Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘1st amendment’

Liberals hate the Constitution so this isn’t shocking one bit.

Read Full Post »

chicks2-208x300

Can’t offend liberals with the truth. They want to shut down dissent.

From The Blaze:

Facebook on Wednesday apologized for threatening to shut down the “Chicks on the Right” Facebook page because of a post critical of the Obama administration, Fox News’ Todd Starnes reports. The site claims the users were “incorrectly warned” by the site’s User Operation’s Team.

Mockarena, one of the two women who runs “Chicks on the Right,” a conservative website with more than 100,000 fans on their official Facebook page, reportedly received a notice on Wednesday informing her that she would be locked out of not only her “Chicks on the Right” Facebook page, but her personal page as well. Facebook accused her of violating the company’s standards with one of her posts.

The post in question was directed at White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. The post referred users to a website posting titled, “You Know What? Liberal Hypocrisy is Starting to Cause Me Actual Physical Pain.”

“Jay Carney can kiss my assular area,” Mockarena wrote.

However, shortly after Fox News reported on the incident, Facebook issued an apologetic statement.

“We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience…Unfortunately, the users were incorrectly warned by our User Operation’s Team and we have already removed all associated blocks from the accounts,” Facebook spokesman Fred Wolens told Fox News.

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

Arrogant-Obama

Obama really hates the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United and is hell-bent on learning what companies donate to conservatives so he and his goons can intimidate and punish (as Valerie Jarrett stated) his opposition.  Obama, and Democrats, have been attacking the 1st Amendment for decades.

From Daily Caller:

The Obama administration is attempting to bypass Congress and force publicly-traded companies to reveal their political donations through regulation.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Corporate Finance has begun the steps necessary to create a regulation that would in many ways mirror the DISCLOSE Act — a bill Senate Democrats have failed to pass through Congress.

Created in reaction to the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that said corporations and unions could not have limits placed on their political expenditures, the Senate bill would require political organizations to publicly name their donors and the amounts they give.

The SEC regulation would do the reverse — force companies to disclose the political groups they support — and have a similar effect.

“The Division [of Corporate Finance] is considering whether to recommend that the Commission issue a proposed rule to require that public companies provide disclosure to shareholders regarding the use of corporate resources for political activities,” reads the proposal, as reported to the president’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

liberal-logic-101-277

Read Full Post »

These are the anti-constitutionalist Obama has appointed to run the corrupt DOJ. This question is important considering those on the left are attempting to stop free speech. Remember, the Obama regime wanted YouTube, owned by Google, to take down a video mocking the Islamic Prophet Muhammad.

Assistant AG Thomas Perez is the same one involved in the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case that was dropped.

Read more about this story over at HotAir

Read Full Post »

Democrats have a long history of disdain for the U.S. Constitution. Here’s their latest example as they try to amend the 1st amendment to stop free speech…unless you’re one of their supporters.

(CNSNews.com) – House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday endorsed a movement announced by other congressional Democrats on Wednesday to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow Congress to regulate political speech when it is engaged in by corporations as opposed to individuals.

Wanna bet unions are excluded?

The First Amendment says in part: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

Television and radio networks, newspapers, publishing houses, movie studios and think tanks, as well as political action committees, are usually organized as, or elements of, corporations.

Pelosi, Democrats and Obama would love to see conservative media outlets shut down. All other media outlets push the liberal agenda and would be safe to continue pushing Obama’s propaganda.

 Pelosi said the Democrats’ effort to amend the Constitution is part of a three-pronged strategy that also includes promoting the DISCLOSE Act, which would increase disclosure requirements for organizations running political ads, and “reducing the role of money in campaigns” (which some Democrats have said can be done through taxpayer funding of campaigns).

The constitutional amendment the Democrats seek would reverse the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In that decision the court said that the First Amendment protects a right of free speech for corporations as well as for individuals, and that corporations (including those that produce newspapers, films and books) have a right to speak about politicians and their records just as individuals do.

“We have a clear agenda in this regard: Disclose, reform the system reducing the role of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said at her Thursday press briefing.

Coming from the party whose candidate has raised/collected the most money in U.S. political history and loves all the special interest money unions and corporations give to their party.

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

This is the same SEC that couldn’t missed the subprime scandal and Bernie Madoff. This is nothing more than a political proposal to stop certain corporations/companies from receiving government contracts due to giving contributions to politicians. As we all know, it is the Democrats who are the corporate whores, as liberal OpenSecrets.org has exposed.

FromWaPo:

A proposal before the Securities and Exchange Commission that would require public companies to disclose political contributions has drawn some favorable comments from investors, but it won’t go a long way in meeting the demands of those advocating for more transparency in political fundraising.

A group of 10 law professors filed a formal petition asking the commission to require corporations to list political contributions in annual proxy statements sent to shareholders. The professors cite a growing interest among shareholders for disclosure of political contributions.

What party receives the most money from Trial Lawyers? Democrats.

“Many shareholders recognize that the interests of executives and directors with respect to political spending might differ from those of shareholders,” said Lucian Bebchuk, a Harvard Law School professor who co-chaired the group of professors seeking the new rule. “Such shareholders are naturally concerned when, as is commonly the case, their company provides them with no information about its political spending.”

Are they concerned with the political contributions from the AFL-CIO, Teacher Unions, SEIU etc? Highly unlikely since they tend to give most of their money to Democrats.

The agency has posted several commentsfrom other outside observers supporting the rule, including the International Corporate Governance Network, which represents institutional investors with a combined $18 trillion in assets.

The issue has come to the fore in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in early 2010, which legalized independent corporate political spending. In the majority opinion, the justices wrote that shareholders are responsible for controlling the actions of executives in charge of the corporate purse, opening the door for new rules, as long as they don’t violate the First Amendment.

It was a free speech case. Washington Post is parroting President Obama’s lie.

“Prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the decision.

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

Enjoy the debunking of a George Soros propagandist.

H/T to Reason.tv

Read Full Post »

by Snidely Whiplash

Snidely Whiplash

Consensus opinion has landed on sanity but such a condition does not hold some political partisans to that standard. The calls for “civility” continue to refrain from the usual suspects despite the evidence that the sparking incident was a single individual’s metal instability. Loughner had a long held dislike for Congresswoman Giffords, as early as 2007 by reports. In case time and history are challenging to one, no one except Alaskans had heard of Sarah Palin before the late Summer of 2008.

In 2007 Glenn Beck was a radio host and a CNN Headline News minor personality, but certainly NOT the media icon he has since become – Beck joined Fox about the same time Obama was sworn in as president. But Limbaugh and Hannity were around in 2007, so maybe all this is their fault, right? Still, I don’t think so. And what happened to the calls for civility?

Is Democrat Congressman Steve Cohen comparing Republicans to Nazi’s civil by any definition? How is removing any reference to war or fighting in political rhetoric going to make us a better nation? And if it were, why do the calls for civility seem to only emanate from the left toward the right? Isn’t this apparent BS and PC efforts to quiet the opposition to progressivism?

Is it civil for Chris Matthews to call Congresswoman Michele Bachmann “close to a nut case?” Is it civility for Democrat Congresswoman Shelia Jackson Lee to characterize the Republican effort to repeal Obamacare as “killing people?” Isn’t that the epitome of scare tactics, besides the fact that Congresswoman Lee is misrepresenting the facts, reality and truth? Oh and the lame brain Jackson Lee is, she claims repealing Obamacare is unconstitutional! What an idiot and liar too boot! I thought it was Republicans only who were guilty of scare tactics?

Have reader’s seen the video of the South Carolina NAACP event honoring Dr. King? They chose a location that had a large statue of George Washington, and guess what? The NAACP folks built a wall around the statue of our first president. I guess President Washington was a Tea Party American?

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

Yes, this is another stupid idea by a Democrat. If we had only banned these symbols, the killer wouldn’t have carried out his deed.

From the NYTimes:

Representative Bob Brady of Pennsylvania told The Caucus he plans to introduce a bill that would ban symbols like that now-infamous campaign crosshair map.

“You can’t threaten the president with a bullseye or a crosshair,” Mr. Brady, a Democrat, said, and his measure would make it a crime to do so to a member of Congress or federal employee, as well.

Think the Supreme Court might have something to say about this since it violates free speech.

Asked if he believed the map incited the gunman in Tucson, he replied, “I don’t know what’s in that nut’s head. I would rather be safe than sorry.”

He continued, “This is not a wakeup call. This is a major alarm going off. We need to be more civil with each other. We need to tone down this rhetoric.”

How about a bill that forces the F.B.I. to actually conduct a background check. If they would’ve done their job, they would have found this nut to be deranged and he wouldn’t have been allowed a license to purchase a gun.

Up next will be talk about more gun control, despite the nutjob’s purchase being legal and passing the F.B.I. background check.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers

%d bloggers like this: