?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

the first amendment to the constitution

***
ACCORDING TO BARACK OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY
AS EVIDENCED BY THEIR ATTEMPT TO RAM THROUGH THE "DISCLOSE ACT"


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.*

* Unless it applies to conservatives, Republicans, and/or anyone who actually believes in free speech, the Constitution, limited government by the consent of the governed, and the rule of law.

What a travesty the "Disclose Act" is and how transparent the intentions of the Democrat Party to stifle free speech and dissent and rig the 2010 mid-term elections.

Comments

( 18 comments — Leave a comment )
tniassaint
Jul. 27th, 2010 08:43 pm (UTC)
Without even going into my own thoughts on support on this bill (it might not be what you think)... explain to me how this is in any way a violation of the prohibition against laws that provide...:

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.*

I have read a summery of the bill. So explain that odd statement. I have heard it several times, but never with any real support for the claim.
metaphorsbwithu
Jul. 27th, 2010 09:45 pm (UTC)
I'll make it short and sweet.

The Supreme Court spelled out that corporations, etc. are composed of people and they have the same right to express political speech as UNIONS, "astroturf" organizations like ACORN, SEIU, NEA, OFA, etc. which are EXEMPTED from this Orwellian bill's ban.

It would go into effect within 30 days, just in time to throw the mid-term elections into chaos.

Obama LIED about the meaning of the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United right in their faces, and the Democrats showed their true contemptible selves by jumping up behind them and applauding Obama's crass political LIE!

Funny for someone who tool over $60 million from SEIU in big corporations in 2008 as well as potentially $100 million or more from untraceable foreign sources.
tniassaint
Jul. 27th, 2010 10:01 pm (UTC)
Well, frankly, I (and many others) know that the Supreme Court Decision (Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 ) is an absolute travesty. I have been reading on that bit of legal tripe. It is bunk.

I do not think that these organizations should be exempted - EXCEPT for charitable NFPs (mostly because they get a good deal of funding from anonymous donations) - but IMHO it should only apply if they are NOT involved in election activities and lobbying. The exemption removes the transparencies and opens HUGE loopholes that make the rule useless.

That noted - you have not demonstrated ANY infringement on the Constitutional rule quoted.

Also there is NO Constitutional Protection to ones rights of privacy (States often do - FL being one of them).

Also, if it is such a nasty bit of legislation then we will all enjoy the Supreme Court hearings - won't we?
metaphorsbwithu
Jul. 27th, 2010 10:09 pm (UTC)
That's because you, Mike, and "many others" do not believe in what the Constitution says.

You, like Obama, think it's flawed and want to ignore the Constitution's true intent that there shouyld be no BIG BROTHER.

You want to control what people say, what they think, where they go, how they get there, what they do, how they live, how much of their money they can keep, who gets what, who wins, who loses ... and on, and on, and on.

If I got together a hundred, or two hundred, or a thousand people to express our political opinions (especially opinions against the Democrat Party) you and the Democrats would FORCE us to be SILENT.

If you don't understand that you don't want to understand so stop with the "I haven't proved" line.

And the House version was WORSE!

Tyranny, Mike! One party rule! This is what you get when the Socialist Democrats get into power!

Congratulations!:-D

tniassaint
Jul. 27th, 2010 11:49 pm (UTC)
Oh come on - I was really asking to discuss this - honestly and fairly
There ya go - see I was trying to have an honest and straight forward conversation on the Bill ... you got to start inventing this Right Wing Radio talking points that are complete fantasy land. No one is forcing anyone to be silent – they are asking that they be honest and tell us who is ACTUALLY paying for the ads. What are you/ they afraid of? That we might find out just HOW FAR these corporate entities and big money donors are manipulating the electorate? Are you/ they afraid we might actually find out WHO is actually talking to us? Of course that's what you/ they folks are afraid of.

There is no protection of anonymity in the Bill of Rights. When I am fed cereal I can read who is feeding me and what they put in it. Honestly – WHAT IS WRONG with requiring this disclosure? We REQUIRE news agencies to tell us when they are reporting on one of their associated corporations who pays their bills? What is so wrong with requiring it in this area as well.

I think you have dodged this because you cannot make the case... AND, with the LETTER of the LAW of the Constitution, you cannot argue that point. That is why you just call names, invent spurious claims of muzzling, and etc - NONE of wich has happened or is even in the bill – by the way. Show me? I have read it - where is this bogyman?

I think they should be transparent! What do these organizations (even the ones that are exempt, but shouldn't be) have to fear? What do the donors have to fear? The Constitution doesn't promise the sort of protections the argument implies. The Constitution never even hints at corporations being individuals in the eyes of the law (interesting history on that - you should read it some time - it is a great story of industrialists gone wild).

And you say (in blatant and deliberate error) that I have no respect for the Constitution. Try discussing the points instead of doing a Rush Limbaugh on me. Honestly, I came in to try to understand what was bothersome about this to you / them, and I find that there is no case. It is beginning to look like a bad case of ether “we don't like it because the other side brought it up”, or “ because we have something to hide”.

In truth I am not 100% behind this; but for only one reason - and it a reason that you constantly misrepresent me on . . . Care to know?
metaphorsbwithu
Jul. 28th, 2010 12:04 am (UTC)
Re: Oh come on - I was really asking to discuss this - honestly and fairly
I don't do talking points.

I've always been ahead of the curve.

You can check my record going back three years.

The fact is I have no patience with what I know is happening and what I've predicted would happen for years.

It's here.

The left seeks to control information and any discussion.

Obama lies so effortlessy it is truly disturbing in a way I've never experienced it.

We have a Supreme Court nominee who WOULD NOT SAY we have unalienable rights or that there are limits on the power of the federal government.

We have a media that are propagandists for the administration and a Democrat majority who is more corrupt than any American Congress in history.

If you think not, check my hundreds of tweets and hundreds of posts over the last three years.

It's all happening right in fron of our eyes and you are telling me not to believe what I seee is happening.

Nice try! :-D

I know how hard it is to admit you have been wrong about so much but come on. Reality is slapping you in the face. ;-)
tniassaint
Jul. 28th, 2010 12:15 am (UTC)
Re: Last try - still tattempting to FAIRLY discuss this
See - still cannot answer. You made some claims that did not sound accurate - and I still do not think they are - and you are not able to argue the points.

You have been right to your camp - not to mine. I don't have to try as it is so obviously spun.

So don't Limbaugh me - really - how is the statement true? HOW DOES THIS LIMIT ANYTHING? The only limit is that someone will be afraid they might injure their cause when it is discovered who they are associating with - You made a big deal out of contributors to the various camps last election - even some where THE MONEY WAS RETURNED; and it is similar issues that you now seek to protect the "right" from under the guise of some sort of Constitutional protections you cannot enumerate.

No one has asked anyone to be silent - in fact they are being asked to speak up.
metaphorsbwithu
Jul. 28th, 2010 12:30 am (UTC)
Re: Last try - still tattempting to FAIRLY discuss this
Sorry, Mike. I won't fall for all the little insults and straw man arguments.

I find it hilarious that a liberal would start arguing against protection of privacy when that right was created by Roe. v Wade.

Liberals are such a curious lot.

You don't want people who come into our country illegally to have to show ID when they are stopped for legal infractions but, like that Representative I posted about who was asked a question by a college journalist, and Rangel who was asked a question by LUKE RUSSERT of MSNBC, you immediately want to know, "WHO ARE YOU? Who do you work for?"

At least Rangal didn't grab the student around the throat like that other guy did.

Anyone can show up to vote and you want to make it a federal offense to check ID but you and the Democrats want to know our height and weight, our emails, our social networking activity, how much money we withdraw from our accounts, and on and on and on.

Yeah, I know ... talking points.

Except all those "fear-mongering talking points" have been coming to pass or will be if yu leftists have your way.

Again ... nice try! People are waking up Mike. They see what's happening and the see how the media are LYING to them.

I have to admit though, I didn't think your side could do this much damage in the first 18 months.

Very impressive the rate of destruction. If the media actually reported fairly, Obama's approval rate woul be 25% instead of 45% and the Congress ... well, you can't go much lower than 11%, can you? ;-)
tniassaint
Jul. 28th, 2010 12:40 am (UTC)
Re: Last try - still tattempting to FAIRLY discuss this
See you are doing it again - mis-attributing things that a party that I do not like does and trying to suggest it is me. I only asked one thing - how is the issue a violation of the Constitutional Clause you claim it violates.

You made the claim - you cannot answer for it.

I have never made claims or stated agreement with any of the bogus comments you just spewed out. I have not tried to silence you - I have actually asked you to be more clear - which I do not think you can.

The misdirection on Roe Wade doesn't work either...

It wasn't a good try - it was an honest inquiry - and you have more than demonstrated the answer. It was a red herring - emphasis on Red.
metaphorsbwithu
Jul. 28th, 2010 01:47 am (UTC)
Re: Last try - still tattempting to FAIRLY discuss this
My God, Mike!

I don't know what else to say!

Are you on something? :-D

Nancy Pelosi is out LYING about this bill again and again, a bill which protects the trial lawyers, the teachers unions, planned parenthood, etc. and limits people who don't agree with or contribute to the Democrat Party.

I get it! You don't believe in constitutional government, a federal republic, checks and balances ... free speech.

If there are 50.1% of the population who agree with you come November IT IS OVER!

My God! Liberalism is one of the most mindless irrational political ideology every concocted.


tniassaint
Jul. 28th, 2010 01:57 am (UTC)
Re: Last try - still tattempting to FAIRLY discuss this
No see - I already said that the exemptions were wrong. Do not even attempt to draw any sort of allusion that I support them. That is your bogus claim -not mine.

You keep claiming that I have no respect or belief in the Constitution, et al, but still have not offered the single explanation as to how this is a violation of said Constitution and the specific clause you named. I, on the other hand DO believe in it and respect it and DID read it and DID ask you to show me how your statement was correct - to which you have not even after four tries - you have dodged every single one.

So how is this mindful? Red Herrings - a whole flock of them.

We agree that the exemptions are wrong. So I guess that aside from the exemptions you support this? Because you sure have not been able to give one scrap of evidence that anyone's rights or Constitutional Protections are being trampled. Want to try it out? I am only presenting you with the same discussion you have attempted on me. I answer when I am asked.
metaphorsbwithu
Jul. 28th, 2010 02:15 am (UTC)
Re: Last try - still tattempting to FAIRLY discuss this
Up to 80,000 companies would be banned under the Senate bill Mike! Banned from expresing an opinion even if they didn't specifically endorse anyone.

Wake up, Mike!

Pelosi is LYING saying foreign companies would be able to run ads ... just as Obama did.

Chief Justice Roberts shook his head and said no and HE was made the bad guy instead of Obama who was LYING out of his teeth.

I did a post on it.

Mike, I know your ideology. I know your "interpretation" of what the Constitution is.

Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are SICK individuals.

Absolutely ruthless people who will lie, distort, and deceive to WIN.

They bribe and twist arms and do whatever they can to get and maintain power, including trashing the Constitution and free speech (of their opponents) every way they can.

If I were you I'd read the Federalist Papers and see what this Constitutional system is supposed to be.

I trust Madison and the founding fathers infinitely more than these left-wing radicals ... and I do because I understand what they did and why.

I see Massachusetts just voted to reserve casting their Electoral Votes dependent on what the national popular vote is.

Unbelievable!

More tyranny, Mike. It's right in front of you.
tniassaint
Jul. 28th, 2010 04:21 am (UTC)
Sooo much better
Aside from the bitter angry Limbaugh style rhetoric (you really need to get past that - it doesn't serve you well) I have finally got part of what I was asking for... Thanks.

Sadly, it is too late tonight to follow up - and I have a flight tomorrow.

I really wish you would stop transposing what you think all liberals have in their heads into what you think is in mine. You are quite off the mark there on so many points.

As for the bill - I have read the Cliffsnotes (all I had time for) and I had only enough time to speed read that. When I have time to actually read more of it I'll see if the frantic hand-wringing is all the "right" makes it out to be. From what I have seen - it is all noise.

To be fair, if you had just answered the question instead of all the name calling and attempts at distracting noise and rhetoric that was not related to the question I would have had more time to actually read up and reply properly.

You really should read up on the whole issue of the history of how corporations got a hold of extraordinary rights as (and sometimes exceeding) those of individuals. It is amazing!

Ed - you are right about there being evil afoot - I just think you've picked the lesser devil as the bigger foe. You attack the dog when you should attack the ones holding the leash.

Go back and read my post and notice that I didn't start giving you a hard time until AFTER you started the Limbaugh routine. All I did was ask a simple question. If you go after people who just want to know what you are trying to say you will never get a message over to anyone.

So I will re-read and get back - assuming the world doesn't come to that flaming end that you keep promising me in the interim.
metaphorsbwithu
Jul. 28th, 2010 07:09 pm (UTC)
Re: Sooo much better
Don't be ridiculous.

You should know me well enough by now to realize:

I don't mean to get "personal".

I talk straight.

I deal in facts.

I have a record of being right over and over.

The forest is on fire and you want to discuss how water might harm the environment.

We have a bill that is designed to suppress free speech for targeted groups and you want to debate the definition of "free" and "speech".

Our country is being torn up by the roots and you say to be calm and polite, that I appear unseemly.

Mike, I am not concerned with trying to soft-soap people who are unconcerned with what's happening to this country, a blindingly fast dismantling of law, culture, spirit and traditions orchestrated by a leftist movement that has positioned itself into positions of power.

Go back and read what I wrote the year before Obama was elected and the 18 months since (I know you won't).

If I give you a hard time it's because you ignore the forest for the trees and then expect me to discuss whether olives are fruit or vegetables.

Open your eyes.
tniassaint
Jul. 29th, 2010 04:24 am (UTC)
Re: Sooo much better
It isn't personal - if I were offended I would have gone away. I disagree on what you might consider straight talk. Frankly it weaves a bit to much to be called straight.

I also disagree with your belief of being right 100% of the time - or insert whatever number you feel appropriate. I think that you believe that - I happen to disagree - kindly.

PolySci 101 - the forest is ALWAYS on fire.

As for the "designed to restrict free speech" From my first run through I have to disagree. I am willing to re-read it, but I have yet to see anything (ok one small thing) to suggest that. The one small thing? That companies that provide contracting services to the government should not be allowed to contribute money to the campaigns and the attack ad groups. I am willing to admit that I have not read it through- that was a first look and late at night at that.

The definition of what is FREE SPEECH is at the heart of this - and with the exception of the noted contractors (who have questionable motives in their contributions) and foreign entities - Who is it preventing from contributing. I do not see this as an infringement and no one has set forth any reason why it is. What it is saying is that these contributors are hiding behind these faceless groups. Why are they afraid that people know who they are? Why are the groups afraid tell us the source of their money? Why should the NRA (etc) be exempt? Why do we force others to tell us this sort of information, and not these folks? They should disclose the information. I still ask - where is the infringement on speech? Maybe I will see it when I re-read the 90 page bill (didn't I read it got shut down anyway?) and if it is an infringement - the courts will have something to keep them busy.

People - especially traditionalists and conservatives - are ALWAYS making claims that teh world is going to hell, their enemies are tearing up the country and anyone that doesn't agree with them are evil, don't care in the truth, and don't know anything. IT simply holds no water and distract from the conversation and makes the speaker look a little off balance. It is rarely true - but it IS an opinion.

You're still wrong about what you think I believe and what I stand for.

If I called you for fruit it because you threw some rotten fruit. As for the trees - I like trees. I like the forests. Link me whatever you like me to read - I read MUCH more of your stuff than you think. I just cannot post all the time. As for the doom and gloom - I am still waiting for that. I had to stop work on my bomb shelter because I have to worry more about the day to day existence of my family.

Every single day the so called "right" pushes me and people like me more and more away. I will - I promise - I will try at least - to post some of why that is - not that anyone will care. Truth is that I see a political and philosophical agenda that is out of sorts with itself and thick with major contradictions. I really need to sleep - got too rest up - two days at the main office.
metaphorsbwithu
Jul. 29th, 2010 11:33 pm (UTC)
Re: Sooo much better
Cue the violins! :-D

So the right is pushing you away every day?

C'mon, Mike. Spare me the pity routine. ;-)

For EIGHT years the left engaged in a relentless assualt against anyone who disagreed with them from Bush on down to the littlest blogger on LJ.

That included over 90% of the media who we now find out have been complicit in distorting and coordinating the news to advance everything from Global Warming to Socialized Healthcare.

You now see the result of your ideology in the absolute disaster that has been the last 18 months of the Obama/Democrat regime.

Lies, corruption, ineptitude, $1.4 TRILLION deficits, redistribution of wealth, bribery, tax evasion, an actual tripling in unemployment when you count the people who've stopped looking, a national debt approaching our annual GDP, a Congress that locks the doors and changes the locks to keep Republicans out, a healthcare bill rammed down the throat of a nation overwhelmingly opposed to it through bribes and false promises, a bill that has been shown to be a detestible lie as to cost, benefits, abortion coverage, illegal immigrant eligibility, the effect on private insurance ...

and on and on and on.

But Mike is upset at CONSERVATIVES!

Everything Obama says is a distortion or a lie but Mike blames the right for driving him further left.

He doesn't like that they're so upset because ... well, who can figure?

Break out the violins!! ;-)
metaphorsbwithu
Jul. 30th, 2010 01:52 am (UTC)
Re: Sooo much better
Btw, the NRA is exempt because they cut a deal with the Democrats. Did you notice they endorsed (gasp) Harry Reid?

The bill is designed to limit or ban CONSERVATIVE speech, Mike. Plan and simple. The bill was patched together at the last moment, given a "double-speak" name like most liberal bills, and rushed to a vote with a 30 day period before it would have taken effect - just in time to help the Democrats try to avoid that tsunami coming in November.

Keep voting for tyranny, Mike. It's here and it is on the move.

Oh, did you hear? A memo was leaked spelling out how the Obama administration might effect AMNESTY without having to go through Congressional approval.

Like Cap and Trade. And more and more parts of ObamaCare. And Financial "Reform" (Fannie and Freedie were left out and the SEC was exempted from the FOIA.

The BUREAUCRACY is legislating now. Or trying to.

Sounds like that Imperial Presidency you were always complaining about but could never quiet define ... I have TONS of examples.

And I never profess to be 100% accurate. More like 95%

One of my big mistakes was, if you remember, predicting $1 trillion deficits. It's more like $1.4 trillion for each of the first 3 years and ObamaCare hasn't even kicked in yet.

But don't worry. I'll be sure to make a poublic apology! ;-)
lather2002
Jul. 27th, 2010 11:44 pm (UTC)
A song that was written before it's time ...
A long long time ago
I can still remember how
that music used to make me smile
And I knew if I had my chance
That I could make those people dance
And maybe they'd be happy for a while.
But February made me shiver
With every paper I'd deliver
Bad news on the doorstep
I couldn't take one more step
I can't remember if I cried
When I read about his widowed bride
But something touched me deep inside
The day the music died

{Refrain}
So bye-bye, Miss American Pie
Drove my chevy to the levee
But the levee was dry
And them good old boys were drinkin' whiskey and rye
Singin' this'll be the day that I die
This'll be the day that I die

Did you write the Book of Love
And do you have faith in God above
If the Bible tells you so
Do you believe in rock 'n roll
Can music save your mortal soul
And can you teach me how to dance real slow
Well, I know that you're in love with him
'Cause I saw you dancin' in the gym
You both kicked off your shoes
Man, I dig those rhythm and blues
I was a lonely teenage broncin' buck
With a pink carnation and a pickup truck
But I knew I was out of luck
The day the music died

I started singin' bye-bye, Miss American Pie...

Now for ten years we've been on our own
And moss grows fat on a rollin' stone
But that's not how it used to be
When the jester sang for the King and Queen
In a coat he borrowed from James Dean
And a voice that came from you and me
Oh, and while the King was looking down
The jester stole his thorny crown
The courtroom was adjourned
No verdict was returned
And while Lenin read a book of Marx
The quartet practiced in the park
And we sang dirges in the dark
The day the music died

We were singing bye-bye, Miss American Pie...

Helter Skelter in a summer swelter
The birds flew off with a fallout shelter
Eight miles high and falling fast
It landed foul out on the grass
The players tried for a forward pass
With the jester on the sidelines in a cast
Now the half-time air was sweet perfume
While the Sergeants played a marching tune
We all got up to dance
Oh, but we never got the chance
'Cause the players tried to take the field
The marching band refused to yield
Do you recall what was revealed
The day the music died

We started singing bye-bye, Miss American Pie...

Oh, and there we were all in one place
A generation Lost in Space
With no time left to start again
So come on, Jack be nimble, Jack be quick
Jack Flash sat on a candlestick
'Cause fire is the Devil's only friend
Oh, and as I watched him on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage
No angel born in hell
Could break that Satan's spell
And as the flames climbed high into the night
To light the sacrificial rite
I saw Satan laughing with delight
The day the music died

He was singing bye-bye, Miss American Pie...

I met a girl who sang the blues
And I asked her for some happy news
But she just smiled and turned away
I went down to the sacred store
Where I'd heard the music years before
But the man there said the music wouldn't play
And in the streets the children screamed
The lovers cried, and the poets dreamed
But not a word was spoken
The church bells all were broken
And the three men I admire most
The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
They caught the last train for the coast
The day the music died
( 18 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

August 2014
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com