Will The Woman Ever Learn To Shut Up?

First it was Obama taking a shot at the Supreme Court so not to be outdone along comes Nancy Pelosi to add insult to injury. The only difference in the two instances is that Obama was stupid enough to say what he said while the SCOTUS is deliberating a law and Nancy is doing it after the fact when the SCOTUS has rendered their ruling. The latest Democratic bandwagon that Pelosi has climbed aboard is to amend the First Amendment. That is the most sacred of amendments to the Constitution and Pelosi and her band of thieves need to keep their mitts off of it.

Take A Listen

A couple of points here now. Pelosi, of late anyway, seems to want to interpret the intent (she calls it vision here) of our founding fathers. She always tries that ploy when things aren't going her way. I would suggest to Nancy that she read it and then follow it as she failed to do when ramming Obamacare down our throats. The SCOTUS has ruled on the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and has spoken. I'm sure those "un-elected" officials care less about the way Pelosi sees it, as do I.

Then there is the matter of how an amendment is ratified. It isn't just done by a pack of Progressive Democrats waving Nancy's witch wand and "Viola" it is done. That group needs to do some legal research evidently. It is never easy to do for obvious reasons. Or she could take her bosses tact and find a way to circumvent the Constitution because she doesn't agree with it. That might blow up in their faces too. Probably the best solution to her grievance is to actually write laws that are constitutional and will withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court. She probably doesn't like that idea though. That might be a little too much to ask though.

As soon as Pelosi opens her mouth I start to see the "oozing slime" she speaks of. Lets examine her boss - Obama. She is talking about a guy who spent at least $787 million dollars to buy his job. This cycle his goal is to raise $1 billion in his attempt to keep it. Here's what she just said and explain to me how it doesn't apply to Obama in the present.

Obama pledged to the other Democratic candidates, early on in his first run, that he would fiance his campaign using the federal financing system. Then he turned around and did just the opposite. He's the same guy who railed against the Citizens United ruling and called out the SCOTUS the first time in a State of the Union address. The same guy who said he would have nothing to do with the SuperPAC system but now does. Bill Maher and the one million dollars comes to mind. Has he returned that money yet? No he has not.

Again here is Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.” I guess the rule applies only to the other party and not the Democrats? Is that the hypocrisy I hear oozing again?

It Is Time That She Read It And Not Pontificate About It.

You can dress a pig up and slap the lipstick on it but it is still a pig. Citziens United ruled that corporations, as well as individuals, have protection under the First Amendment. Those corporations would include those who publish newspapers, film producers and book distributors. Think about giving the power to the government to gag those it disagrees with. This is a thinly veiled attempt to deny those who they disagree with the ability to voice their opinions. The court said in that ruling that "everyone" has the ability to speak their mind about politicians and their ilk and the records, or lack thereof, of those who are supposedly governing this nation.

The gist of what this band of dimwits is proposing, along with People For The American Way and Common Cause, is restriction of speech by corporations. Why? This is what what one committee member, Representative Donna Edwards (D-Md) said about their proposal, “But what it would do is it would say, all of the speech in which, whether it's corporations or campaign committees and others engage in, would be able to be fully regulated under the authority of the Congress and--and under our Constitution.” That statement, in and of itself, flies right into the face of the First Amendment which specifically says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Think about that and then think about what Edwards said. The press is usually a what?

They want the ability to silence television and radio, the press, publishers of written materials, the movie industry, think tanks and the list goes on because they are normally formed as corporations, or are elements within an existing corporate structure. Now I know liberal sometimes don't think that deeply but in this case they need to.

You reform the campaign finance system, which has gotten more than its fair share of lip service over the years, by writing laws within the boundaries of the US Constitution that can withstand the opinion of the Supreme Court if they ever get there. That's so easy even a 5th grader can understand it. The US Constitution is what it is and amending it is a difficult process as it should be. That process guards it against people like Nancy Pelosi.

You don't reform the campaign finance system by prohibiting the freedom of speech. You also don't reform the campaign finance system by amending the First Amendment of the US Constitution by empowering Congress to regulate the speech they find acceptable or unacceptable no matter who is doing it. That would be the loss of the very foundation of The Bill of Rights. Those are rights I personally hold dear and so should you.

The Progressives hijacked the Democratic Party and those of you who are Democrats and not of that vein need to regain control of your party. That might include kicking Nancy Pelosi and her wacko ideas to the curb once and for all.

Remember In November!

As Always,

The Frog Prince


A Song For Nancy

More by this Author

  • "Ineptocracy" Is A Word
    18

    Ineptocracy is the new system of government that Obama-Biden ushered in. It is a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society...


Comments 21 comments

handymanbill profile image

handymanbill 4 years ago from western pennsylvania

No.She likes to open mouth and insert foot. Up to her knee.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 4 years ago from Rural Arizona

Pelosi has a warped view of the world that only she can understand. Her mouth just opens and words fall out that make little or no sense to any of us who would be considered sane in a sanity hearing. Only she understands most of what she says.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 4 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Mike - There must be other people who understand what she says, or maybe it is what she doesn't say. Her district keeps sending her back to do more damage to this nation. They have to be speaking the same language which usually amounts to gobble-de-goop.

Or maybe they just want to ensure that the marsh mice out that way continue to be fed at the government feed bucket.

The Frog


dvines 4 years ago

Great piece Frog. Pelosi is so warped that few in the land of reality can grasp what she says. I can't believe the voters in her district continue to re-elect her. Shame on them.


marcoujor profile image

marcoujor 4 years ago from Jeffersonville PA

You can tell alot about a man by the songs he selects...

Voted UP & FAB... Big hugs, mar.


34th Bomb Group 4 years ago

Once again, over the course of the past 3 1/2 years, I find myself thinking: WELCOME TO GERMANY circa 1933.

The parallels are striking, and sickening.

This crew MUST go!


coloradoriggs 4 years ago

The old poolman has it right. Pelosi really does have a bizarre, warped view of life that only she can understand. We can't let her and her looney lefty friends go unchecked but who listens to her? She's nuts! @dvines: you have nailed the $64,000 question. Who votes for Pelosi, Boxer, Reid, Feinstein, B. Frank, and all the other liberal kooks? Mostly people who ignore what is going on in the world or get their news from abc, nbc, cbs and confuse it with reality. Who hates America that much????


Conservative Lady profile image

Conservative Lady 4 years ago from Surprise Arizona - formerly resided in Washington State

Like you stated Frog, there are obviously people who understand and Vote for Pelosi - that scares me more than anything...... Voted Up and Interesting - well done!


Stu 4 years ago

I can't be certain, but my guess is that any law, legal or illegal, that impacts free speech rights during election season will be slanted. Like the failed Disclose Bill, it will probably have exemptions for labor unions, large liberal advocacy groups, and named corporations (those that conntribute to Obama).

The fundamental problem liberals have with the Citizen's United decision is that it allows corporations to influence the outcome of primaries and general elections via public speech. But this is the whole point of public political speech. This is a main reason the First Amendment was enacted. It's irrational to say that only the candidates, media, labor unions, advocacy groups, and wealthy individuals can engage in free political speech, but corporations can't. What are corporations? They are simply businesses owned by millions of shraeholders, who have a right to be represented in public by their management (I hear no calls for sole proprietors or partnerships to be muzzled, which are identical to corporations except they have fewer owners and their owners are not accorded limited liability, both points being irrelevant to the free speech issue). Free speech rights can be delegated, in the same way that members of an advocacy group delegates their free speech rights to the group leadership. To subject corporations to law and regulation, and then deny them the right to speak publicly in regard government policy and candidates, is the moral equivalent of taxation without representation. In fact, fiduciary duty demands that corporate managers do all they can, within the law, to maximize value for the shareowners. This will necessitate speaking out on political matters, especially during campaign season.

It is arrogant for Pelosi to target corporations, and in two ways. First, Pelosi is trying to silence those she believes are critics of her agenda, not all private groups, such as labor unions. Second, Democrats are as much on the corporate doll as Republicans. Democrats have no problem taking corporate campaign money in exchange for favorable legislation for the few that harms the general public, but at the same time they villify these same corporations for merely exercising their constitutional right to free speech. It makes great public fodder, making the Democrats look like the voice of the 99%. But as long as both parties engage in corporate "pay-to-play", such positioning is pure deception that protects plutocracy (by deflection) and stifles peaceful dissent. Far from the Democratic argument that corporate free speech "interferes with the election process," it actually enhances it by helping to ensure that as many voices as possible are considered before voters go to the polls.


Cassie Ann profile image

Cassie Ann 4 years ago

Will the women ever learn to shut up??? Absolutely NOT - she loves the sound of her voice too much ;-).

I especially like this paragraph in your hub:

Again here is Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.” I guess the rule applies only to the other party and not the Democrats? Is that the hypocrisy I hear oozing again?

You are 100% correct. The rule applies only to the other party and not the Democrats. Here in my state of Wisconsin, there is a war waging to oust Gov. Scott Walker by recall efforts. Basically it boils down to the Dems wanting him out because he is righting too many wrongs and they are running scared. The election for walker was fair - the people voted and the majority elected him. So by Pelosi's comment "the elections are determined by the people, the voice and vote of the people", means Gov. Scott Walker should stay governor because "the voice and the vote of the people" was heard.

Another great hub, FP.


teaches12345 profile image

teaches12345 4 years ago

Pelosi has been a source of contraversy with almost every speech she makes, yet they continue to allow her to represent government policy. I guess freedom of speech only applies to certain government officials.


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 4 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

I'm honestly puzzled, who actually takes Pelosi seriously?


Mmargie1966 profile image

Mmargie1966 4 years ago from Gainesville, GA

Voted up and awesome! Great Job, FP...as usual!


FGual profile image

FGual 4 years ago from USA

Even the sound of her voice is unpleasant, how the hell did she become such a big shot? She should hop on her broom and fly away.


Ghost32 4 years ago

Pelosi entirely missing (i.e. most likely UNAWARE OF) the fact that the Founders set up a Constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy--and that democracies inevitably self-destruct by their very (structural) natures.

Ask Athens.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 4 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Fred - You know and I know that the word democracy is never mentioned in the US Constitution. Pelosi has obviously never read the document.

The Frog


breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 4 years ago

No, the woman will never learn to shut up! Up and awesome.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 4 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

BPOP - The voters in her district need to put her out to pasture to graze.

TFP


Rickgyver 4 years ago

Great post FP. Nailed it, but then again, what's new?

Princess Oozy, er, uh, I mean Nancy, needs to watch some of her own videos sometime. I can't believe even SHE would understand what she just said!

What am I saying.............of course she wouldn't!


Skarlet profile image

Skarlet 4 years ago from California

Love it! She has said some of the craziest things. "The occupy protestors have a clear defined mission." And a short time before that when the tea party was in full swing, "protesting is unpatriotic".


ConservativeKate 4 years ago

Gee....she ust sai they wat to 'reverse the view of the Founders'.................

Obviously, the Botox has penetrated whatever brain cells she HAD and paralized them. [I KNEW that the Botulism Toxin injectins are a BAD idea!!!!]

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working