Sunday, June 08, 2014

HOW "The Party" Will LEGALLY Limit Speech! (Both MN Senators For)

Democrats Try to Repeal First Amendment | Power Line:

Here we see the ACLU detailing what kind of Amerika TP is intent on creating. Note at the end that the law got ONLY support from TP, although the ACLU generously (for TP) uses assumptions of how it might be used by Republicans to suppress speech. "It might, legally", but not likely in the current world that is dominated by TP media and academia.

What it WOULD do however is to completely legalize what TP members do all the time -- use their positions to harass opposition candidates and organizations through campaign finance laws! This is a tactic that has been, and continues to be used against Scott Walker in WI. Read and understand the Udall Amendment, and keep the phrase "suppression of conservative advocacy" firmly in mind for the real world, much less generous than the ACLU version of looking at this.

FORTY ONE sponsors!! All  DEMOCRATS want to gut the First Amendment by giving themselves vast powers to REGULATE POLITICAL SPEECH!!!  What kind of country have we become where Senators, including those up for re-election  like Franken, can come out in favor of blatant totalitarian control of political speech and correctly assume that the MSM and general sleepy nature of our population will insulate them from damage!

THIS is why we have slid so far from being "The Land of the Free", and continue to tumble. In the ACLU letter quoted below, they try very hard to be on-partisan ... when ALL 41 of the signers were Democrats! The continued slide into tyranny demands the removal of free speech -- the Democrats are all over it.

To give just a few hypotheticals of what would be possible in a world where the Udall proposal is the 28th Amendment:
  •  Congress would be allowed to restrict the publication of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s forthcoming memoir “Hard Choices” were she to run for office; 
  • Congress could criminalize a blog on the Huffington Post by Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, that accuses Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) of being a “climate change denier”; 
  •  Congress could regulate this website by reform group Public Citizen, which urges voters to contact their members of Congress  in support of a constitutional amendment addressing  and the recent McCutcheon  case, under the theory that it is, in effect, a sham issue communication in favor of the Democratic Party; 
  • A state election agency, run by a corrupt patronage appointee, could use state law to limit speech by anti-corruption groups supporting reform; 
  • A local sheriff running for reelection and facing vociferous public criticism for draconian immigration policies and prisoner abuse could use state campaign finance laws to harass and prosecute his own detractors; 
  • A district attorney running for reelection could selectively prosecute political opponents using state campaign finance restrictions
 And Congress could pass a law regulating this letter since it notes that all 41 sponsors are Democrats.  Such examples are not only plausible, they are endless.

'via Blog this'

No comments:

Post a Comment