The Silent Coup

[Stephanie]

The People in this country BETTER wake up to this SLIMY Progressive/Democrat party

SNIP:
The Silent Coup
Harry Reid plans to fundamentally transform the American social contract
By Matthew Continetti

(Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Print
Text
Comments
10

​

Matthew Continetti
‘The constitutional amendment before us,” Harry Reid said Tuesday, describing a proposal to give federal and state governments the authority to regulate political giving, “isn’t about limiting free speech.”


Harry Reid, may I present the American Civil Liberties Union. I am sure you two have met before.

Writing in June that the nonprofit “strongly opposes” the so-called Udall amendment, the ACLU’s Laura Murphy and Gabriel Rottman called the Democratic proposal “deceptively complex,” “unnecessary,” “redundant of existing law,” “dangerous for liberties,” “vague,” “overbroad,” “exceedingly dangerous to democratic processes,” and “the first time the amendatory process has been used to directly limit specifically enumerated rights and freedoms.” Reid’s baby, the ACLU said, would “‘break’ the Constitution” by “amending the First Amendment.”

Two levels of government would be permitted “to criminalize and censor all issue advocacy that mentions or refers to a candidate under the argument that it supports or opposes that candidate.”

Recall that Citizens United, which the Udall amendment is supposed to address, was not about tea-party Astroturf. It was about the FEC’s attempt to censor a film critical of her royal highness.
The mandarins at the FEC and IRS, as well as their counterparts at the state level, would be responsible for distinguishing political communications that “support or oppose” a candidate from those that do not. They would penalize the individuals and groups they subjectively deem violators of administrative diktat. If this is not about “limiting free speech,” what is?
I am not speaking abstractly. Want an image of a post-Udall world? Think Lois Lerner on Spring Break — after a bottle of tequila.


“My Democratic colleagues and I,” Reid says, “are trying to address the special-interest money that threatens to create a government of elected officials who are beholden to a few wealthy individuals.” But we can dismiss this rationalization outright. It is an example of what the Freudians call projection: the denial of immoral urges by transferring them to another. Projection is a disorder.

Special-interest money and super-wealthy individuals are two of the most prominent features of today’s bourgeois liberalism. The unions, the foundations, the colleges, the liberal-leaning or rent-seeking corporations, the residents of Manhattan and Silicon Valley and Beverly Hills and Ward 3, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Tom Steyer, Marc Lasry, Steve Mostyn, Michael Bloomberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Chris Hughes — these groups, these men, they are not misshapen appendages of the Democratic party. They are its innards. Its guts.

Indeed, one of the reasons that Reid scheduled a vote on a measure that was sure to be defeated was, in the first place, to curry favor with, and solicit checks from, rich donors to progressive causes who have a sentimental and moralistic aversion to money in politics. It is part of Reid’s plan to smear Republican candidates as instruments of the wealthy brothers Charles and David Koch, and thereby prevent a GOP takeover of the Senate.

ALL of it here:
The Silent Coup National Review Online

 

[Rotagilla]

Time to clean house. Neither side is honest.

Got this in the mail from a friend..don't know who the author is but it cites his "name" at the bottom.

Republicans and Democrats really aren't that different. Both pursue policies that cater to special interests and manipulate the economy at the expense of the middle and lower class; both support intrusive, unconstitutional foreign policy and national security measures; both support massive entitlement spending that drains the economy and inflates the deficit; and both push whatever moral views their party has co-opted for votes onto the American people.
They really aren't that different because both stink. (I'm referring to the archetypal Democrat v. Republican. I agree with the overall message that people shouldn't be defined by their party affiliation; after all, there isn't much to choose from.)

bardroth

 

[Stephanie]

Time to clean house. Neither side is honest.

Got this in the mail from a friend..don't know who the author is but it cites his "name" at the bottom.

Republicans and Democrats really aren't that different. Both pursue policies that cater to special interests and manipulate the economy at the expense of the middle and lower class; both support intrusive, unconstitutional foreign policy and national security measures; both support massive entitlement spending that drains the economy and inflates the deficit; and both push whatever moral views their party has co-opted for votes onto the American people.
They really aren't that different because both stink. (I'm referring to the archetypal Democrat v. Republican. I agree with the overall message that people shouldn't be defined by their party affiliation; after all, there isn't much to choose from.)

bardroth

I don't disagree with that. But the slime of this new Democrat/commie party the people better pay attention to

 

[Rotagilla]

Time to clean house. Neither side is honest.

Got this in the mail from a friend..don't know who the author is but it cites his "name" at the bottom.

Republicans and Democrats really aren't that different. Both pursue policies that cater to special interests and manipulate the economy at the expense of the middle and lower class; both support intrusive, unconstitutional foreign policy and national security measures; both support massive entitlement spending that drains the economy and inflates the deficit; and both push whatever moral views their party has co-opted for votes onto the American people.
They really aren't that different because both stink. (I'm referring to the archetypal Democrat v. Republican. I agree with the overall message that people shouldn't be defined by their party affiliation; after all, there isn't much to choose from.)

bardroth

I don't disagree with that. But the slime of this new Democrat/commie party the people better pay attention to

"electing" some "new" politicians won't change anything.
Scrap the system..or let it collapse on it's own. Either way it's a win-win for the people.

Congressional Reform Act of 2014


1. Term Limits

12 years max, some possible options are below.

A. Two Six-year Senate terms

B. Six Two-year House terms

C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms


2. No Tenure / No Pension

Members of Congress receive a salary while in office,

that salary ends when they leave office.


3. Congress members (past, present & future) are to participate in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system

immediately.

All future funds flow into the Social Security system,

and Congress participates with all Americans.


4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan,

just as all Americans do.


5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.

Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.


6. Congress loses their current health care system

and participates in the same health care system as the American people.


7. Members of Congress must equally abide by all laws

they impose on the American people.


8. All contracts with past and present members of Congress are void effective 1/1/15.

The American people did not make the contract members of Congress enjoy,

Congress made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.

The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators,

so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

 

[Wildman]

Demofool presidunces should only have 12 hours in office then booted

"Whorehouse Harry Reid" is a traitor to the Constitution, B.O.R. and America

 

[saveliberty]

House of Lords, House of Commons?