down the parameters for the debates that are sure to come over altering the First Amendment. It’s not about “heavy spending” as Sneaky Harry claims. The Koch Brothers are paupers when compared to all of the individual Democrat millionaires/billionaires and labor union coffers. The Koch Brothers would go broke in a year if they had to pay for Hollywood’s propaganda, or pay for the help Democrats get from the TAX DOLLAR FUNDED education industry alone.

Altering the First Amendment is about abolishing FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON THE INTERNET. Eliminating freedom of speech on the Internet has been the goal since then-First Lady Hillary Clinton called for an Internet gatekeeper.



Cass Sunstein called for even more:



And let’s not Senator Feinstein’s sidewinder approach to abolishing Internet free speech:



Di Fi enhanced freedom of the press which is not altered in the Democrat amendment as Senator Cruz noted in the first linked article:

“And I’ll note this amendment, which has 41 Democratic senators as co-sponsors – 41 Democrats have signed on to repealing the First Amendment,” Cruz said. “It explicitly says nothing in this new amendment shall abridge the freedom of the press.

“So the New York Times is protected, but it doesn’t say the same thing about the freedom of speech,” Cruz said. “It doesn’t say the same thing about religious liberty.”

There is no way in hell Democrats will limit a ‘free press’ they control. Indeed, Democrats and press barons are equally contemptible of free speech on the Internet.

Incidentally, if Democrats want to alter the First Amendment I suggest eliminating these four words ——“or of the press” —— so it reads:

First Amendment​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Under my suggested change the press would still enjoy freedom of speech like the rest of us. More to the point, the press would have to defend freedom of speech as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending press protection while feeding everybody else to Democrat wolves.

As I’ve said many times, Democrats had nothing to fear so long as freedom of speech was limited to soapbox orators and barroom pundits. Freedom of speech on the Internet is exposing Democrat ideology to more Americans than Democrats can live with. That’s a new fear for Democrats; hence, they are reacting like cornered rats.

Finally, Harry Reid can, and did, change Senate rules. He should NOT get away with making rules governing the dialogue surrounding the proposed Democrat amendment. Most Americans already know that Reid’s attacks on the Koch Brothers are absurd; so every time he opens his foul mouth a Constitution-loving senator should ask him about freedom of speech on the Internet. That is what the debate should be about.

 

[Disir]

Article V Handbook - ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council

What is that?

 

[Flanders]

No, freedom of the press is an inalienable right.

To emilynghiem: No it isn’t. It’s a special privilege given to a select few.

Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. A. J. Liebling

If you want to alter your interpretation of the First Amendment to leave this out, that's fine.

To emilynghiem: Don’t confuse freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

But I respect all people's right to retain the original.

by Freedom of the Press and the right to write it out in full and keep it as is.

To emilynghiem: In other words you are defending Di Fi’s view since freedom of speech on the Internet protects everybody’s Right to “write it out in full.”

California Senator Dianne Feinstein has proposed an amendment to the Media Shield Law – an irrelevant law ignoring protection already afforded by the First Amendment – that would limit the law’s protection only to “real reporters,” not bloggers and other upstart alternative media types.

A real reporter, declared Madame Feinstein during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, is “a salaried agent” of a media company like the New York Times or ABC News, not a shoestring operation with volunteers and writers who are not paid.

» Feinstein: You?re Not a Real Journalist Unless You Draw a Salary Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!​

This is the goal of Di Fi’s attack on Internet free speech:

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh blasted the measure, asserting that the shield law is evidence of a desire by Democrats to set up "licensing" of reporters.

"So the government will decide who's a journalist and who isn't and grant licenses and approvals. And if you don't get your license and you start doing journalism, you could be sent to jail, or you could be reprimanded," Limbaugh contended.

Congressional Attempt to Define Journalists Sparks Outrage
Sunday, 06 Oct 2013 07:39 AM
By Jennifer G. Hickey

Congressional Attempt to Define Journalists Sparks Outrage​

Or are you saying you want it written out in a newspaper or magazine? I cannot determine the answer since you did not write out your meaning in full.

I am sick of people trying to change the law for all other people,
just because of what they believe. If people don't consent, how can you
rewrite a contract and sign OTHER people's names to it? No,
you can only rewrite contracts for yourself and other people who AGREE.

To emilynghiem: Not according to Harry Reid and Senate Democrats.

 

[LiberalMedia]

This thread is proof beyond all doubt that the OP is an idiotic, alarmist bigot that hates freedom and intelligence. I have screencapped the thread thus far for posterity.

Here is a link to the text of the actual bill: Bill Text - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Two things should immediately spring to your attention; first, that the joint resolution was introduced nearly a year ago so it's old fucking news you total retard, and second, that it is remarkably short. Thus, there is absolutely no reason why you should not read it in its entirety, as doing so would take literally less than a minute. Because I know that OP is a lazy, whiny baby and is too lazy to click a simple link even when it is handed to him, as it was in the source that he cites, I will quote the relevant text here:

Section 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on--

`(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and

`(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

This is nothing, NOTHING, more than a proposed Constitutional amendment that would strengthen the voter-owned election process. Before you rightwing nutjobs go crazy over a federal powergrab, Section 2 of this joint resolution is essentially a copy/paste job that replaces "Federal" with "the States", thus allowing them the same authority over their own elections as well.

The issue here is not repealing the First Amendment, nor is it an attack on the freedom of speech. All it does is give legislatures that ability to regulate the millions of dollars that are pumping into the people's elections as a result of Wrongpublicans advancing such ridiculous ideas as "corporations are people," and "people buying an election is an act of free speech." Ted Cruz recognizes this and, being a crook backed by corporations himself, wants to stop it from happening, so he's deliberately mislabeling this Democrat-led effort to return elections back to the hands of We the People and away from multinational corporations like Bank of America (of "[Hey Rick Perry,] we will help you out" fame).

Anyone upset by this proposed joint resolution and Constitutional amendment is uninformed. In OP's case, deliberately so.

 

[Flanders]

Section 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on--

`(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and

`(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

To LiberalMedia: You got your talking points in. My responses are in the OP and #4 permalink.

As to protecting “. . . the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes . . .” in the proposed amendment —— the filthy lying sneaks are NOT proposing a constitutional amendment in order to abolish the electoral college. See this thread:

Speaker Pelosi: Again! - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[JakeStarkey]

TP and Cruz popularity are at all time lows and will continue to tumble.

The far right has nothing of value to offer the public and the public is well aware of it.

 

[mamooth]

Flanders seems to be loyal to that speshul PC alternate-reality Constitution that says "money is free speech".

Everyone else uses the real Constitution, the one that doesn't say anything as crazy as "money is free speech". Only a kook could make such an insane claim, or a fringe-right-wing judge. Though those two categories are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Flanders]

Flanders seems to be loyal to that speshul PC alternate-reality Constitution that says "money is free speech".

To mamooth: Try to think for yourself for a change. As I showed in the OP, shutting down freedom of speech on the Internet has been a Democrat priority for years; however, they knew they could never come out and say “We want to eliminate freedom of speech.”

The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling came down in 2010, but it took Democrats a few years to realize it is a way to attack the Internet by making it look like something else. So Harry Reid began laying the foundation by attacking the Koch Brothers. It’s absurd to think that the Koch Brothers’ wealth is a bigger threat to the country than is the wealth of Democrat millionaires/billionaires.

Looking like a fool never bothered Harry Reid. The foundation was laid, misdirection got the coverage Democrats were after setting the terms of the debate; hence, after being in the hopper for several years the vote on a constitutional amendment has been scheduled as Senator Cruz pointed out.

Also, freedom of speech is under attack worldwide. Why do you think the administration is giving control of the Internet to the United Nations?

Incidentally, speech can get you killed in Muslim countries as well as in old-fashioned dictatorships. Few realize that reading someone else’s free speech on the Internet can also get you killed.

Everyone else uses the real Constitution, the one that doesn't say anything as crazy as "money is free speech". Only a kook could make such an insane claim, or a fringe-right-wing judge. Though those two categories are not mutually exclusive.

To mamooth: Okay halfwit. Prohibit everybody that can rub two nickels together from speaking. The IRS can take away a church’s tax exempt status for engaging in politics; so let’s also prohibit every corporation, every labor union, every institution from spending a penny on politics. That means no campaign contributions to Democrats as well as Republicans. Question: Do you think the media would go along with that? Before you overtax your brain looking for a clever answer, remember that print and electronic media rake in billions of campaign advertising dollars from 100 Senate races every six years. God only knows what the total comes to when you add in presidential elections, House of Representative races, and state and local elections.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Section 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on--

`(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and

`(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

To LiberalMedia: You got your talking points in. My responses are in the OP and #4 permalink.

As to protecting “. . . the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes . . .” in the proposed amendment —— the filthy lying sneaks are NOT proposing a constitutional amendment in order to abolish the electoral college. See this thread:

Speaker Pelosi: Again! - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I have reviewed the thread you linked to. Nowhere in your quotations do Democrats claim to be proposing an amendment to abolish the electoral college. That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, nor is it mentioned in the text of the proposed amendment.

Further, you state that your responses are in the OP and post #4, yet you did not respond to anything I said in either of those posts. I will copy and paste the relevant portion of my earlier post for you to respond to, since you have completely refused to do so; I'll even bold the major points for you:

This is nothing, NOTHING, more than a proposed Constitutional amendment that would strengthen the voter-owned election process. Before you rightwing nutjobs go crazy over a federal powergrab, Section 2 of this joint resolution is essentially a copy/paste job that replaces "Federal" with "the States", thus allowing them the same authority over their own elections as well.

The issue here is not repealing the First Amendment, nor is it an attack on the freedom of speech. All it does is give legislatures that ability to regulate the millions of dollars that are pumping into the people's elections as a result of Wrongpublicans advancing such ridiculous ideas as "corporations are people," and "people buying an election is an act of free speech." Ted Cruz recognizes this and, being a crook backed by corporations himself, wants to stop it from happening, so he's deliberately mislabeling this Democrat-led effort to return elections back to the hands of We the People and away from multinational corporations like Bank of America (of "[Hey Rick Perry,] we will help you out" fame).

Anyone upset by this proposed joint resolution and Constitutional amendment is uninformed. In OP's case, deliberately so.

But because you're obviously too wrapped up in your "librull media runnin da werld" persecution fantasies to be able to actually comprehend what anyone else is saying, otherwise you would've responded to all of this the first time I posted it, I'll give you a short summary of each of these points.

1. This joint resolution calling for a constitutional amendment protects the integrity of elections.
2. The amendment would merely regulate political spending, not political speech.
3. Ted Cruz is a lying dirtbag and corporate shill.
4. You, OP, are willfully ignorant of the above facts.

 

[Flanders]

I have reviewed the thread you linked to. Nowhere in your quotations do Democrats claim to be proposing an amendment to abolish the electoral college.

To LiberalMedia: My point exactly. Work on your reading comprehension skills.

As to protecting “. . . the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes . . .” in the proposed amendment —— the filthy lying sneaks are NOT proposing a constitutional amendment in order to abolish the electoral college. See this thread:

Speaker Pelosi: Again! - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[LiberalMedia]

I have reviewed the thread you linked to. Nowhere in your quotations do Democrats claim to be proposing an amendment to abolish the electoral college.

To LiberalMedia: My point exactly. Work on your reading comprehension skills.

My reading comprehension is just fine. It's yours that needs work. Our honorable Democratic members of Congress are attempting to liberate We the People from the overwhelming influence of unlimited corporate money on our elections. That's what they claim they're doing, and that's what they're actually doing. Then you come along with "B-B-BUT THEY'RE NOT GETTIN RID OF DUH ELECTRULL COLLAGE, SO DEY'S LYIN HURRRR" as if that has any relevance at all to the discussion, and act like because they're not having a conversation about a topic you just thought of, that means you somehow "win."

Grow up, conservatard. Or if you can't manage that, at the very least grow a brain.

 

[mamooth]

As I showed in the OP, shutting down freedom of speech on the Internet has been a Democrat priority for years;

No, you cherrypicked some unrelated factoids and then leaped to that totally unsupported conclusion. I'm sure it impressed the cult, but everyone outside your cult bubble just rolled their eyes.

So, do you believe that money is free speech?

As for the internet, of course control of it should leave the USA. That's necessary for a free flow of information. You seem to endorse a scenario where the US government can censor the worldwide internet. I can't join you in that anti-liberty stance, or in your paranoid delusions about the United Nations controlling the internet.

Prohibit everybody that can rub two nickels together from speaking.

My, you are censor-happy. I don't think you'll find anyone else endorsing such a policy.

The IRS can take away a church’s tax exempt status for engaging in politics; so let’s also prohibit every corporation, every labor union, every institution from spending a penny on politics. That means no campaign contributions to Democrats as well as Republicans.

Excellent idea! Let's move to publicly funded elections, like what most other western democracies have in some form.

Question: Do you think the media would go along with that?

Of course not. Our corporate conservative media loves the cash they get from the current system, so they'll oppose any change. But the media doesn't write the laws. Are you saying we shouldn't clean the corruption out of politics because the media wouldn't like it?

 

[Flanders]

My reading comprehension is just fine.

To LiberalMedia: Give it up. You showed yourself to be a fool because you did not comprehend what you read. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would realize it and drop the subject but not you. You had to highlight your stupidity with more of the same.

My, you are censor-happy. I don't think you'll find anyone else endorsing such a policy.

To mamooth: Does this phrase mean anything to you?

tongue-in-cheek (adjective)

Meant or expressed ironically or facetiously.

Don’t attempt an answer. I do not want to be responsible for your head exploding.

 

[mamooth]

Nice evasion, but do you think money is free speech? You seem curiously unwilling to give a straight answer to simple questions.

 

[LiberalMedia]

To LiberalMedia: Give it up.

To mamooth:
---
Don’t attempt an answer.

Protip: "Give up" and "Don't answer me" are not arguments, and they are also not effective debate tactics. They only make you look like a pathetic, whiny child.

If you would like to engage in adult conversation, respond to the points in any of our posts. Otherwise, the entire website will be forced to assume you are admitting defeat and cannot find even the shakiest of arguments to raise against us.

 

[Flanders]

Amazing! Election fraud has been rampant for decades and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has no solutions. Instead of helping to eliminate fraud the FEC decided to go after the Internet. My emphasis in the following:

. . . Goodman and the two other Republicans on the commission issued a six-page critique [below] of the commission's vote on the Ryan book that slapped the constraints imposed on the publisher and on how Ryan's re-election campaign and leadership political action committee, Prosperity Action, can promote the book on websites.

Since becoming chairman, Goodman has been pushing to expand protections for all media and has noted how Democrats on the panel have been eager to nick at freedoms for conservative media while Republicans have been voting for broader protections even for liberals like Democratic financier George Soros.

FEC chair warns of chilling regulations, book ban on conservative publishers
By Paul Bedard | July 23, 2014 | 3:42 pm

FEC chair warns of chilling regulations, book ban on conservative publishers | WashingtonExaminer.com​

Make no mistake about this, freedom of speech on the Internet is the target not Paul Ryan. The FEC is another prong of the Democrat party’s attack on the First Amendment.

Before the Internet took off, Socialists posing as Democrats forced children and young adults to listen to their message in schools as well as radio and TV audiences through the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine is gone and the Internet is here; so now Democrats have to shut people up as well as try to get them to voluntarily listen to the message. That’s not working out real well so they have to be conned. FOX news does it best. They con conservatives into listening to an army of liberals in FOX’s variation of the Fairness Doctrine. If those libs were on another network only liberals would listen to them.

Finally, Jane Fonda is either a total idiot or Rupert Murdoch put her up to it:

“It's no secret that Rupert uses his media outlets for political reasons. And he is not neutral. And he, you know, his news outlets do things that are unconscionable. And it just cannot happen that he becomes that much of a dominant force in American media.”

Jane Fonda on Rupert Murdoch Buying Time Warner: ‘It Would Be a Catastrophe’
TV | By Travis Reilly on July 23, 2014 @ 5:02 pm

Jane Fonda on Rupert Murdoch Buying Time Warner: 'It Would Be a Catastrophe' - TheWrap​

 

[Flanders]

Altering the First Amendment is about abolishing FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON THE INTERNET. Eliminating freedom of speech on the Internet has been the goal since then-First Lady Hillary Clinton called for an Internet gatekeeper.

FLASHBACK HILLARY CLINTON SAYS INTERNET NEWS NEEDS RETHINK

I think everybody knows what Hillary Clinton has been after all along. Had she been able to silence the Internet before now her poll numbers would not be heading for the toilet. This article tells you exactly how much money she wants to pay her gatekeeper, and where the money will come from:

‘Billions and Billions’ to Subsidize Internet Service

XXXXX​

The reclassification of Internet providers as utilities allows the FCC to impose what is known as a “Universal Service Fund” (USF) tax on their revenue. The USF has grown exponentially in recent years, and presently stands at $12 billion annually – so large that the FCC has requested it be allowed to transfer $25 million of the money to its own budget to “administer” the fund. As a result, some in Congress have proposed limiting the size of the USF to $9 billion.

XXXXX​

“I think it should be lower than what a majority of the FCC wants it to be… Whatever it is, there has to be a cap. What we’ve found is that USF funding has exploded over the past couple of years so that the USF tax is 67 percent higher than it was in 2009,” he said.

Pai said that proposals to expand certain programs funded by the USF could cost billions. “We should stop making promises in terms of expanding the Lifeline program, expanding the E-Rate program that need to be paid for. Otherwise that $9 billion cap is going to be insufficient.”

XXXXX​

Continuing, Pai said, “Broadband service is a lot more expensive than phone service. Right now, the Lifeline phone subsidy is only $9.95. Imagine how expensive it’s going to have to be to really subsidize people’s broadband service.

XXXXX​

. . . I think the price could be exorbitant – billions and billions of dollars,” he said.

XXXXX​

“We should deny funding for some of the things the FCC wants to spend money on. Any funds, for example, to enforce these net neutrality regulations, [and] this shift of $25 million from the Universal Service Fund to the FCC itself in order to pursue its own policy priorities – I think we need to do more with less. I don’t think we’re doing that by asking for a much higher budget,” Pai said.

XXXXX​

“If you look at how busy we actually are, we were much busier in 1996 in the wake of the ‘96 Telecomm Act. At that point, in today’s dollars, we had a budget of $277 million. Now the FCC is asking for almost $400 million even though we’re not as busy as we were then.

FCC Commissioner: Feds May Come for Drudge
By Rudy Takala | May 4, 2015 | 1:18 PM EDT

FCC Commissioner Feds May Come for Drudge​

If you watched one segment of the bullshit in Baltimore that television dumped on the airwaves, you should at least take a few minutes to learn what those filthy lying sneaks are doing to you.

NOTE: Bill O’Reilly often rails against the Internet. Examine how much money is going to that lying sack of shit’s beloved industry and you will learn why I’ve posted a few messages attacking him.

 

[Abishai100]

Dynamic Acropolis



How do we coordinate talk about the Constitution with society-talk about 'populism personalization'?

Everyone these days is walking around with a mobile phone with a built-in mini-camera in it, ready to take pictures/mementos of street crime.







Primary Colors