Tag Archives: Senate Democrats

Senate Democrats trying to eradicate the Constitution’s First Amendment (the “free speech” amendment). Warning: This is going to make you angry…

Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and 38 other Members of the United States Senate have just thrown their full support behind SJ Res 19, an attempt to re-write the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution and give Congress broad and open-ended authority to regulate ALL political speech. 

       No, we’re not kidding — and when it comes to this imminent threat to your 1st Amendment rights, The Washington Times, quite simply and unequivocally, writes: “They Are Serious.” 

       Reid and Company are threatening to bring SJ Res 19 to the floor of the Senate as many times as it may take to pass it.

       The 1st Amendment is clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” 

       But SJ Res 19 would turn the 1st Amendment on its head and give Harry Reid and his cohorts broad and undefined authority to regulate ALL political speech. 

       Here’s what SJ Res 19 actually says: “Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections…” 

       As Lloyd Green put it recently in The Daily Beast, “In plain English that’s called censorship.” 

       But if you’re still asking what’s wrong with SJ Res 19, read it again carefully and pay attention to the phrase “in-kind equivalents.” According to Dictionary.com, in-kind means “paid or given in goods, commodities, or services instead of money.” 

       In other words, Harry Reid and his leftist cohorts aren’t simply granting politicians the authority to regulate the amount of money some rich guy can give a candidate for office but they’re trying to grant themselves the power to regulate anything, repeat, ANYTHING that YOU say or do that THEY determine may benefit a candidate for elective office… now or at any time in the future. 

       Let that sink in for just a minute. If you make a comment on a website or blog… if you talk politics to a group of friends… if you speak out against Obamacare or government scandals in any public setting… and THEY say it benefits a candidate for public office, THEY would have the power to regulate, fine, silence or possibly even jail you. 

       SJ Res 19 concludes: “Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” 

       In their push to pass SJ Res 19 and silence political dissent in this country, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and their partners-in-crime have been telling you they’re simply attempting to stop “The Koch [Brothers] bid for a hostile takeover of American democracy” or “allowing dark money to flood our elections.” 

       And the liberal media has been dutifully advancing that false narrative like obsequious dogs. Well, it’s a BIG FAT LIE. As the American Thinker writes: “The mainstream media, which excels in providing cover for progressives in growing the government to gargantuan proportions, has echoed the call by bemoaning ‘too much money in politics.'” 

       Be forewarned. You are being duped because Reid and Company are advancing a straw man argument to push a constitutional amendment that gives Congress broad and undefined authority to restrict ALL political speech. 

       We’re not the only ones saying it. SJ Res 19 broadly states it; and some, fortunately, are starting to see the handwriting on the wall. The Wall Street Journal writes: 

       “The larger story here is how far the American left is willing to go to cripple their political opponents. They’re even willing to write a giant loophole into America’s founding charter so Congress can limit political speech. The Tea Party’s concerns about eroding liberty turn out to be more accurate than even its most devoted partisans imagined.” 

       And Cain.tv (the website of former Presidential candidate Herman Cain) echoes those sentiments. In an article entitled: “Politics: Chuck Schumer: Let’s Amend The Constitution So Congress Can Restrict Free Speech,” Cain.tv writes: 

       “When a US Senator is willing to be so brazen as to propose we amend the Constitution to weaken the First Amendment – and specifically to empower Congress to restrict free speech – what that really tells us is where the political landscape stands. Not long ago it would have been inconceivable that mainstream politicians hoping to remain in office would propose to take away basic First Amendment rights for the purpose of empowering politicians to impose new restrictions on same. At least in the reading of Sen. Schumer and others who back this proposed amendment, the political landscape has changed and it is now possible to propose such a thing without being flogged by the voters as a result.” 

       Well, as far as we’re concerned, it may be possible for them to make such tyrannical proposals but not without being flogged by the voters. It’s time to contact your elected senators and do some flogging. Better yet, call their offices and flog them verbally. Politely, firmly, but verbally and in person.

Chuck Schumer Actually Compares Conservative Political Speech To Pornography.
       You read that right. Schumer actually said: “I respect my colleagues’ fidelity to the First Amendment, but no amendment is absolute. Some support limitations on pornography. That’s a limitation on the First Amendment.” 

       But as Luke Wachob with The Washington Times writes: “[P]olitical speech today actually enjoys less First Amendment protection than does pornography. … Mr. Schumer’s view that political speech is no different from pornography… illustrates his appalling lack of respect for freedom of speech and the extreme recklessness of those who endeavor to replace the First Amendment with government control.” 

       Wachob adds: “It seems it’s time to close that pesky ‘freedom of speech’ loophole that lets citizens go unpunished for criticizing their government or elected officials” and he also says that those “who want to amend the First Amendment do not seem to want a discussion of its history. They simply want to make it history.” 

       Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is calling this proposal “an all-out assault on the right to free speech” and “the ultimate act of radicalism.” 

       We couldn’t agree more.



As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Obama and the Democrats are blocking the Keystone XL oil pipeline because hedge fund billionaire is paying them to block it…

Tom Steyer blocks Keystone XL pipeline...

The decision to delay — yet again — the final permit for the popular Keystone XL pipeline was made not in the White House or at the State Department, but in a posh private residence in the Sea Cliff neighborhood in northwestern San Francisco. It was there on February 19 that former vice president Al Gore and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the pilgrimage to Tom Steyer’s home to kiss the ring of the hedge fund-billionaire turned super-donor, in exchange for $400,000 that night and a promise of $100 million more to come.

Steyer’s sole demand? Stop the pipeline.

There were six Senate Democrats present: Reid, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, and Mark Udall of Colorado. All had voted against the pipeline in a test vote offered as a budget amendment last year, although 17 Democrats voted for the bipartisan measure.

They were also joined by one aspiring Democratic senator, Rep. Gary Peters of Michigan. Peters voted against the bipartisan Northern Route Approval Act, H.R. 3, which would require the presidential permit to be issued. The bill passed the House 241 to 175 last May, but Reid has refused to allow the Senate to consider it.

On March 10, with the group who huddled in Sea Cliff taking the lead, Democrats headed to the Senate floor to sing for their supper. They spoke all night about global warming but refused to offer any legislation to address it. They hardly sought media coverage, and the only audience that mattered was Steyer, who tweeted his approval: “I applaud the 28 senators that stood #Up4Climate last night.”

The following week, Steyer’s spokesman made clear that he demanded more than talk for his $100 million life raft to struggling Democratic senate candidates. The quid pro quo was made explicit, and public. “If we’re collectively going to put $100 million into this cycle, how much will go into key races depends on Keystone,” said top Steyer political hand Chris Lehane.

A week ago, Steyer got exactly what he asked for when the State Department (which had famously promised action before the end of 2011 on this permit application originally submitted in 2008) punted a decision until after the 2014 elections. “This is rotten eggs for TransCanada and good news on Good Friday for those who oppose Keystone,” Steyer boasted.

The crassly political decision by the Obama administration flies in the face of the standard President Obama personally laid out for the pipeline just last year, when he said: “Our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution,” that is, greenhouse gas emissions. “The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.”

Keystone XL passed that test with flying colors; indeed, by Obama’s standard approving the project immediately should be imperative, because the State Department determined that denying the permit would increase greenhouse gas emissions 28 to 42% because the alternative transport options of rail and tanker are less efficient.

Why then is Steyer so insistent? It could be because he invested in Kinder Morgan, which is building a competing pipeline – although he has promised to divest that stake. Or it could be because of his green energy investments. But most likely it is because Steyer is a true believer and his hardened opposition to the pipeline has become impervious to evidence or argument.

Regardless, Sean McGarvey, president of North America’s Building Trades Unions, asked the key question: “Why does President Obama continue to side with radicals instead of the middle class?”

McGarvey continued: “It’s ironic that at the same time billionaire conservatives are coming under increasing scrutiny and criticism by the left for their involvement in politics, there is nary a word about the political spending by liberal billionaires that negatively impact the job prospects and livelihoods of working class Americans.”

The pithiest explanation came from Terry O’Sullivan, general president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America: “It’s not the oil that’s dirty, it’s the politics.”

Now the Democrats have given Steyer precisely what he wants: midterm Senate elections whose outcome will determine the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline.

They have done so at their own peril.

Yes, $100 million buys a bunch of TV ads. But every vote for a Senate Democrat is now a vote to ratify this corrupt bargain, keep Harry Reid in power, and stop the Keystone XL pipeline from being built.

That’s likely to hurt Democrats more in November than Steyer’s money helps them.

[by Phil Kerpen, writing for USA TODAY]


As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized