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!
The Frog Prince